Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[robvalue]

Lots of heavy shit going on. I'll just chuck this in, sorry if it's been covered already.

I agree that in the "world we experience" there is no matter, so to speak. We are receiving only an interpretation of reality, if there is one. The question is whether or not our interpretations have come from actual matter or not. This is something we can simply never know, as far as I'm concerned. We can't investigate.

So to just assume there isn't any doesn't seem justified to me. Things would seem the same to us if there was, or if there wasn't. That is the problem of solipsism. In practical terms, it doesn't matter which is true.

We don't have to assume that there is any, though. We can just live in our experiences, whether they represent real things or not. But proving there isn't anything "out there"? I think that's beyond our scope. Certainly beyond the scope of mere philosophy.

[Captain Scarlet]

Maybe, just maybe if others think you are not being clear and think you are choosing to serve up a word salad the fault isn't only with others. To say "I live in a world that is 'functionally real' but not 'objectively real'.." and to defend it by saying it functions like the matrix or is some video game projected from the mind of god or some similar nonsense is I'm afraid as cohrent, to me, as saying "I am distimming a gobschmeck".  

I think it's you, Captain, because it makes sense to me.  The world we live in is one of sense experiences and observations about them.  You can experience seeing and walking on a bridge, and it's therefore functionally real.  But the bridge doesn't exist as you experience it, because QM.  And idealism goes even further than that. . . the QM particles themselves may not be objectively real, either.  In fact, there's pretty solid evidence that they are not, unless you totally abuse the words "objective" and "real."

Am I reading you right, AKD?

I am glad someone finds meaning in it. I am pointing out that I and others do not. So what?

Again you seem to resort to mysticism and spooky QM to claim the objective world is not really there. QM does not state that physical things are not real it is by definition a system of mechanics which applies to a world conceived of as particles. QFT describes the same world as fields not particles.  Neither describe an objective world not really there, neither have clearly won the argument.

Neither deny the bridge is there and objectively real, because of the emergent qualities of the quantum world which are memeasurable. You cannot apply the quantum world to the macro world, which is the only world we experience.  Why would you think a bridge isnt there because QM cannot find the particles?  That is a huge unjustified leap not supported by the physics I'm aware of, and is exactly the woo woo tactic of Deepak Chopra when he tries to invoke QM non locality in support of his mysticism.

By extension are you are therefore arguing that you do not exist, this forum doesn't exist, the computer you use doesnt exist, that really we are communicating by telepathy. Are you claiming the world is the conscious creation of a mind who can wish and make it so.  If this is the case why can't they just alter your mind at a whim, how can you be confident of your own existence and thoughts even as a mind? Is your mind just the puppet of a another mind who is fooling you. Can it be that your being fooled into thinking idealism could be true by this consciousness.  Where does this stop when you deny reality.

[Rational AKD]

I think it's you, Captain, because it makes sense to me.  The world we live in is one of sense experiences and observations about them.  You can experience seeing and walking on a bridge, and it's therefore functionally real.  But the bridge doesn't exist as you experience it, because QM.  And idealism goes even further than that. . . the QM particles themselves may not be objectively real, either.  In fact, there's pretty solid evidence that they are not, unless you totally abuse the words "objective" and "real."

Am I reading you right, AKD?

that's pretty close. I would just impose a few minor corrections if we're using QM in the idealistic model. the bridge you walk on is there only because you're observing it. apart from your observation, it doesn't exist as such. apart from observation, matter is merely a wave of potentialities which have predetermined probabilities they will collapse to when they are observed. thus the bridge isn't actually real apart from your observation of it, as a wave of potentialities is certainly not the same as substantial material. but regardless of whether it is substantial or not, it still functions exactly the same in your conscious experience. so you wouldn't treat the bridge any different despite the metaphysical model you adopt.

[Rational AKD]

I agree that in the "world we experience" there is no matter, so to speak. We are receiving only an interpretation of reality, if there is one. The question is whether or not our interpretations have come from actual matter or not. This is something we can simply never know, as far as I'm concerned. We can't investigate.

this is certainly a very reasonable conclusion. postulating a material substance isn't parsimonious of verifiable. there's nothing a material substance can explain that our minds can't. and there's no way to know what this material is apart from our mental interpretations which we also cannot verify to be accurate.

So to just assume there isn't any doesn't seem justified to me. Things would seem the same to us if there was, or if there wasn't. That is the problem of solipsism. In practical terms, it doesn't matter which is true.

when it comes to how you directly interact with the world you're right, it makes no difference. but it does make a difference if you look into the philosophical implications of the metaphysical model. I would first argue that idealism is more reasonable than solipsism because we seem to be in control of our own thoughts but we aren't in control of the world in the same way. if the world is merely our own mental fantasy, then there should be no difference between our own thoughts and the fantasy world derived from our thoughts. but since there is, I would say that's reason to suspect it is not derived from our thoughts but rather someone else's. thus you have monistic idealism in place of solipsism. but if the world is derived from someone else's thoughts, the only way we could have a connection is if we are also part of their thoughts (since all that exists in idealism is mind, the only connection is by mind). so this mind would contain all other minds, and be simulating the world we experience. nothing would exist apart from this mind, thus it would contain all the knowledge there is and have full control of the world since it's really all his thoughts... you can probably see that I'm saying idealism implies theism. and theism has personal religious implications which can affect how you live your life.

But proving there isn't anything "out there"? I think that's beyond our scope. Certainly beyond the scope of mere philosophy.

I would argue that the very possibility only mind exists, that I see you've already agreed to, proves monistic idealism is true. if there is a possible world where only mind exists, and mind is the same in every possible world (by Leibniz Law), then there is no difference between mind in a possible solipsist world and mind in reality. therefore, it follows mind is not reducible to matter. and if substance dualism is false, then it follows all is mind, and monistic idealism entails.

[Rational AKD]

Again you seem to resort to mysticism and spooky QM to claim the objective world is not really there. QM does not state that physical things are not real it is by definition a system of mechanics which applies to a world conceived of as particles. QFT describes the same world as fields not particles.  Neither describe an objective world not really there, neither have clearly won the argument.

I don't know about bennyboy here, but when I talk about idealistic implications of QM, I don't refer to it's 'spookiness' or our lack of knowledge on the subject. I refer to actual evidence from what we know about QM.

Neither deny the bridge is there and objectively real, because of the emergent qualities of the quantum world which are memeasurable.

yes they are measurable... no one is denying that. but the kochen-specker theorem in QM has confirmed that the results you get from measuring a quantum particle depends on your earlier decision on how you choose to measure. this was also confirmed by double slit experiments and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. that means matter appears to behave in accordance with our knowledge. it will go through the double slits as a wave if we aren't able to know which slit they went though, and they will go though the double slits as a particle if we place a measuring device at the slits giving us knowledge of which slits they went though. this is called wave function collapse, and I think it's quite compatible with an idealist view, but not a naïve realist view.

You cannot apply the quantum world to the macro world, which is the only world we experience.

this was also falsified in QM in 2010 by violations of the Leggett-Garg inequality. it was shown the macro world does emerge from quantum physics.

Why would you think a bridge isnt there because QM cannot find the particles?

no one is saying that... we're saying the bridge is made of quantum particles, thus still has QM implications. such as existing as a wave function prior to measurement, only to be collapsed by measurement.

By extension are you are therefore arguing that you do not exist, this forum doesn't exist, the computer you use doesnt exist, that really we are communicating by telepathy.

no... minds exist... matter doesn't. it's more like we're all in a virtual world communicating within defined principles set for it. but as some have already pointed out, it makes no difference in terms of how we interact with this world whether it is real or virtual.

 Are you claiming the world is the conscious creation of a mind who can wish and make it so.  If this is the case why can't they just alter your mind at a whim, how can you be confident of your own existence and thoughts even as a mind?

yes. and because I don't think the same mind that gave me consciousness and a sense of reason would tamper with it simply to force me to believe something. it would serve no purpose to force me to believe something, so it seems more reasonable that he has endowed us with a sense of reason to come up with our own beliefs.

Is your mind just the puppet of a another mind who is fooling you. Can it be that your being fooled into thinking idealism could be true by this consciousness.

*sigh* you do realize the problem with this right? if this mind is fooling me in the manner you presented, then idealism would be true. but if idealism is true... then this mind wouldn't be 'fooling' me... it would be, at worst, forcing me to believe the truth. though as I already said, it doesn't make sense for a mind in such a position to do such a thing. there's no motive, no gains for deception.

[bennyboy]

that's pretty close. I would just impose a few minor corrections if we're using QM in the idealistic model. the bridge you walk on is there only because you're observing it. apart from your observation, it doesn't exist as such. apart from observation, matter is merely a wave of potentialities which have predetermined probabilities they will collapse to when they are observed. thus the bridge isn't actually real apart from your observation of it, as a wave of potentialities is certainly not the same as substantial material. but regardless of whether it is substantial or not, it still functions exactly the same in your conscious experience. so you wouldn't treat the bridge any different despite the metaphysical model you adopt.

This is my view, as well. The functional reality, as you refer to it-- gravity, space, energy, etc. all work perfectly fine in ANY conceivable world view. So the question is this-- what is physicalism adding? In my opinion, nothing. It instead serves to cut away-- to say that anything mysterious or unknowable is unworthy of consideration. It turns into "woo" all the spiritual and artistic pursuits of man, and all the wonderful abstractions of thought, and labels it all bullshit. It is the sand under which those unwilling to work with undefined quantities may hide their heads.

The problem is that the mating call of the physicalist, "Show me the evidence," fails when applied to the very assumptions upon which the world view is founded. I'd ask them to show me the evidence that the universe is ultimately as they think it is-- not in the outer forms of things as we live our mundane lives, but under the hood. The problem, and it's a 1000-ton elephant, is that modern science actually serves as pretty good evidence AGAINST the assumption upon which physical monism is founded-- that all is observable and understandable, at least hypothetically, and that things exist unambiguously and without paradox.

Call it irony, or call it paradox, but reality as we observe it seems with each step less and less predictable, and more and more mysterious. And trying to wave that away with appeals to prove in physical terms things which obviously aren't physical is not an answer to the unknown, but rather a cowardly refusal to engage it head-on.

[robvalue]

Rational: Good response, thank you. I was with you right up until the very end. By "mind" do we mean brain, or the consciousness produced by the brain? Mind hasn't been demonstrated to be anything in between, except metaphorically. This is where I'm going to disagree with your premise and your definitions. We have physical brains, and we (or perhaps, I) have evidence of some sort of experience brains apparently produce. There is no evidence of a distinct entity which creates the experience that isn't simply the brain itself. We could abstractly call the set of consciousness-like experiences the mind, but that is merely for convenience and doesn't define anything actually real into existence.

Our brain is not "in" the reality of experiences our brain produces in general, whether or not there is matter outside it.

So I think it's only reasonable to call everything in a perceived reality to be equally real, or else nothing in it is real. Since the brain is not actually in the reality but in another reality producing it, the brain isn't real in that reality either. Even if I entertained your definitions, your version of mind is not "in" the reality either. So simply examining the reality is not sufficient to establish whether or not there is matter existing along with the mind in whatever sense the mind does exist. The problem here is trying to say the mind exists as a process and then insisting matter must also exist as a process. That's not a correct comparison in my opinion.

On the other hand, the perceived world is the consciousness. It is the emergent process, as far as we can tell. So the whole world is the mind, if we use it that way. But that's simply a tautology of definition. I don't however accept the mind being separate from both the brain and consciousness. This is something that needs demonstrating if it's to be anything other than a hypothesis or metaphor. I think you may be mistaking metaphor for reality.

[The Grand Nudger]

The bridge isn't "only there because you observe it" - you've made the most common and ridiculous mistake on the periphery of QM.  The way you take the word "observe" to mean, in your everyday life, -is not- what is meant by observation in QM. The bridge is there -regardless- of whether or not you observe it.

[robvalue]

I assume that's wasn't aimed at me?

Regardless, I'd say the bridge exists in our own perceived reality only when we observe it (although its gravitational effects may still influence others things we observe). But our perceived reality is not the reality, so as you say, the bridge is either there or it is not and doesn't depend on whether we observe it.

Insisting our perceived reality is the only real reality is just begging the question.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, no, it was for AKD, who made a classic "What the Bleep" gaff.

Perception is a funny thing.  If we're talking about what might exist in our perceived reality were discussing whats in the field of view of a creature of our scale with instrumentation native to us, more than anything.  The ground is solid beneath our feet, in our experience - but we know that it's mostly empty space and we know that tiny little beasties pass through it like an ocean of life routinely.  Similarly, solipsism is an issue -not- with what the world is comprised of, but what our native instrumentation is capable of perceiving, and what our minds - working from that input, are capable of logically concluding.

IMO, considering our perceptions to be "made up of ideas" is passable, at least until we dial in the resolution.  Most comments or statements along that line would at least be functionally workable.  The elephant we see -is- made up of ideas, in one sense.  Those ideas may be made of matter, but it hardly matters to us in our everyday lives, since our native set isn't capable of perceiving that - even if the instruments we've developed to augment our native set are.  The trouble in all of this -as it applies to the point of contention- is now and has been from the beginning, that we are attempting to conclude that the whole is made of ideas if a part is or might be.  It just doesn't work.  Even if -our- perceptions, or our mind, was pure idea, pure info...that doesn't really tell us whether or not the universe is.

Now, the -reason- that we use this model of matter is that it can explain -how and why- our perceptions take the form that they do....and I've seen in this thread the notion that our explanations work fine in any worldview, and that;s true, but it says nothing about the accuracy of those worldviews. That gravity works regardless of whether or not a person thinks it;s made of fairy dust or gravitons does not make any statement about whether it's made of fairy dust or gravitons - it does not rule in fairy dust as a possibility or make it more acceptable as a contender. Explanations must explain, and the fact that shit falls down regardless of how a person believes that to be accomplished is a non-statement regarding whether or not it;s fairy dust or matter. I don't think I can let that ground leveling business go unopposed until someone explains how ideas do ideas to ideas -without- stealing concepts. Don't get me wrong, perhaps ideas do ideas to ideas and this -is- the nature of our universe...but it doesn't have any explanatory power at present. I wouldn't go so far as to call materialism proven, but it's -certainly- not on equal ground with all other worldviews until such time as people start pumping out explanations arising -from- those other worldviews. Hell, materialism wouldn't be so well represented if some of those other worldviews hadn't failed, completely, to provide those explanations in the first place - for thousands of years. That might change in the future, I don't expect it to change in this thread...but I'm ready to be dazzled, lol.