Contra Metaphysical Idealism

[Chas]

In that case there is no operational difference between a physical view and you so-called idealistic view. The difference, however, is that yours adds a layer of explanation that is unnecessary and explains nothing.

You have that exactly backward. We already know ideas are real-- we don't even need evidence for that, since it's how we exist. Idealism allows for all of science to still work, while conveniently eliminating the hard problem of consciousness. Physical monism requires drawing many inferences from lifetime experiences, and arriving at a belief about an objective reality that underlies them. That's a lot more work to arrive at a philosophical position that isn't really needed in order to do science.

Let's say you found yourself in the Matrix. Let's even say you KNEW you were in the Matrix. What would you do? You'd observe, make theories, test them, talk about them with other Matrixians, and form a body of rules which described that which is consistent in the Matrix. In short, science is not dependent on the idea of the objective reality of objects or the universe in which they are placed. The converse is true-- that we like the physical model because it frames our experiences in a way that makes it easier (or even possible) to do science.

The problem is that not all things ARE made more presentable by applying the idea of physical monism to them-- things like cosmogony and qualia, for example. And that's where the assymetry favors idealism: all physical observations are well-represented as ideas. But not all experiences or ideas are well-represented as objects of a science which insists on physical monism.

Your ideas actually explain nothing and you have no evidence, no mechanism. Ideas do not exist independently of minds.

Why aren't we talking to trees? to rocks? You claim they are made of ideas, too.

Just because we have not yet explained consciousness doesn't mean that you can simply declare that it is not explainable in physical terms.

The evidence that the physical reality is there is that we can independently affect it and get the same results. That indicates that there is reality.

Proof? No, evidence.

Evidence is just another word for "experiences that support my ideas." There's no such thing as non-mental evidence.

You fail to respond to the fact of independent verification.

[bennyboy]

Your ideas actually explain nothing and you have no evidence, no mechanism.

Sure they do. They explain why mind exists at all in a world supposed by many to be physically monist.

Ideas do not exist independently of minds.

That's right by definition, I'd say.

Why aren't we talking to trees? to rocks? You claim they are made of ideas, too.

You think the mind is a function of matter, and yet they cannot talk. The reason is that the matter is not formed in such a way as to allow trees to think and talk. The same goes for trees in idealism.

Just because we have not yet explained consciousness doesn't mean that you can simply declare that it is not explainable in physical terms.

Well, do we have any reason to think science can study consciousness? Can you see which physical systems are/aren't conscious? Can you make a system that you know for sure is conscious, and is not just a philosophical zombie?

Consciousness (I mean, the actual experience of qualia, not the awakened state of the brain)is so unlike anything studied that there's no evidence science is capable of dealing with it at all.

Evidence is just another word for "experiences that support my ideas." There's no such thing as non-mental evidence.

You fail to respond to the fact of independent verification.

Given that all human minds are supervenient on the same underlying system (whatever it is), then independent verification of the nature of that underlying system is impossible.

You have to take this kind of verification in context. If you want to verify ideas about gravity, you can get 100 people to pick up and drop rocks all day. This is perfectly acceptable, because the context is implied: "In our common experience of things we touch and manipulate, rocks always fall down when dropped." But if you want them to verify your idea the the rock exists independently of mind, they can't, because nobody ever verified anything who wasn't also in possession of a functioning mind. Nobody has access to the context of whatever reality underlies experiences.

[tor]

Hit a metaphysical idealist with baseball bat and he will feel why his view are not correct.

[Chas]

---

Your ideas actually explain nothing and you have no evidence, no mechanism.

Sure they do. They explain why mind exists at all in a world supposed by many to be physically monist.

Ideas do not exist independently of minds.

That's right by definition, I'd say.

Why aren't we talking to trees? to rocks? You claim they are made of ideas, too.

You think the mind is a function of matter, and yet they cannot talk. The reason is that the matter is not formed in such a way as to allow trees to think and talk. The same goes for trees in idealism.

Just because we have not yet explained consciousness doesn't mean that you can simply declare that it is not explainable in physical terms.

Well, do we have any reason to think science can study consciousness? Can you see which physical systems are/aren't conscious? Can you make a system that you know for sure is conscious, and is not just a philosophical zombie?

Consciousness (I mean, the actual experience of qualia, not the awakened state of the brain)is so unlike anything studied that there's no evidence science is capable of dealing with it at all.

You fail to respond to the fact of independent verification.

Given that all human minds are supervenient on the same underlying system (whatever it is), then independent verification of the nature of that underlying system is impossible.

You have to take this kind of verification in context. If you want to verify ideas about gravity, you can get 100 people to pick up and drop rocks all day. This is perfectly acceptable, because the context is implied: "In our common experience of things we touch and manipulate, rocks always fall down when dropped." But if you want them to verify your idea the the rock exists independently of mind, they can't, because nobody ever verified anything who wasn't also in possession of a functioning mind. Nobody has access to the context of whatever reality underlies experiences.

---

You are making a woo of the gaps argument. You are assuming that because we don't yet have a scientific explanation for consciousness that we can't have one. So you are just making up some shit without providing any way to observe or test it.

There is no evidence for the woo you are spouting. Show us some evidence.

[bennyboy]

Hit a metaphysical idealist with baseball bat and he will feel why his view are not correct.

Nope. He will learn why he should avoid getting hit by baseball bats-- it results in a very unpleasant experience. What he won't learn is whether he's getting hit by the bat in a physical monist universe, in an idealistic reality, in a dream, a BIJ or in the Matrix.

---

You are making a woo of the gaps argument.

+1 for "woo of the gaps." Funny.

You are assuming that because we don't yet have a scientific explanation for consciousness that we can't have one.

I'm assuming nothing of the sort. In fact, I've specifically talked about the relationship between science and idealism: science requires only that there are enough commonalities in experience to start making and testing rules. It says nothing provable about the underlying nature of those experiences.

The only neg I've made about science is that we have no evidence that it is capable of dealing with some types of questions: specifically cosmogony and the experience of qualia. There's no woo about that-- it's just a statement of fact.

So you are just making up some shit without providing any way to observe or test it.

It's precisely because experiences don't have to be made up that they should be the core of a sensible model of reality. Everything you say and believe about science you know only through experiences and ideas. There was never any scientific observation or inference that was made outside the existence of a functioning mind.

There is no evidence for the woo you are spouting. Show us some evidence.

Mind. The "what things are like" of qualia.

[Chas]

---

Hit a metaphysical idealist with baseball bat and he will feel why his view are not correct.

Nope. He will learn why he should avoid getting hit by baseball bats. What he won't learn is whether he's getting hit by the bat in a physical monist universe, in an idealistic reality, in a dream, a BIJ or in the Matrix.

---

You are making a woo of the gaps argument.

+1 for "woo of the gaps." Funny.

You are assuming that because we don't yet have a scientific explanation for consciousness that we can't have one.

I'm assuming nothing of the sort. In fact, I've specifically talked about the relationship between science and idealism.

The only neg I've made about science is that we have no evidence that it is capable of dealing with some types of questions: specifically cosmogony and the experience of qualia. There's no woo about that-- it's just a statement of fact.

---

So you are just making up some shit without providing any way to observe or test it.

It's precisely because experiences don't have to be made up that they should be the core of a sensible model of reality. Everything you say about science you know only through experiences and ideas.

But it does not follow that reality is somehow made of ideas or experience.
Ideas and experience occur in our minds - they are results not causes.

There is no evidence for the woo you are spouting. Show us some evidence.

Mind. The "what things are like" of qualia.

You are still asserting that science can't ever explain 'qualia'. You have no evidence of that.

[bennyboy]

But it does not follow that reality is somehow made of ideas or experience.
Ideas and experience occur in our minds - they are results not causes.

You state this as a fact, but cannot actually know it to be a fact. Don't believe me? What is a mind if you take away experiences and ideas? Is it still a mind? Or is it a total absence of mind?

You are still asserting that science can't ever explain 'qualia'. You have no evidence of that.

I've never made any assertion about the future of science. I've said there's no evidence that science can ever answer certain categories of questions: those about cosmogony, and those about the existence of qualia.

The belief that science can answer questions that are not of a like category with already-answered questions is an issue of faith, not of evidence. On the other hand, there's good reason to believe that a science rooted in an objective physical monism cannot answer certain types of question: the prime ones being that physical observations are limited to things in this universe, and cannot show what, if anything, underlies its existence; and that no physical test can determine whether any system experiences qualia.

[archangle]

Hit a metaphysical idealist with baseball bat and he will feel why his view are not correct.

Nope. He will learn why he should avoid getting hit by baseball bats-- it results in a very unpleasant experience. What he won't learn is whether he's getting hit by the bat in a physical monist universe, in an idealistic reality, in a dream, a BIJ or in the Matrix.

---

You are making a woo of the gaps argument.

+1 for "woo of the gaps." Funny.

You are assuming that because we don't yet have a scientific explanation for consciousness that we can't have one.

I'm assuming nothing of the sort. In fact, I've specifically talked about the relationship between science and idealism: science requires only that there are enough commonalities in experience to start making and testing rules. It says nothing provable about the underlying nature of those experiences.

The only neg I've made about science is that we have no evidence that it is capable of dealing with some types of questions: specifically cosmogony and the experience of qualia. There's no woo about that-- it's just a statement of fact.

So you are just making up some shit without providing any way to observe or test it.

It's precisely because experiences don't have to be made up that they should be the core of a sensible model of reality. Everything you say and believe about science you know only through experiences and ideas. There was never any scientific observation or inference that was made outside the existence of a functioning mind.

There is no evidence for the woo you are spouting. Show us some evidence.

Mind. The "what things are like" of qualia.

we are in the philosophy section. So these made up idea's are ok in here.

I ok with this philosophy as long we are honest about it.

We practice writing and describing idea's that are not real in a rational way to make them seem real. This describing idea's that, may/or may not be real help, us to organize ourselves.

Also, philosophy can ask "what if?". And that is a great place to start new idea's.

of course, some take it to misty places and end up all wet.

[Chas]

But it does not follow that reality is somehow made of ideas or experience.
Ideas and experience occur in our minds - they are results not causes.

You state this as a fact, but cannot actually know it to be a fact.

I state that because that is what the evidence tells us.

Don't believe me? What is a mind if you take away experiences and ideas? Is it still a mind?

Yes, I don't believe you. I don't understand your point. You continue to conflate input with output.

You are still asserting that science can't ever explain 'qualia'. You have no evidence of that.

I've never made any assertion about the future of science. I've said there's no evidence that science can ever answer certain categories of questions: those about cosmogony, and those about the existence of qualia.

The belief that science can answer questions that are not of a like category with already-answered questions is an issue of faith, not of evidence.

I am making no assertion about what science can or can't do, you are. You claim that part or all of the mind is not a proper subject for science, but you have yet to provide any evidence for that. Just your incredulity.

[tor]

Hit a metaphysical idealist with baseball bat and he will feel why his view are not correct.

Nope. He will learn why he should avoid getting hit by baseball bats-- it results in a very unpleasant experience. What he won't learn is whether he's getting hit by the bat in a physical monist universe, in an idealistic reality, in a dream, a BIJ or in the Matrix.

Why would he dream of a dude with a baseball bat who is hitting him?