Idealism offers a more comprehensive and more parsimonious explanation of reality than materialism

[Desert Snake]

Materialism as described is a belief regarding realism [agreed upon realism.

Materialism isn't 'realism', its theories regarding realism.

Materialism is a belief, not an agreed upon observation.

 

[Desert Snake]

In other words, it's a belief outside of agreed upon realism.

idealism, belief concerning something
Materialism, belief concerning something
Realism, agreed upon observation

•
We note this when a "materialist" has to argue something either unprovable, or doesn't match other arguments, whatever. Its very much a belief system.

 

[Desert Snake]

You can't 'presume' a belief regarding realism, in other words.

Otherwise you're not saying realism, you're saying something else

 

[Left Coast]

I expect this poll to generate about 80-20 result in favour of materialism. But my point is that, like in politics, the opinions in most cases are not well reasoned out. I intend to explore the reasons for majority belief in materialistic worldview and hopefully persuade a few to consider the alternative 'Idealism'.

First, the terms involved are defined briefly below.

Idealism: Reality consists exclusively of mind and its contents.

Added for clarification
(Idealism - Wikipedia)
In philosophy, idealism is the group of metaphysical philosophies that assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. Epistemologically, idealism manifests as a skepticism about the possibility of knowing any mind-independent thing.

The term Mind may or may not be limited to an individual’s mind.

Realism: Reality exists outside and independent of mind;

Materialism entails realism but goes beyond it: it postulates not only that matter exists outside mind, but that mind itself is generated by matter.

Added for clarification: For this poll, please consider ‘material’ to mean ‘physical’ and ‘materialism’ to signify the more general term ‘physicalism’.​

Please record your reasons for your being a materialist or an idealist.

Whether idealism is "comprehensive and parsimonious" is irrelevant to me because as far as I can tell it's unfalsifiable, which means there's no way to actually verify its accuracy. I'm a methodological materialist/naturalist (not necessarily philosophical) because empirical data obtained via the physical senses are the only way I'm aware of that we can know anything about the reality outside our heads.

 

[atanu]

as a spiritual being encased in a material thing, encased in mud, I have needs that must be met before I can focus on spiritual needs. if i got forced into this density, then i have to maintain my material existence; in order, to figure out why. if i came willingly into this material existence, then i still need to meet certain material needs at a minimum before being able to complete the mission i was sent on.

An exercise in discrimination to examine whether what you declare to be material is really material or is a conditioned form of mind, can help. This exercise can, in fact, root out the false notions of duality. But there is no compulsion to participate.

so creating a duality, difference between these two is not going to make me any more brahman than I ALREADY AM.

As mentioned above, critical examination of one's assumptions can root out the notions of duality.

The universe, including one's body-mind-senses (of all three states: waking, dreaming, and sleeping) is made of experiences only. There is nothing that is known to be existing out side of one's experience. Everything, whether known directly or through report occurs in experience only -- in consciousness only. If one can intellectually appreciate that the sun and one's body are both experiences to one consciousness, how the notion of duality will survive? People can experience non dual reality through meditation or through ingestion of entheogen. But in any case an intellectual priming is the best way.

 

[atanu]

You can't 'presume' a belief regarding realism, in other words.

Otherwise you're not saying realism, you're saying something else

Sorry. I have probably failed to communicate properly. In this thread we are talking of 'Realism' in philosophy domain, wherein 'Realism' means: "the doctrine that matter as the object of perception has real existence and is neither reducible to universal mind or spirit nor dependent on a perceiving agent. This is contrasted with idealism."

If you refer back to OP, I said:

Idealism: Reality consists exclusively of mind and its contents.
Realism: Reality exists outside and independent of mind;
Materialism entails realism but goes beyond it: it postulates not only that matter exists outside mind, but that mind itself is generated by matter.​

I hope I am able to dispel your doubt.

 

[atanu]

First of, you created the dichotomy of materialism/idealism. I only responded to that limited choice in saying that that I lean more to materialism given the choices and the definitions.

Actually the thread is an endeavor in the opposite direction -- to dispel the notion that duality can be true.

Reality (the physical world) exists objectively because we can experience it and agree on its existence.

Consider that I am arguing against this. I am contesting that a physical world exists objectively apart from the experiencing medium. You may review my earlier post in this light.

The realm of ideals exists objectively because we can think it and agree on its existence. The realms are separated by the method we detect them and by the laws they follow.

Yeah. This leads to mind-body problem. How do you bridge the 'explanatory gap'? How constituents of an objective world impinge upon an objective brain and create phenomena of taste, joy, pain, sadness etc. etc. So, what are the laws you are talking of? What is the mechanism of phenomenon-less objective reality producing myriad sensations and desires?

 

[atanu]

Whether idealism is "comprehensive and parsimonious" is irrelevant to me because as far as I can tell it's unfalsifiable, which means there's no way to actually verify its accuracy. I'm a methodological materialist/naturalist (not necessarily philosophical) because empirical data obtained via the physical senses are the only way I'm aware of that we can know anything about the reality outside our heads.

I do no agree the question in the OP is irrelevant. There is great implication of a correct metaphysics. At least, Hinduism and Buddhism emphasize right knowledge. The universe, including one's body-mind-senses (of all three states: waking, dreaming, and sleeping) is made of experiences only. There is nothing that is known to be existing out side of one's experience. Everything, whether known directly or through report occurs in experience only -- in awareness only. If one can intellectually appreciate that the sun and one's body are both experiences to one consciousness, how the notion of duality will survive? People can experience non dual reality through meditation or through ingestion of entheogen. But in any case an intellectual priming is the best way.

I will point out a few points which I can expand further later. First. The axiom of 'realism' which is the foundation of 'materialism' is also not falsifiable. How can we ever prove or disprove whether objects of cognition are within or without the medium of experience? I had already linked a paper published in Nature that debunks the notion that the philosophical 'realism' is the reality. Second. What is more intimate than the "I am" awareness? But materialism ascribes the seen objects as the source of the subject "I am" that cognizes all objects. Third.There is no phenomenal qualities to the material ultimates agreed upon by the standard model. So, how the phenomenal experiences arise remains the main question. Third. I pointed out how 'materialism' entails imagining a true (but shadow world) about which we have no way to know. We only know what our neurons cook. Fourth. I can show you some empirical evidence that 'idealism' is more plausible.

The point of this thread is to try to show how materialism is more illusive than 'idealism', which does not posit any interpreted world.



...

 

[Twilight Hue]

I expect this poll to generate about 80-20 result in favour of materialism. But my point is that, like in politics, the opinions in most cases are not well reasoned out. I intend to explore the reasons for majority belief in materialistic worldview and hopefully persuade a few to consider the alternative 'Idealism'.

First, the terms involved are defined briefly below.

Idealism: Reality consists exclusively of mind and its contents.

Added for clarification
(Idealism - Wikipedia)
In philosophy, idealism is the group of metaphysical philosophies that assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. Epistemologically, idealism manifests as a skepticism about the possibility of knowing any mind-independent thing.

The term Mind may or may not be limited to an individual’s mind.

Realism: Reality exists outside and independent of mind;

Materialism entails realism but goes beyond it: it postulates not only that matter exists outside mind, but that mind itself is generated by matter.

Added for clarification: For this poll, please consider ‘material’ to mean ‘physical’ and ‘materialism’ to signify the more general term ‘physicalism’.​

Please record your reasons for your being a materialist or an idealist.

Materialist.

No hardware means no software.

 

[atanu]

Materialist.

No hardware means no software.

How come that becomes a materialist position?

 

[Left Coast]

I do no agree the question in the OP is irrelevant. There is great implication of a correct metaphysics.

You can't know if you have a correct metaphysics if your view is unfalsifiable.

At least, Hinduism and Buddhism emphasize right knowledge. The universe, including one's body-mind-senses (of all three states: waking, dreaming, and sleeping) is made of experiences only. There is nothing that is known to be existing out side of one's experience. Everything, whether known directly or through report occurs in experience only -- in awareness only. If one can intellectually appreciate that the sun and one's body are both experiences to one consciousness, how the notion of duality will survive? People can experience non dual reality through meditation or through ingestion of entheogen. But in any case an intellectual priming is the best way.

I agree all we have are experiences (obtained via our physical senses) to shape our understanding of reality. There is no way around the problem of hard solipsism precisely because it's unfalsifiable. Empiricism, realizing this, employs a probabilistic understanding of reality, not claims to absolute truth about its nature.

I will point out a few points which I can expand further later. First. The axiom of 'realism' which is the foundation of 'materialism' is also not falsifiable. How can we ever prove or disprove whether objects of cognition are within or without the medium of experience?

I can agree. So you're asking us to adopt one unfalsifiable system over another. Why? Instead of arguing over the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin, let's employ a system that works to help us effectively navigate whatever-it-is-out-there. Science does that better than any other method.

I had already linked a paper published in Nature that debunks the notion that the philosophical 'realism' is the reality.

You linked an article that purports to do that; it's behind a paywall and I haven't read it beyond the abstract. I have a feeling the finding is not without controversy in terms of its interpretation.

Second. What is more intimate than the "I am" awareness? But materialism ascribes the seen objects as the source of the subject "I am" that cognizes all objects.

It does so because that's what all available evidence indicates. We can test consciousness to understand it, like we can test anything else. If you've ever taken a pain pill and felt better, it should not be controversial to you that consciousness is caused by physical inputs. If you've ever been hit in the head and become unconscious, it should not be controversial to you that a working brain is necessary for consciousness (we've never observed consciousness apart from one) and sufficient damage to the brain causes cessation of consciousness.

Third.There is no phenomenal qualities to the material ultimates agreed upon by the standard model. So, how the phenomenal experiences arise remains the main question.

Yes, it remains a question. So what? We don't understand everything about reality, therefore we should adopt your unfalsifiable view? C'mon now.

Third. I pointed out how 'materialism' entails imagining a true (but shadow world) about which we have no way to know. We only know what our neurons cook.

Correct, because this is what all available evidence of our sense experiences tells us. I walked through this step-by-step for you. Why do people with leprosy become numb to pain?

Fourth. I can show you some empirical evidence that 'idealism' is more plausible.

Cool, let's see it. Why didn't you open with that??

The point of this thread is to try to show how materialism is more illusive than 'idealism', which does not posit any interpreted world.

Again, an unfalsifiable view can explain things as thoroughly and directly as one likes. All that is irrelevant if we can't test it to see if it's actually true.

 

[atanu]

Again, an unfalsifiable view can explain things as thoroughly and directly as one likes. All that is irrelevant if we can't test it to see if it's actually true.

We can. I will soon bring up evidences. Give me some time.

 

[Heyo]

Consider that I am arguing against this. I am contesting that a physical world exists objectively apart from the experiencing medium. You may review my earlier post in this light.

Question: Do you believe that you are the only entity in existence? (Hard solipsism)

 

[atanu]

Question: Do you believe that you are the only entity in existence? (Hard solipsism)

@Left Coast

If I were a solipsist, I wouldn’t believe that you have inner life at all. Whereas this whole thread is meant to try to demonstrate that each one of us has an inner life, which is a conditioned and localised manifestation of the universal consciousness. You and me are akin to whirlpools on a single river of mind. Or we are all waves on the same ocean of consciousness.

So, I am not talking solipsism.

 

[Left Coast]

@Left Coast

If I were a solipsist, I wouldn’t believe that you, have inner life at all. Whereas this whole thread is meant to try to demonstrate that each one of us has an inner life, which is a conditioned and localised manifestation of the universal consciousness. You and me are akin to whirlpools on a single river of mind. Or we are all waves on the same ocean of consciousness.

So, I am not talking solipsism.

I'll be interested to see you provide evidence for that position over and against hard solipsism, too. All the arguments you have thus far employed against materialism can just as easily be used to justify solipsism as your "universal consciousness" idea.

 

[Heyo]

@Left Coast

If I were a solipsist, I wouldn’t believe that you have inner life at all. Whereas this whole thread is meant to try to demonstrate that each one of us has an inner life, which is a conditioned and localised manifestation of the universal consciousness. You and me are akin to whirlpools on a single river of mind. Or we are all waves on the same ocean of consciousness.

So, I am not talking solipsism.

As I said before, you could label me an objectivist. Do think that the existence of "conditioned and localised manifestation of the universal consciousness" is an objective truth? And if you do, do you perceive the "other" or do you think her/him?

 

[atanu]

As I said before, you could label me an objectivist. Do think that the existence of "conditioned and localised manifestation of the universal consciousness" is an objective truth? And if you do, do you perceive the "other" or do you think her/him?

I do not see any other, even as one cannot see a second ‘sky’.

 

[Heyo]

I think I don't like to be robbed of my individuality and my input imagined as one part of your inner monologue. If I am you, you don't need me. Have a nice day.

 

[atanu]

I think I don't like to be robbed of my individuality and my input imagined as one part of your inner monologue. If I am you, you don't need me. Have a nice day.

A non dual consciousness can have many colourful minds.

 

[Willamena]

First, the terms involved are defined briefly below.

Idealism: Reality consists exclusively of mind and its contents.

Added for clarification
(Idealism - Wikipedia)
In philosophy, idealism is the group of metaphysical philosophies that assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. Epistemologically, idealism manifests as a skepticism about the possibility of knowing any mind-independent thing.

The term Mind may or may not be limited to an individual’s mind.

Realism: Reality exists outside and independent of mind;

Materialism entails realism but goes beyond it: it postulates not only that matter exists outside mind, but that mind itself is generated by matter.

Added for clarification: For this poll, please consider ‘material’ to mean ‘physical’ and ‘materialism’ to signify the more general term ‘physicalism’.​

Please record your reasons for your being a materialist or an idealist.

I lean towards idealism. We all exhibit idealism, materialism, realism and many more ideologies that shape and inform our lives; no one is exclusive of one or another.

Reality is things that we know, and hence could state to be; things that we state with the intent that it not really be we call fiction. Because of truth, fiction stands in contrast to reality. We may postulate a world that will persist after our demise, but our demise doesn't negate the postulate.

Metaphysics consists of two branches that refer to "what is" and "what we know is." Depending on our conditioning, they may stand in contrast or not. To me, they are two sides of the same coin: we could not postulate something without knowing a bit about it--most poignantly, why it should be; and the things we could postulate without knowing a bit about are essentially fiction (cite Russell's tea pot).

I'd like to point out that realism (philosophical) doesn't stand in contrast to idealism and materialism. Realism informs much of our thinking whatever our leaning. It's learned through conditioning and convention, and can be put in its place with learning and practice.