Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[Rational AKD]

Am "I"? Does "doubting"? What is "consciousness"? I know, I know, you've swallowed the cogito....unfortunately it's not a strictly rational statement - though many do find it to b compelling, of course.

consciousness is the quality or state of awareness. this includes being aware objects you perceive and being aware of yourself. to doubt is to express uncertainty. you can't be uncertain without being aware.

While it is difficult to conceptualize some situation in which I think, but am not, or that there is no I, but there is thinking from a point of igorance of that process, even if one accepts the cogito that still leaves open the question "what am I"

it is impossible to conceptualize a situation where "I think, but I am not" because there needs to be an "I" in order to have "I think." to say otherwise is contradicting yourself.

I say your dreams are descriptions of the states of a physical machine.

even so, it's still a world in your head without need for actual physical substances. regardless of what you think is behind dreams, it can't be disputed there are no physical objects in dreams. just mental projections of physical objects.

Stop asserting that the other side is wrong, pretending that the position does not exist

I am saying even if you're a materialist, you can't deny your experience is mental. the physical world has no color, no taste, no sound. yet these are all things you perceive. materialists thing it's just the brain creating an interpretation of reality and causing us to perceive. regardless, it's undeniable that we experience a world that is a mentally constructed. so why think the mind is creating this world based of an interpretation of the brain? it takes less assumptions to assert the mind is creating the world rather interpreting it from an unobservable substance.

All hinges on what you think consciousness is

it is your awareness. you are aware of your dreams yet they are not comprised of physical objects. I know you think dreams are caused by physical processes, but you can't deny the what you perceive in them is not physical. dreams are imaginary. I think you can acknowledge a difference between imaginary and material objects. therefore you regularly conceive of a world that is mentally constructed, regardless of what you think causes mind.

---

How is "something that appears to be real but in reality isn't real" not an illusion?

I only addressed something appearing to be the case when not actually the case concerning unconsciousness. in which case I would agree. unconsciousness is an illusion and is actually a different state of consciousness.

[LastPoet]

excuse my slowness. it's hard to keep up with everyone at once.

Just keep calm and address the arguments you deem fit. It would be nigh-on impossible, to adress everyone when you create a thread.

As to the topic, It is my opinion that ideas are contingent to the material world. If you could show me somehow, that ideas exist without a material structure, then perhaps there would be something to discuss. Mental streching is good, just like masturbation, but will never have anything usefull attached to it. And this is where I lose interest in the matter.

[robvalue]

All I can say is that it appears "I" am a floating dot located somewhere in my brain, a sort of viewpoint. I don't feel that my body is "me", I feel that "I" am my "consciousness". But that also makes no sense at all. The most obvious description is just a load of vague, meaningless terms, which are totally at odds with science. It's a paradox to be sure. I wonder if consciousness is a side effect of the workings of the brain, this is a "visualization" it is using.

But you're right Alex, the problem is, what does real mean? There is no definition that makes sense. I think solipsism is impossible to break. Could there ever be a solution? It's the biggest mystery of all, in my opinion.

Here's the thing: I don't know if I'm dreaming. I cannot know. So that would make this "not real", but again what does that even mean?

Everyone else will claim to have consciousness, but where is their "dot"?

You're right LP, I think this is an impossible subject. I'm happy I'm able to think about it, but it's also kind of debilitating. Ignorance is bliss in this case.

[The Grand Nudger]

consciousness is the quality or state of awareness. this includes being aware objects you perceive and being aware of yourself.

Pretty sure you just attempted definition by synonym - I'm afraid I still have no idea what you mean. I suppose I was hoping for a more robust explanation of what consciousness was from your POV.

to doubt is to express uncertainty.

Oh, you mean....like an OR gate?

you can't be uncertain without being aware.

OR gates can..........why can't I?

it is impossible to conceptualize a situation where "I think, but I am not"

Of course..because the cogito assumes it's conclusion, as we do.

because there needs to be an "I" in order to have "I think." to say otherwise is contradicting yourself.

and to say so is to assume your conclusion. Frustrating, huh? Nevertheless, neither position speaks to any disagreement between materialism and idealism....understand?

even so, it's still a world in your head without need for actual physical substances.

Except that my head is a physical place which holds my physical brain which does in fact appear to be required for that "world" to exist. Remove or damage the brain, remove or damage the "world".

regardless of what you think is behind dreams, it can't be disputed there are no physical objects in dreams. just mental projections of physical objects.

Uh, yeah, it can, because I think that dreams, again, are a description of the state of a physical machine. "Mental projections" are physical things, understand?

I am saying even if you're a materialist, you can't deny your experience is mental.

Why would I, but I understand that "mental" is a category of physical things.

the physical world has no color, no taste, no sound.

strange........seems to...are you denying your experience?

yet these are all things you perceive.

Sure, they're all descriptions of the functions of various machines.

materialists thing it's just the brain creating an interpretation of reality and causing us to perceive.

Not causing - the brain -is- the perception.

regardless, it's undeniable that we experience a world that is a mentally constructed.

Depends, I think that if I made that stement in my own chosen terms you'd dispute the shit out of it....lol

so why think the mind is creating this world based of an interpretation of the brain?

because we understand quite a bit about the machine, it's limits, it's faults.....

it takes less assumptions to assert the mind is creating the world rather interpreting it from an unobservable substance.

That's an awfully big assumption. Especially since things with no "mind" appear to be able to observe this "unobservable substance" of yours.

it is your awareness. you are aware of your dreams yet they are not comprised of physical objects.

Again, definition by sysnonym is a whole hell of alot less than I was expecting...and I -do- think that my dreams are physical objects.

I know you think dreams are caused by physical processes,

No...I think that they -are- that physical process...not that they are created -by- it.

but you can't deny the what you perceive in them is not physical.

I can and have...and you need to stop making these sorts of assertions.....

dreams are imaginary.

sure..and?

I think you can acknowledge a difference between imaginary and material objects.

Sure, but it isn't the difference that you need it to be, it isn;t a difference relevant to materialsim vs idealism.

therefore you regularly conceive of a world that is mentally constructed,

exactly, descriptions of a physical machine taking inputs from a physical world and doing physical work with them.

regardless of what you think causes mind.

I don't think that anything -causes- mind...I think that "mind" -is- brain, at least so far as the human implementation thereof.

[Rational AKD]

excuse my slowness. it's hard to keep up with everyone at once.

Just keep calm and address the arguments you deem fit. It would be nigh-on impossible, to adress everyone when you create a thread.

As to the topic, It is my opinion that ideas are contingent to the material world. If you could show me somehow, that ideas exist without a material structure, then perhaps there would be something to discuss. Mental streching is good, just like masturbation, but will never have anything usefull attached to it. And this is where I lose interest in the matter.

thanks for the advice.
I can't show you a world that exists without material structure since you already assume a material world is what's behind our perception. but that's exactly what i'm pointing out. material is not necessary for our perception. what materialists suggest is that our minds create the world we experience from interpretations of the brain responding to stimuli. we already know this interpretation is not equivalent to the physical world as we recognize color, taste, smell, and sound as purely mental and only exist in our perception. we only experience what our minds cause us to perceive. this is undeniable. this perception does not necessarily correspond to reality. this is why we can have hallucinations. we cannot be sure what reality is beyond our perception. if we cannot be sure what reality is beyond our perception, then why assume there is one? we can easily postulate a world that is purely mentally constructed. we only perceive physical substances as mental constructs as shown by their presence of color, smell, taste, etc. if these things are just perceptual states, then perceptual states are all we can affirm to be real. some material behind our perceptual states is wholly unnecessary to postulate.

[The Grand Nudger]

Who simply assumes that? We observe it, we test those observations, we check them against other peoples observations and the observations of unthinking things. I think it's more than just an assumption, at this point (and once upon a time, as your op alludes to...we had a different set of assumptions regarding what was outt there, material and non-material), AKD.....

We actually -do know- that our experiences of taste, color, etc, are equivalent to some external thing - and that not all things are capable of experiencing the same range of either, with the same machinery, to the same effect. I don't see in infrared, for example..but infrared exists. If you're colorblind...that doesn't mean that those colors don't exist. When I say something is "sweet" I mean that it is acidic, when I say that something is "bitter" I mean that it is alkaline, etc etc etc. Smell to me, and smell to a dog are different, dogs "smell" atomic weight (really impressive, that one). That all of this stuff is referent isn't an assumption...it's hard won observation and conclusion. I don;t know that we can "easily postulate a world that is purely mentally constructed"..but further, I don't know why that would be a problem for materialism in the first place. Perhaps we can - someone living in a fantasy, entirely...do the comatose dream? - but is that mental construction the description of a physical machine at work even so? Seems so.

The material substrate appears to be required, not as an assumption, but as an observation. Whens the last time you saw some non-material thing making assumptions, eh?

[Chas]

thanks for the advice.
I can't show you a world that exists without material structure since you already assume a material world is what's behind our perception. but that's exactly what i'm pointing out. material is not necessary for our perception. what materialists suggest is that our minds create the world we experience from interpretations of the brain responding to stimuli. we already know this interpretation is not equivalent to the physical world as we recognize color, taste, smell, and sound as purely mental and only exist in our perception. we only experience what our minds cause us to perceive. this is undeniable. this perception does not necessarily correspond to reality. this is why we can have hallucinations. we cannot be sure what reality is beyond our perception.

We gain confidence in our perception when that perception is supported by evidence, by the result of trial and error, and by the concordance with others' interpretations.

if we cannot be sure what reality is beyond our perception, then why assume there is one?

See above. The fact that we share a common understanding of reality supports the claim that there is one. And it is not just human perception that is in accord, but animal perception as well.

we can easily postulate a world that is purely mentally constructed.

Maybe you can, but it would only exist in your mind.

we only perceive physical substances as mental constructs as shown by their presence of color, smell, taste, etc. if these things are just perceptual states, then perceptual states are all we can affirm to be real. some material behind our perceptual states is wholly unnecessary to postulate.

Again, no. The evidence of shared experience says you are almost certainly wrong.

[Alex K]

we only perceive physical substances as mental constructs as shown by their presence of color, smell, taste, etc. if these things are just perceptual states, then perceptual states are all we can affirm to be real. some material behind our perceptual states is wholly unnecessary to postulate.

Again, no. The evidence of shared experience says you are almost certainly wrong.

I think now that OP is promoting solipsism, after all, it is, by the same faulty reasoning, wholly unnecessary to postulate the existence of other people.

[LastPoet]

I can't show you a world that exists without material structure since you already assume a material world is what's behind our perception.

Then, I have nothing to do with this discussion. The world feels very real to me, and its a... crazy ride, for the lack of a better term.

To postulate anything further, it only concerns the subject and how your conciousness interprets it. We can agree that banging your head into a brick wall is not good for your consciousness, amirite?

[Alex K]

To postulate anything further, it only concerns the subject and how your conciousness interprets it. We can agree that banging your head into a brick wall is not good for your consciousness, amirite?

Apparently not. You'd think we agree that your consciousness gets damaged from that. OP assures us though that it's just resting.