Contra Metaphysical Idealism

[archangle]

Let's see.
We are defined by experience
we define our minds
our minds define us
we define what is "real"
Our experiences define what is real
"reality" is only in our minds.

It aint rocket science ladies.
This is a logical fallacy.

[bennyboy]

Let's see.
We are defined by experience
we define our minds
our minds define us
we define what is "real"
Our experiences define what is real
"reality" is only in our minds.

It aint rocket science ladies.
This is a logical fallacy.

It's also a strawman, apparently. What point, exactly, are you arguing against with this?

[archangle]

Let's see.
We are defined by experience
we define our minds
our minds define us
we define what is "real"
Our experiences define what is real
"reality" is only in our minds.

It aint rocket science ladies.
This is a logical fallacy.

It's also a strawman, apparently. What point, exactly, are you arguing against with this?

we have a limited number of reasonable conclusions. tor pointed out your flaw.

I see your claim as the universe only exist because we "process it". does that sum it up?

I say we exist because the universe "processed" us.

Now, instead of word games. Would you like to talk about evidence for your claim? Then I will offer mine. And we can compare the two.

heck, I'll even start. with an easy one. The rock record.

[bennyboy]

I see your claim as the universe only exist because we "process it". does that sum it up?

No. What you just said has absolutely zero to do with anything I've ever said. In fact, I've contradicted this idea, which is an extension of solipsism, at least twice.

My claim is that the universe itself is not a collection of things, but of the interrelationships between properties that don't supervene on anything-- i.e. they are just ideas or concepts, and there are no "things" that cause them. But they are not ideas or concepts of people-- they are self-existent ideas or concepts.

[JuliaL]

[bennyboy]

[Angrboda]

Every time I step outside, my street looks the same. What those materials 'ARE' is unavailable to me. Calling them ideas is no more helpful than calling them fields, relationships of particles or blahverts when their essential nature cannot be known.

Given a lack of access to whatever objective reality may/may not underly our experiences, then why wouldn't the most sensible choice be to take experiences as brute fact? I do not know if I'm in the Matrix, a BIJ, the Mind of God, or a physically monist reality. I do know that I have experiences. Why, then, shouldn't I categorize all my experiences as such...

As such? As what? What are you categorizing experiences as, with the emphasis on the 'what'? If you say ideas, you've just replaced one undefined term with another. What is an idea, where does it live, what is its substance, and how do you know whether or not all experiences are of the same kind of stuff?

[bennyboy]

As such?

As experiences.

As what? What are you categorizing experiences as, with the emphasis on the 'what'?

They would be categorized by their properties. Some experiences are highly subjective and abstract; some seem to reflect the properties of objects in a shared reality. No source attribution is required; nor should any be attempted if we know for sure that we don't have access to any method or mechanism of verification. We can refer to the physical universe as a convention of speech-- it is a good category name for the kinds of experiences we have when we interact with the world. It's the source attribution that piggybacks on the speech convention that ends up at falsehood-- or at least at an unsupportable assumption.

If you say ideas, you've just replaced one undefined term with another. What is an idea, where does it live, what is its substance, and how do you know whether or not all experiences are of the same kind of stuff?

What stuff are quarks made of? What is energy made of? How about time and space? Where did the Big Bang singularity exist?

[Angrboda]

[Neo-Scholastic]

Rae, the humanities deal extensively with describing how ideas form and fit together. Linguistics and semiotics are useful areas of study that produce knowledge even if those who advocate scientism believe otherwise. In a sense, we can model, albeit less precisely, the behaviour of ideas.