Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[Mudhammam]

Can Rational just get to the part where the Super Conscious decided to write books and become man so that our miniature consciousness could be spared from the black hole of masturbation through his death and resurrection? That's where his bastardization of Plato is supposed to lead us eventually, right?

[Chas]

We've read it. It's just such a heap of entirely unjustified assumptions, which you seem to make out of prejudice, but which you try to convince us are logically necessary. Distinct yet similar minds, part of a greater consciousness. Once you're at that level of complication, it's more parsimonious to adopt materialism.

so it's more parsimonious to postulate a substance we do not perceive that is behind the substances we do perceive? such a view is unverifiable. we only experience mental perceptions. why suggest a new substance that we don't experience to explain this experience? if mental substances are all that exist, then reality is something we perceive. materialism assumes a substance that is not how we perceive, full of color and other qualia, suggesting our perceptions can't help us know what reality is.

What substance? Do you not understand that mental processes are not a substance, they are the structured interaction of known matter and energy?

You are trying to make a process a thing. Processes exist as change.

[Rational AKD]

No, it is corroboration that we perceive the same thing.

and a corroboration that we perceive the same thing doesn't verify that it's accurate... it just verifies it's collectively consistent.

Then what are we perceiving?

we are perceiving mental states. these mental states are either caused by brain interpretation responding to stimuli, or they are caused by mind creating them. we have no way to verify one or the other, but materialism unnecessarily postulates a world full of material to which our mental perception is modeled after. we know mind exists, and it is the most fundamental part of our perception. why assume something is more fundamental when it would be impossible to perceive it and unnecessary to postulate it?

[Chas]

No, it is corroboration that we perceive the same thing.

and a corroboration that we perceive the same thing doesn't verify that it's accurate... it just verifies it's collectively consistent.

It corroborates its existence external to and separate from our minds.

Then what are we perceiving?

we are perceiving mental states.

Perception is mental states. It is the processing of external signals from the material world.

these mental states are either caused by brain interpretation responding to stimuli, or they are caused by mind creating them. we have no way to verify one or the other, but materialism unnecessarily postulates a world full of material to which our mental perception is modeled after.

Unnecessary? I again ask, what are we perceiving? Perception is mental process of external stimuli.

we know mind exists, and it is the most fundamental part of our perception. why assume something is more fundamental when it would be impossible to perceive it and unnecessary to postulate it?

No, mind is not fundamental, mass/energy is. Mind emerges from the ordered structure and interaction of the matter and energy of the brain. Mind evolved.

[Rational AKD]

It corroborates its existence external to and separate from our minds.

how does that follow? many minds have a common perception, therefore this perception is something distinct from these minds? all it shows is that the minds have a commonality causing the same perception. for all you know this could be anything from a physical world, a computer program or a greater conscious we are all a part of. you have no way of knowing what this commonality is. but to assume it is a physical world causing the mental perception is assuming physical substances exist. we already know mind exists, so we aren't assuming anything we don't know by saying mind is fundamental to reality rather than matter.

Perception is mental states. It is the processing of external signals from the material world.

yes, perception is mental states. and we therefore don't perceive anything but mental states. to postulate material causing mental states is unnecessarily postulating something more fundamental than what is most fundamental in our perception. this is in violation of Occam's Razor which is the point I've been making.

Unnecessary? I again ask, what are we perceiving? Perception is mental process of external stimuli.

I agree that perception is a mental process. but you are the one assuming it is of external stimuli. I am postulating it is simply of mental constructs. we already know the color red is a mental construct as it doesn't actually appear in reality. is red a process of external stimuli? or is it mentally constructed as a representative of such? all we perceive is qualia. nothing more.

No, mind is not fundamental, mass/energy is. Mind emerges from the ordered structure and interaction of the matter and energy of the brain. Mind evolved.

indeed that is your materialistic belief... but I said mind is most fundamental to our perception... not most fundamental period. if can't be denied mental states are fundamental to perception. we only debate on what is fundamental behind that perception. is it material? or is it still mind? perhaps mind extra to your own but still mind. why postulate the existence of material when only mind is necessary to explain experience? you can't verify material is real because all you have is a mental perception of material. you don't actually perceive matter.

[robvalue]

Is this all a segway into christianity may I ask? It's all very fascinating and all, but really solipsism is here to stay. I even tried my chainsaw on it, no dice.

[Chas]

---

It corroborates its existence external to and separate from our minds.

how does that follow? many minds have a common perception, therefore this perception is something distinct from these minds? all it shows is that the minds have a commonality causing the same perception. for all you know this could be anything from a physical world, a computer program or a greater conscious we are all a part of. you have no way of knowing what this commonality is. but to assume it is a physical world causing the mental perception is assuming physical substances exist. we already know mind exists, so we aren't assuming anything we don't know by saying mind is fundamental to reality rather than matter.

Perception is mental states. It is the processing of external signals from the material world.

yes, perception is mental states. and we therefore don't perceive anything but mental states. to postulate material causing mental states is unnecessarily postulating something more fundamental than what is most fundamental in our perception. this is in violation of Occam's Razor which is the point I've been making.

Unnecessary? I again ask, what are we perceiving? Perception is mental process of external stimuli.

I agree that perception is a mental process. but you are the one assuming it is of external stimuli. I am postulating it is simply of mental constructs. we already know the color red is a mental construct as it doesn't actually appear in reality. is red a process of external stimuli? or is it mentally constructed as a representative of such? all we perceive is qualia. nothing more.

No, mind is not fundamental, mass/energy is. Mind emerges from the ordered structure and interaction of the matter and energy of the brain. Mind evolved.

---

indeed that is your materialistic belief... but I said mind is most fundamental to our perception... not most fundamental period. if can't be denied mental states are fundamental to perception. we only debate on what is fundamental behind that perception. is it material? or is it still mind? perhaps mind extra to your own but still mind. why postulate the existence of material when only mind is necessary to explain experience? you can't verify material is real because all you have is a mental perception of material. you don't actually perceive matter.

You are playing some silly word game with 'perception'. We perceive something, perception is the process. You can't loop it back on itself and claim that is all that is necessary.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

I attempted to define it the same as how everyone else defines it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
I don't understand how this definition confuses you...

Meh, I was hoping for a functional description - the sort that would be required to present a problem for materialism.

kinda... when you believe something, you express a level of certainty of it. when you doubt something you express a level of uncertainty of it.

Or gates express a level of doubt and certainty.

uncertainty is not exactly like an or gate. uncertainty requires knowledge.

Oh, goodness, there was undeclared baggage in your last statement, imagine that. I still don;t see how an OR gate doesn;t qualify - even with this addition.

or gates require syntax. the two are not equivocal.

Who told you that? OR gates don't require syntax at all. Syntax is a term from linguistics and only applies to computation when one wishes to model a language in computational terms - or model copmputation in linguistic terms. All an OR gate requires is a reliable interaction between components which presents a final state consistent with the stated logical function. We want something to do -x-, how can we arrange matter in such a way as to yield -x-.

That's it, that's all.

knowledge requires awareness.

So you seem to believe, but I'm not so sure that it does, or that anything even on the periphery of awareness cannot be accomplished by some thing that you would describe as "unaware".

it doesn't assume anything. "I doubt" requires an I. you cannot doubt without being.

It assumes that there is an I....and then concludes that I exist. Again, nothing to do with any problem regarding materialism or idealism. Put another way, this "I" could be some free floating concept, or this "I" could be a set material thing. There's nothing in cogito that speaks to either.

That it's not a strictly rational statement is an issue of academic curiosity, proving that it isn;t won;t prove you wrong, but proving that it is won;t prove me wrong - It says nothing on the disagreement between us, and we both accept - even if it's just an assumption, even if it's not accurate, even if it's flat out wrong - that the cogito is compelling to us. Eh?

no, to say I doubt assumes there is I.

As is to say "I' think......

by doubting you are already assuming you are aware.

By assuming that there is an I thinking, you are already assuming that there is an existent "I".

it's not that proving your consciousness assumes the conclusion. it's that doubting your consciousness assumes you are conscious. see the difference?

Nope...because there ain't one. All this tells us is that we are incapable of making such a statement sensibly. I would refer you to the necessity of assumption in computational systems, regardless of the accuracy of that assumption. The goal is to get work done, whether or not that work is accurate is a bonus - and in no way a guarantee.

in order to doubt you need to think and in order to think you need to be.

Now you're doing it backwards......

so your ability to doubt consciousness affirms consciousness. assuming you are able to doubt that is... but that would be your assumption not mine.

I'm assuming nothing of the sort, simply expressing the difficulties of assuming that there is an I, and then concluding that there is an I based upon that assumption. May as well just say "I am" - because there is no -therefore-.

I never claimed in the OP or anywhere on this thread to affirm idealism. I claimed because we can't deny consciousness but we can deny material, why do we need material?

-and yet again, we can deny our consciousness, depending upon how one defines it. Can we deny materialism....I;m not so sure - since we seem to need our material brains to affirm or deny anything ....but if the question is "what can a human being deny?", the answer is -pretty much anything, eh?

Watch, -There is no such thing as consciousness-.

Voila.

yes but the place you perceive in your dreams is not a physical place.

I just explained to you, in the portion you quoted, that it -was- and where that place -was-....so.....

it is imaginary.

is there a problem with that?

so even as a materialist you can't deny perceptual states don't necessarily correspond to physical reality.

There you go.....but now you're doubting that perceptual states are accurate, not that they are physical things.

so why think there is a physical reality to correspond to if that reality is unverifiable and unnecessary to explain your perception.

Because it is verifiable, and seems very necessary.

you either have a mind that creates a world you perceive from brain interpretations

In my understanding, that mind is that world which is the brain.

responding to stimuli

right - and as you said in the op, dualism is bankrupt - so if my material mind is receiving stimuli from something...then that thing is probably material as well, eh? Just so we don;t have to explain how the material interacts with the immaterial - if nothing else.

or you just have a mind that creates a world.

which is material.

which makes fewer assumptions?

Since I'm agreeing with you in the general, reducing some of your statements to smaller claims.....and yet not proposing some underlying "else"...I'd say that puts you in the position of making a few more. We'll probably disagree.

but descriptions are all we perceive.

-and those perceptions are material things.

we do not perceive actual physical states.

uh-oh....you're flirting with dualism.

just how our minds interpret it.

which is a description of a material process.

we have no way of knowing how accurate these descriptions are or even if they are descriptions rather than creations.

I think we do..., solipsist, lol.

our minds created the descriptions.

-our minds -are- the descriptions...see, reduction.

we already know the descriptions are different from how reality is since material reality is apparently void of color, taste, smell, and sound yet we can't associate material without these descriptions.

We don't know that at all, in fact, I'd say that we know precisely the opposite...you seem to know something that "we" don't. Color is wavelength, taste and smell are chemistry, sound is actually very very material (there's no sound in a vacuum...interesting eh?)

how do you know what is behind your perception of reality? why assume there is a reality beyond this perception?

You're asking questions as if you were unaware that an entire branch of study is devoted to this.........

because mental states aren't non-existent in a materialistic world... they are just derived from material rather than their own fundamental substance.

mental states aren't derived...they -are- the material.

no, i'm just denying these senses as material descriptions even though they are always associated with material. we perceive color, but color doesn't exist in materials... just mental projections.

Except that color does exist.....it's a property of a material set against the wavelengths of light that strike it.......the reason, for example, that leaves are "green" - is that the structure of the leaf reflects that wavelength, while absorbing the rest - put very simply.

they are not descriptions of the functions of machines. they are descriptions of reality that the mechanisms project as part of our perception.

The machine in question isn't projecting anything, in my understanding...there's no little man in your head to project them to...the projections -are- the machine.

which means we only perceive this projection... not reality.

still material, I'm afraid.

we can't know what reality truly is behind this projection if it's even there.

Good god, if you run off into solipsism so quickly I'll ust agree and say "therefore you are wrong, or not"

what? the brain is the perception? I thought it was the mechanism.

-now you're getting it.

all of our understanding is derived from our perception.

You have some other method? You seem to think that the cogito works fine....but then when our perceptions disagree with your beliefs those perceptions might be faulty? Unsurprising.

there's no way to know what's behind this perception as that requires to perceive something besides what we perceive... which is incoherent.

The usual brain in a jar stuff, meh.

the only substance we observe is mental... we do not observe physical substances.

strange, I seem to.

in a materialist view, our perception is a model of reality.

-and that model is, itself, material.

in an idealist view, our model of reality is reality.

Which is troubling..because now magicians pull rabbits out of bottomless hats -in reality-.

you can't observe anything outside your model, so why assume there is something outside it?

Because I have that experience.....

you're just playing semantics now... physical processes are still caused by other physical processes... so saying it's caused by physical processes and it is one is not saying anything different.

No...again, I'm saying that it -is- a material thing, not that it's caused by physical processes (which, I would also say, sure).

imaginary is different from real. we only imagine what reality is based on what we perceive. we have no way of differentiating what we perceive as real and what we perceive as imaginary.

Strange, I seem to have that ability, you don't?

we only claim something is real because we assume something is behind our perception other than imagination.

I don't assume that, I actually invite that possibility....but none of that speaks to any issue between materialism and idealism.

it is relevant. because the only difference between what we call a real object and what we call an imaginary one is the underlining assumption that one is in reality and the other is just in our thoughts.

If that's the only difference for you then I'd say you're fucked. I have a wider range of options available to me if I ever get to wondering whether or not what I perceive is material outside of my head, or just the material inside of my head.

. we cannot verify this assumption as that would require us to observe what's actually in reality rather than what's in our model of reality.

sure..if I was the only person on earth, and everything was an pure abstraction created by my non-material "mind", then it would be a very compelling abstraction - possibly an inescapable one. Quite an assumption...there, though. Course, if this was so..it would be impossible for you to determine whether or not there was an "I" - rather than what you perceive as yourself being a figment of some others incredibly power immaterial "mind".

Am I your dream...or are you mine? Is this a dream?

all we can perceive is a model with no knowledge of how accurately it corresponds to reality. this is the materialist view.

I think that's a convenient summary for you, of that position - but maybe not the most accurate summary.

your descriptions of the physical machine is given to you by the physical machine corresponding to its interpretation of reality

which is a physical machine....the interpretation itself, understand?

which contain descriptions that aren't actually in reality.

They are in reality, they may not be accurate descriptions of reality...you had glimpses of this above.

you have no way to know if these descriptions actually don't tell you what reality is.

Meh, again, I think that we have ways. If you don't..again, you're fucked - but I'm still fine. So I guess you're my dream, and there is no you..only I. :wink:

therefore you can't know what reality is, you can only know what you perceive reality is. you can't describe what's beyond your perception. why do you assume something is beyond your perception other than the created description?

You could have just typed "solipsism" and let it ride.....you wasted alot of words.

---

Perhaps going forward, we should cut our differences into tiny chunks, so these exchanges don't get too cumbersome?

I could suggest a succinct starting point. I've described my "mental states" as being, literally and reductively - the machine. Not a product of the machine...not a generation or a projection, not some "other" - no homonculous....-the machine-. Is this what you take issue with? If so, could you describe why? Or, perhaps, what extraneous assumptions must be made...as I have removed an assumption of a projection, and also the assumption of something to project -to-, so I;m not sure I understand what you're driving at? We both accept "consciousness" - and we both accept that our descriptions may not be wholly (or even at all) accurate, even if only for the sake of the discussion, yes? My explanation is -the machine- your explanation is.....?

To explain my further issue (with your constant retreat to solipsism), and maybe I'm misunderstanding you, you seem to think that there is no reason to assume anything beyond our individual "consciousness"(whatever that's supposed to be) - okay....but when -you- die....will -I- cease to exist? If some consciousness elsewhere has no knowledge of me (or us)...does that mean that I (or we) don't exist? I think we're both accepting the existence of some external "something"......it's just that one of us is okay with owning up to that.

Who are you talking to..AKD...yourself?

[downbeatplumb]

Can I ask you a question? What is, in your idealism, the role of the human brain?

the brain is the representative of our personal consciousness. it is our consciousness' self localization in this apparent physical world. the brain can interact on the mind much like a whirlpool interacts on water.

A whirlpool is water behaving in a certain way because of physics.

you cannot say the whirlpool produces water just because it affects water much like you cannot say the brain produces consciousness because it affects mind. this is the mind brain interaction I conceive in my idealism.

Consciousness and mind are the outputs of a working higher order brain.
There is no need to invoke any of the woo you have tried to foist on it.
You can see brain function, you can measure it's output and to a certain extent interpret it.

[Rational AKD]

these back and forths are getting tedious and so I am going to address core misunderstandings here instead of every tedious point.

I've described my "mental states" as being, literally and reductively - the machine. Not a product of the machine...not a generation or a projection, not some "other" - no homonculous....-the machine-. Is this what you take issue with?

yes I take issue with this. namely that there are obvious signs that consciousness is not equivocal to "the machine" which I will assume you are referring to the brain. namely that even materialists acknowledge not all brains are conscious, only functioning brains are. for example the brain of a dead person cannot be said to have consciousness even though it has all the same material contents as a functioning brain. so according to Leibniz Law of indiscernibility of identicals, if we have a scenario where brain B is different from mind M; then these two are not identical. the state of B where B is not functioning causes an absence of M within B... therefore they are not equivocal. you can only conclude that M is a function or process of B or M is a separate entity than B.

as I have removed an assumption of a projection, and also the assumption of something to project -to-, so I;m not sure I understand what you're driving at?

unfortunately for you, you have not done so coherently as we see scenarios where B is without M.

To explain my further issue (with your constant retreat to solipsism), and maybe I'm misunderstanding you, you seem to think that there is no reason to assume anything beyond our individual "consciousness"

no... I think there is no reason to assume anything behind "consciousness" in general. I think solipsism has some problems of its own, mainly the problem of self conscious control. if your mind is all there is, then there should be no reason you don't have full control over it as nothing else exists to have that control. no one has such control over the reality we experience, meaning it must not be our personal mental construct. but that doesn't mean it's not mentally constructed. I stated quite clearly in the OP my idealistic view and I've stated many times I do not advocate solipsism.

okay....but when -you- die....will -I- cease to exist?

as I said in the OP, idealism provides the possibility if not probability of an afterlife. if the world is a mental construct, there is no reason why it necessarily terminates your mind. you mind is only terminated when the for it is terminated or reversed. in your materialist view, this would be the termination of the brain. in my idealist view, it is contingent upon the super conscious, since this is where your consciousness emerges from.

I think we're both accepting the existence of some external "something"......it's just that one of us is okay with owning up to that.

and you would be correct. however, what I accept as external (multi consciousness including a super conscious) is due to logical consistency and what you accept as external is purely assumption which can be shaved by Occam's Razor to arrive back at idealism. other questions you have are based on your confusions of what I have just answered so I'll leave those out.

Consciousness and mind are the outputs of a working higher order brain.

way to state your dogma as if it were common ground between us... it is not.

There is no need to invoke any of the woo you have tried to foist on it.

there is no reason to invoke foreign concepts of material when we only perceives the mental construct which is at most modeled after material but obviously has interpretation added to it IE qualia. what reason is there to believe material exists as a concept foreign to what we perceive? why not believe our perception of material reality is all there is to it?