Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[Rational AKD]

It leaves out what matters.

why does matter matter exactly? as far as introspection goes, you can perceive matter without it actually being matter (IE illusions, hallucinations, dreams etc.) so what is incoherent about mind doing this for an entire reality?

[Chas]

It leaves out what matters.

why does matter matter exactly? as far as introspection goes, you can perceive matter without it actually being matter (IE illusions, hallucinations, dreams etc.) so what is incoherent about mind doing this for an entire reality?

Show me mind without matter. Until you can, your idea is incoherent.

[Rational AKD]

Show me mind without matter. Until you can, your idea is incoherent.

show me matter without mind. until you can, your idea is incoherent...

[Chas]

Show me mind without matter. Until you can, your idea is incoherent.

show me matter without mind. until you can, your idea is incoherent...

You're kidding, right? All of the matter that went into making everything before we existed.

[Mudhammam]

why does that have to be it? it seems you just make this blatant statement without feeling the need to justify it.

True, I don't feel the need to justify it, since the definition of consciousness is the possession of experience.

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

the awareness or perception of something by a person.

the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.

Perhaps when you offer one example of consciousness that does not involve material entities with the capacity to experience their environment I will be compelled to qualify my statement further.

well, not particularly man. just any conscious beings. and why doesn't it make sense? in a video game the player is the center of that world and everything else is contributing to the payable character's experience. if humans can create this kind of simulative world, why can't we be in one? because we're the center of the universe and there are no beings smarter than us? *irony*

I never said we couldn't be. You just haven't provided any logical or evidential basis for the assertion that we are in a computer simulation or a dog's dream, and in any case, since we would never know unless the developer of our virtual simulation communicated it to us, it really makes no difference.

I don't come to this conclusion lacking evidence, I have stated my evidence several times... if solipsism is true, then I should be in full control of my thoughts, and since everything is comprised of my thoughts I should be in control of everything. but I do not experience this control, therefore there must be something outside myself that does. the simplest explanation would be another mind. this is because I am already familiar with the concept of mind, while i'm not familiar with the concept of non-mind since I can only think in terms of mind. this would make non-mind material non-parsimonious and unverifiable.

Your "evidence," as others have pointed out, is nothing but the logical arguments for solipsism with an unverifiable ad hoc add-on, that is in principle the most non-parsimonious, to avoid its conclusions. I'm also not aware of any minds that exist independent of material brains. So where's the Super Duper Material Brain that experience would demand you provide evidence for? I am aware of material objects that possess no characteristics of mind, however, and that have existed before any known conscious beings did. In fact, at one time, I was one such object. So were you. I am therefore justified to conclude that material objects lacking the property of mind are more fundamental and that brains and minds are a result of material productions.

[Rational AKD]

You're kidding, right? All of the matter that went into making everything before we existed.

wow... beg the question much? wait! I know why you think idealism is incoherent... because you don't believe it. I mean really do you usually use your conclusion to prove that conclusion?

[FatAndFaithless]

Carefulllllllll...

[Chas]

You're kidding, right? All of the matter that went into making everything before we existed.

wow... beg the question much? wait! I know why you think idealism is incoherent... because you don't believe it. I mean really do you usually use your conclusion to prove that conclusion?

I am not begging the question because the evidence is that matter exists whether anyone knows about it or not.

And you believe idealism is coherent because ... ?

[Rational AKD]

True, I don't feel the need to justify it, since the definition of consciousness is the possession of experience.

this still doesn't require material to have such a world you can experience...

Perhaps when you offer one example of consciousness that does not involve material entities with the capacity to experience their environment I will be compelled to qualify my statement further.

yes because one always uses physical examples in order to prove metaphysical concepts... you do know this is philosophy, not science right? science can't prove anything about the metaphysical, which means it can't prove materialism or idealism.

I never said we couldn't be. You just haven't provided any logical and evidential basis for the assertion that we are in a computer simulation or a dog's dream, and in any case, since we would never know unless the developer of our virtual simulation communicated it to us, it really makes no difference.

or you experience behavior similar to data processing within physical processes. but i'm not about to get into the idealism from quantum mechanics argument. the only thing I've said on this thread is idealism is more parsimonious and more reasonable to accept. we already must postulate the existence of consciousness, so why postulate other unnecessary substances?

Your "evidence," as others have pointed out, is nothing but the logical arguments for solipsism with an unverifiable ad hoc add-on to avoid its self-refuting conclusions.

what part of it is ad hoc? you simply can't make accusations without substantiating them or at least directing them so we know what you're talking about.

I'm also not aware of any minds that exist independent of material brains.

no you are not aware of any materials that exist independent of minds. all you have is mind, so you can't think of something without postulating mind. exactly what part of introspection implies materialism?

I am aware of material objects that possess no characteristics of mind

if that were true, then you shouldn't be fooled by hallucinations because they can't have any characteristics of matter...

and that have existed before any known conscious beings did.

how would you know? you can't verify anything beyond your perception which matter is beyond the scope of.

In fact, I am one. So are you. I am therefore justified to conclude that material objects lacking the property of mind are more fundamental and that brains and minds are a result of material productions.

"I am right because I am right" good argument... i'm impressed...

---

I am not begging the question because the evidence is that matter exists whether anyone knows about it or not.

And you believe idealism is coherent because ... ?

you are not just saying matter exists, but you are saying something about the fundamental nature of matter. that it is fundamental. this is not something you prove by observation as you obviously can't tell the difference between a material object and a material object you are Hallucinating.

[AFTT47]

Wow, I actually made it through the thread.

I want to thank everybody who has participated in this. When I started the thread about downloading consciousness to a computer (which spawned these two idealism threads) I had never heard of idealism, solipsism or monism. I needed to do a lot of reading before I could follow this. It was very interesting so again, thank you, everybody.

Rational AKD, I have a few questions:

Where do animals fit into this? Are they also individual minds under the super-consciousnesses?

If the whole point of a brain is to localize the consciousness in space, why the existence of simple brains like that found in a worm? It has the same components of a big brain like ours but it lacks the complexity to localize any mind. Its just too simple. I understand that under idealism, the worm and everything else is just a projection but why project such a thing?

Brains are unmistakably the product of evolution. The human brain has been described as a "kludge", basically a tangle of complex machinery layered on top of much simpler machinery. It makes sense assuming an evolved brain but none at all for a brain designed from scratch. Why would such a brain be projected?