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

[atanu]

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.

Thank you Willamena. Your posts are always insightful.

For this thread, I am using Realism as described below:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which question our ability to assert the world is independent of our mind). Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[1]

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[2] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. ​

In this thread, I take ‘Realism (philosophical) as defined above. It entails correspondence between cognitive representations and reality. And Materialism entails that all knowing and phenomenal interpretations arise in discrete individual brains. Realism-Materialism world view, or rather the Physicalism (that has to adhere to Realism on one side and current scientific knowledge on the other) is, in my opinion, in a predicament. I will bring it up in subsequent posts.

The advaita philosophy (or idealism) holds that what is known directly or through report is within awareness. I again emphasise, the awareness is not same as individual’s solipsistic awareness. In advaita, consciousness is primitive, without beginning and unbounded.

So, this thread is about contrasting these two world-views.

 

[Aurelius]

Who says that materialism cannot be idealistic? In your own tradition @atanu Carvakan materialism was very idealistic.

I posit to you that deep reflection of the material gives many reasons to be idealistic.

I put forth to you that the material and the cooperation of bodies in the world of forms is a great mystery.

As great a mystery as we could ever want.

 

[atanu]

W

Who says that materialism cannot be idealistic? In your own tradition @atanu Carvakan materialism was very idealistic.

I posit to you that deep reflection of the material gives many reasons to be idealistic.

I put forth to you that the material and the cooperation of bodies in the world of forms is a great mystery.

As great a mystery as we could ever want.

Not much is known of Charvaak philosophy. From what we know from references in Vedic, Jaina , or Bhuddhistic literature, Charvaak epistemology seems to rely only on perception. Charvaak conclusion that there can be nothing beyond what is perceived is thus self refuting, as pure empiricism is also self refuting. There is absolutely no trace of Idealism, of Vedas and Upanishads, in Charvaak philosophy. Vedas teach that Brahman, the reality is Existence-Consciousness-Bliss — which is one term only. Existence is signified by all pervading Is-ness; consciousness by awareness of the is-ness; and bliss is absence of dualism of pain-pleasure. Brahman as the Existence-Consciousness-Bliss is the ground of all appearances - the sentient or insentient.

Charvaak’s, OTOH, like modern day materialists believed that the consciousness is born of physical body and is lost on destruction of body. This thread is rebuttal of this philosophy.

If your epistemology relies only on what is manifestly perceived, how can you conclude absence of consciousness?

 

[Aurelius]

Charvaak conclusion that there can be nothing beyond what is perceived is thus self refuting, as pure empiricism is also self refuting.

How are they self-refuting exactly?

There is absolutely no trace of Idealism, of Vedas and Upanishads, in Charvaak philosophy.

Are they the only kind? Or did you mean only that kind when making this post?

Vedas teach that Brahman, the reality is Existence-Consciousness-Bliss — which is one term only.

Yes, but why do you need Brahman for these? Brahman appears to me a middle man concept you introduce. Why can't existence, consciousness, and bliss be that the material is this nature?

Existence is signified by all pervading Is-ness; consciousness by awareness of the is-ness; and bliss is absence of dualism of pain-pleasure.

See my previous reply above.

Brahman as the Existence-Consciousness-Bliss is the ground of all appearances - the sentient or insentient.

How would you show this Brahman? You ever seen it? You know it's attributes? Does it have any?

Brahman appears as unnecessary as all god concepts. People give all these concepts the goodness and such they assume nature wouldn't have, or couldn't arise through nature they say.

I'm saying what also Buddha said. You don't need this Brahman concept to add anything to our nature.

The Brahman concept wouldn't add anything if this was our nature. Except an ultra-speculative metaphysical concept we don't know.

 

[Willamena]

Thank you Willamena. Your posts are always insightful.

For this thread, I am using Realism as described below:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which question our ability to assert the world is independent of our mind). Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[1]

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[2] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. ​

In this thread, I take ‘Realism (philosophical) as defined above. It entails correspondence between cognitive representations and reality. And Materialism entails that all knowing and phenomenal interpretations arise in discrete individual brains. Realism-Materialism world view, or rather the Physicalism (that has to adhere to Realism on one side and current scientific knowledge on the other) is, in my opinion, in a predicament. I will bring it up in subsequent posts.

Right. Ultimately, realism is about the truth value. We assign a truth value to all information at our disposal (in the form of belief). In this way we "possess" truth; but we also "give away" that value to the world at large, for it to possess, in order to assign the value objective. Objectivity refers to things independent of mind. When we believe some things are objective, we have given away truth value to the world. The idealist, as well as the materialist, assigns objectivity to some of the information at her disposal.

Realism entails this surrender of the truth value to someone or something else to possess, thereby giving it authority over us.

That's what we have to unlearn in order to be the world.

 

[atanu]

How are they self-refuting exactly?

The conclusion that there is nothing beyond what is empirical is not empirical.

Yes, but why do you need Brahman for these? Brahman appears to me a middle man concept you introduce. Why can't existence, consciousness, and bliss be that the material is this nature?

First. Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss is not material. If you agree that the truth is Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss, then you may not require a name for that. But in this case, the name itself signifies it's dynamic aspect of 'ever expanding'.

How would you show this Brahman? You ever seen it? You know it's attributes? Does it have any?

Unto what you enter in a dream? What are the attributes of the subjective state of deep sleep?

 

[Aurelius]

The conclusion that there is nothing beyond what is empirical is not empirical.

Empirical is another matter than what we're discussing. I didn't say inference was useless.

First. Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss is not material. If you agree that the truth is Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss, then you may not require a name for that. But in this case, the name itself signifies it's dynamic aspect of 'ever expanding'.

How do you know they're not material? If they arise in the material and from such causes- they're material.

To say things that seem to arise in the material are not such is nothing more than silver-tongued sophistry.

It's not that I don't need a name. I refuse to place it outside me with no good reason.

Unto what you enter in a dream? What are the attributes of the subjective state of deep sleep?

Dreams are a really bad appeal for you to use. Dreams dissolve every night. They're impermanent. If you argue they have substances- those are destroyed upon each awakening.

I seem to recall the Buddha observed this as well when he was given this analogy by some teachers of the Vedas.

 

[atanu]

Right. Ultimately, realism is about the truth value. We assign a truth value to all information at our disposal (in the form of belief). In this way we "possess" truth; but we also "give away" that value to the world at large, for it to possess, in order to assign the value objective. Objectivity refers to things independent of mind. When we believe some things are objective, we have given away truth value to the world. The idealist, as well as the materialist, assigns objectivity to some of the information at her disposal.

Realism entails this surrender of the truth value to someone or something else to possess, thereby giving it authority over us.

That's what we have to unlearn in order to be the world.

In quantum world, even under non local domain, certain classes of realistic theories are not theoretically and experimentally sustainable.

An experimental test of non-local realism
An experimental test of non-local realism (same paper as above).
...

What it signifies to our mundane mind-sense phenomenal existence?

 

[atanu]

Empirical is another matter than what we're discussing. I didn't say inference was useless.

We were talking of Charvaak. I am pointing out the self refuting Charvaak philosophy and self refuting nature of pure empiricism.

How do you know they're not material? If they arise in the material and from such causes- they're material.

To say things that seem to arise in the material are not such is nothing more than silver-tongued sophistry.

This is precisely the subject of this thread. If you do not get down to name calling, you can follow what I will further bring in. For the time being, I will request to consider the fact that you (the subject) see the objects-materials and then you ascribe the cognition power of the self to those objects cognised by the self.

It's not that I don't need a name. I refuse to place it outside me with no good reason.

Where is your ego mind? Is it outside of awareness?

Dreams are a really bad appeal for you to use. Dreams dissolve every night. They're impermanent. If you argue they have substances- those are destroyed upon each awakening.

I seem to recall the Buddha observed this as well when he was given this analogy by some teachers of the Vedas.

True, dream objects are unreal. But the question was in what medium do these objects appear and disappear? What is the name of that medium? Are these objects ever outside you? What name you give to that medium wherein dream objects appear and disappear? What name you give to the medium of deep sleep wherein your dream and waking worlds appear and disappear?

Please do not bring in Buddha. That is another subject. If you wish you may create another thread and invite me there.

 

[Willamena]

In quantum world, even under non local domain, certain classes of realistic theories are not theoretically and experimentally sustainable.

An experimental test of non-local realism
An experimental test of non-local realism (same paper as above).
...

What it signifies to our mundane mind-sense phenomenal existence?

I know nothing about quantum mechanics, so I've no opinion on what it signifies to 'mind.'

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

From these two options, I'ld have to go with materialist, for the sole reason that literally all evidence suggests that "minds" are the products of physical brains.

While the way you defined "idealism" sounds more like poetic / metaphorical hypotheticals that have no relevancy in actual commonly observable reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As evolution favors physical survival, not per se the accuracy or completeness of internal representations, if materialism is right, then it cannot be trusted

And it isn't trusted.....

That's exactly why we have methods like science to investigate reality. This is why we build tools and machines to do measurements for us. This is why we have peers double checking our methods, premises and results. This is why we don't just assume hypothesis, or even theories, are correct and why we actually TEST them instead. And the setup of such tests itself is also regulated by the methods of science, designed specifically to remove as much human bias as physically possible - ideally, all of it.

We do NOT simply or blindly trust our senses, or even reasoning abilities
It's the whole reason why the scientific method was developed and why we test our ideas against external reality.

Furthermore, if all that exists is matter, and if consciousness is somehow produced by the suitable arrangement of matter represented by the brain, then all subjective perception must only be residing in the brain

Yes, subjective perception resides in the brain. And bachelors aren't married.

To summarise. The explosive combination of the concept of realism (that there is an objective world out there) and the brain generated picture of that objective world may not be at all real.

This is why we develop methods of inquiry and why we test our "brain generated pictures". Because we realise very well that our brain is very easy to fool and deceive.

In fact, our brains are SO easy to fool and deceive that there are people who make a carreer out of exactly that. We call them magicians and mentalists.

 

[atanu]

From these two options, I'ld have to go with materialist, for the sole reason that literally all evidence suggests that "minds" are the products of physical brains.

No problem. We will see.

While the way you defined "idealism" sounds more like poetic / metaphorical hypotheticals that have no relevancy in actual commonly observable reality.[/QUOTE]

And it isn't trusted.....That's exactly why we have methods like science to investigate reality. ..

How circular that logic is? Do you realise that? Your brain is a electromechanical device that runs due to unknown processes. According to you the ecrochemical reactions in brain generate you're consciousness. You agree that this consciousness cannot be trusted. And you claim that that is why science is there to attain to the trustworthy truth.

What are you saying?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No problem. We will see.

What's there to see? Do you have knowledge of any evidence that points to the opposite?
If yes, what is it?

How circular that logic is?

Not.

There's nothing "circular" or "problematic" about recognizing our weaknesses and subsequently dealing with them.

Do you realise that? Your brain is a electromechanical device that runs due to unknown processes.

That's overly exaggerated. Just because we don't fully comprehend the brain, doesn't mean that we don't know anything about. Just because the brain processes aren't fully understand doesn't mean that they are completely unknown. There's quite a lot that is known.

According to you the ecrochemical reactions in brain generate you're consciousness

Not according to me. According to the evidence.

See, when beliefs, opinions or intuition disagrees with the evidence of reality, it's likely not the evidence of reality that is incorrect......

You agree that this consciousness cannot be trusted.

Not entirely true either.
Obviously, our senses and awareness can be trusted to a certain degree. If our brain would constantly be wrong about everything, we wouldn't survive anything.

All I said was that we KNOW that our brain can be fooled in a number of ways. Magicians made a carreer out of it. There's more examples, like these things called "optical illusions", which, as Neil DeGrass Tyson once said, could (or even should) also be called "brain failures". As he said: "it's just a simple piece of paper with some cleverly arranged lines and/or shapes on it, and your brain can't figure it out"

We KNOW this is the case. We also KNOW that there are things in the universe, especially concerning the very small or the extremely big or the extremely fast, that our brains have trouble comprehending. For the simple reason that we live on a level of classical physics in which we have to deal with medium gravity, objects of medium mass and sub-light, even sub-sound, speeds.

A nice example I once heared to illustrate this....
Consider you standing a couple meters away from me. I throw you a tennis ball. Without having to think about it, you catch it. You figure out where your hand needs to be to catch said ball in a fraction of a second. You intuitively are able to figure out the trajectory of the ball, including the curved path it takes. You don't have to do any calculations, which would need to keep into account things like wind, gravity, effect, speed, distance, etc. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of people wouldn't even be able to do that calculation.

Your brain can't do the same to figure out where a neutrino or electron is going to be at any given time. Your brain can't intuitively figure out the trajectory of such particles.

The reason is simply because your brain evolved to deal with the classical physics involved as applicable with throwing a ball (or stick or stone, or falling tree, or a running dear, or running from a predator, or tripping over a rock, or.....).

It didn't evolve to deal with quantum physics, lightspeeds, the weirdness of black holes, surface tension (as opposed to gravity), etc.

And next to that, there is human psychology and the fact that we KNOW the kind of cognition errors humans are prone to, like false positives, confirmation bias, etc.

It is precisely because we understand the human weaknesses that tend to pop-up when trying to figure things out, that we are able to put in place methods that actively try to avoid these weaknesses and rule them out.

And looking at all the marvelous and crazy things that science allowed us to accomplish, I dare say that we have been rather succesfull in working around these weaknesses and cancel them out.

And you claim that that is why science is there to attain to the trustworthy truth.

Science allows us to avoid our weaknesses, yes.

What are you saying?

What are you objecting to?

 

[ChristineM]

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.

I voted no,
Idealism, of the mind, unrealistic belief
Materialism, to consider real things more important than ideas

 

[atanu]

I voted no,
Idealism, of the mind, unrealistic belief
Materialism, to consider real things more important than ideas

Yes. I expected 60-70% people to vote for materialism -- exactly for the reason you have noted: the notion that materialism affords a direct knowledge of the universe including our body-mind in it and idealism is unrealistic. But I wish to question that assumption. This mis-understanding is due to lack of deep look.

First, I will point out that the electrochemical processes are not remotely related causally to the phenomenal consciousness. The Hard problem of consciousness does not relate to measurable parameters. Suppose that an event in cortex correlates with a particular consciousness. But think. We are conscious of what? Are we conscious of the passing nerve current? No. Of the stimuli that originated it on the surface of the body? No. We are not aware of any of these things. So, we are aware of reconstructions only — as per materialism-physicalism.

Now, let us suppose that physicalism is correct. Physicalism entails that the world is ‘out there’ and that the contents of your mind are a reconstruction, architected and hosted by brain, of that external reality. The tables, chairs, walls, windows, computers, books, floor, etc., which we experience are not really the real things, but merely hallucinated copies inside head. So, the real world is some abstract realm of interacting electromagnetic interactions. We can never know the actual physical world out there. the implication is that you live your entire life locked within this brain-constructed hallucination. A world outside and independent of mind is a non-provable abstraction, regardless of how good the theoretical reasons to believe in it may be.

Further suppose that the world is ‘out there’ and that the contents of your mind are a reconstruction in brain. If it were true, your mind would still be the sole carrier of reality you can know. So, Physicalism with respect to consciousness is self refuting. Eventually, it boils down to a distorted version of mentalism that promises that you see/know only a copy of what is real and that is what ‘MIND’ is.

So, you see that finally we land into a mental ontology and which does not in any way offer us actual view of the universe as it is. This world view stipulates that we can know only a copy of what really is out there. What is really out there will ever remain unknown because we cannot by-pass the machinations of brain that supposedly lets you think, know, perceive and feel. What can you think if you do not know the reality as it is?

Spoiler: Materialism cannot avoid being Epistemic Idealism

A more sophisticated discussion that materialism cannot avoid being ‘epistemically ideal’ is discussed below.

Bertrand Russel and GE Moore overturned idealism and brought in materialism. They mainly objected to, in their opinion, in wrongfully identifying the content of “consciousness” with its object, meaning that (a) that objects exist independently of us and (b) that to know an object means to be immediately related to the object as it is in itself (i.e., as it is undistorted by and independent from any mental activity).

As per Russel (and in essence also as per Moore), knowledge consists in standing in an immediate relation to an independent individual object (assumption b above). If, by stipulation, knowledge is ultimately knowledge “by acquaintance,” then knowledge is restricted to knowledge of individual objects — this is knowledge of something or non-propositional knowledge, and this concept fails to give an account of the possibility of propositional knowledge. Both Moore and Russel were aware of this limitation and went about in different ways to overcome this limitation.

There are two ways to overcome the problem of limitation of propositional knowledge provided that assumption (b) is agreed upon. The first is to claim that propositions (Moore prefers the term “judgment” in this context) are individual objects with which the subject is acquainted. The second is to broaden the concept of knowledge by not restricting knowledge to knowledge by acquaintance but to allow for other forms of knowledge as well. The first approach was employed by Moore and the latter by Russel.

According to Moore a proposition is composed out of concepts. Moore was well aware that his view of the nature of concepts commits him to the claim that the world insofar as it is an object of propositional knowledge consists of concepts because these are the only things one can be acquainted with if acquaintance is a condition of knowledge. Thus he wrote: “It seems necessary, then, to regard the world as formed of concepts. These are the only objects of knowledge. So, ultimately, we see that metaphysical commitments Moore’s theory are precisely a form of ontological idealism.

Russel, on the other hand, distinguishes between knowledge of things — knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge of truths — knowledge by description. Examples of truths that can be known this way are logical principles, the principle of induction, and everything we know a priori. Now, what are we acquainted with? As per Russel, there are exactly two kinds of things we can be acquainted with, namely particulars, i.e., things that exist, and universals, i.e., things that subsist (concepts running through more than one particulars).

However, Physical objects are constructions we form out of sense-data together with some descriptive devices, and only with respect to these constructions can we have knowledge by description, i.e. propositional knowledge. If epistemological idealism is understood as involving the claim that what we take to be objects of knowledge are heavily dependent on some activity of the knowing subject, then the very idea of an object as a construction guarantees the endorsement of epistemological idealism. Thus, in contrast to their self-proclaimed revolt against the idealism of Berkeley and Bradley, the positions of both Moore and Russell are by no means free of traits that connect them rather closely to well known currents in modern idealism;

More about this can be read at: Idealism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

...

 

[atanu]

From these two options, I'ld have to go with materialist, for the sole reason that literally all evidence suggests that "minds" are the products of physical brains.

While the way you defined "idealism" sounds more like poetic / metaphorical hypotheticals that have no relevancy in actual commonly observable reality.

I suggest that you may read post 56.

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

 

[atanu]

And looking at all the marvelous and crazy things that science allowed us to accomplish, I dare say that we have been rather succesfull in working around these weaknesses and cancel them out.

Your optimism is infectious and I support it. I feel like singing a chorus and wave a flag in honour of science. But I think that stupendous powers of consciousness-mind is substratum for all our successes, including for the soaring successes in philosophy, art and music. The question is, if intelligence was born of mechanism, would this unlimited grandeur be expected?

 

[ChristineM]

Yes. I expected 60-70% people to vote for materialism -- exactly for the reason you have noted: the notion that materialism affords a direct knowledge of the universe including our body-mind in it and idealism is unrealistic. But I wish to question that assumption. This mis-understanding is due to lack of deep look.

First, I will point out that the electrochemical processes are not remotely related causally to the phenomenal consciousness. The Hard problem of consciousness does not relate to measurable parameters. Suppose that an event in cortex correlates with a particular consciousness. But think. We are conscious of what? Are we conscious of the passing nerve current? No. Of the stimuli that originated it on the surface of the body? No. We are not aware of any of these things. So, we are aware of reconstructions only — as per materialism-physicalism.

Now, let us suppose that physicalism is correct. Physicalism entails that the world is ‘out there’ and that the contents of your mind are a reconstruction, architected and hosted by brain, of that external reality. The tables, chairs, walls, windows, computers, books, floor, etc., which we experience are not really the real things, but merely hallucinated copies inside head. So, the real world is some abstract realm of interacting electromagnetic interactions. We can never know the actual physical world out there. the implication is that you live your entire life locked within this brain-constructed hallucination. A world outside and independent of mind is a non-provable abstraction, regardless of how good the theoretical reasons to believe in it may be.

Further suppose that the world is ‘out there’ and that the contents of your mind are a reconstruction in brain. If it were true, your mind would still be the sole carrier of reality you can know. So, Physicalism with respect to consciousness is self refuting. Eventually, it boils down to a distorted version of mentalism that promises that you see/know only a copy of what is real and that is what ‘MIND’ is.

So, you see that finally we land into a mental ontology and which does not in any way offer us actual view of the universe as it is. This world view stipulates that we can know only a copy of what really is out there. What is really out there will ever remain unknown because we cannot by-pass the machinations of brain that supposedly lets you think, know, perceive and feel. What can you think if you do not know the reality as it is?

Spoiler: Materialism cannot avoid being Epistemic Idealism

A more sophisticated discussion that materialism cannot avoid being ‘epistemically ideal’ is discussed below.

Bertrand Russel and GE Moore overturned idealism and brought in materialism. They mainly objected to, in their opinion, in wrongfully identifying the content of “consciousness” with its object, meaning that (a) that objects exist independently of us and (b) that to know an object means to be immediately related to the object as it is in itself (i.e., as it is undistorted by and independent from any mental activity).

As per Russel (and in essence also as per Moore), knowledge consists in standing in an immediate relation to an independent individual object (assumption b above). If, by stipulation, knowledge is ultimately knowledge “by acquaintance,” then knowledge is restricted to knowledge of individual objects — this is knowledge of something or non-propositional knowledge, and this concept fails to give an account of the possibility of propositional knowledge. Both Moore and Russel were aware of this limitation and went about in different ways to overcome this limitation.

There are two ways to overcome the problem of limitation of propositional knowledge provided that assumption (b) is agreed upon. The first is to claim that propositions (Moore prefers the term “judgment” in this context) are individual objects with which the subject is acquainted. The second is to broaden the concept of knowledge by not restricting knowledge to knowledge by acquaintance but to allow for other forms of knowledge as well. The first approach was employed by Moore and the latter by Russel.

According to Moore a proposition is composed out of concepts. Moore was well aware that his view of the nature of concepts commits him to the claim that the world insofar as it is an object of propositional knowledge consists of concepts because these are the only things one can be acquainted with if acquaintance is a condition of knowledge. Thus he wrote: “It seems necessary, then, to regard the world as formed of concepts. These are the only objects of knowledge. So, ultimately, we see that metaphysical commitments Moore’s theory are precisely a form of ontological idealism.

Russel, on the other hand, distinguishes between knowledge of things — knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge of truths — knowledge by description. Examples of truths that can be known this way are logical principles, the principle of induction, and everything we know a priori. Now, what are we acquainted with? As per Russel, there are exactly two kinds of things we can be acquainted with, namely particulars, i.e., things that exist, and universals, i.e., things that subsist (concepts running through more than one particulars).

However, Physical objects are constructions we form out of sense-data together with some descriptive devices, and only with respect to these constructions can we have knowledge by description, i.e. propositional knowledge. If epistemological idealism is understood as involving the claim that what we take to be objects of knowledge are heavily dependent on some activity of the knowing subject, then the very idea of an object as a construction guarantees the endorsement of epistemological idealism. Thus, in contrast to their self-proclaimed revolt against the idealism of Berkeley and Bradley, the positions of both Moore and Russell are by no means free of traits that connect them rather closely to well known currents in modern idealism;

More about this can be read at: Idealism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

...

That is rather too much for me to read, but i can say the electrochemical process in the brain are real and can be observed and measured. Neuroscience is not yet a precise science but more is learned about the brain processes every day and to date all that has been learned is explained as real.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your optimism is infectious and I support it.

It's not optimism. It's well evidenced and demonstrable.
No person in his right mind would ever intuitively come up with quantum mechanics.

As a matter of fact, Einstein considered it so absurd and so unsettling that he assumed that there had to be a mistake somewhere, because QM just couldn't be how the world works. That's how much trouble he had wrapping his mind around it. And this was one of the most brilliant men that ever lived.

But he was wrong, off course. Yes, QM goes against everything our "common sense" and "intuition" would inform us. And it's the process of science that allowed us to unravel it anyway. Without science helping is in circumventing our human intuition, bias, etc... we would have NEVER come up with it.

And we wouldn't be having this conversation either, because plenty of crucial technology required for this mode of communication, would have never existed.

I feel like singing a chorus and wave a flag in honour of science. But I think that stupendous powers of consciousness-mind is substratum for all our successes, including for the soaring successes in philosophy, art and music

What kind of success are you talking about here and how is it relevant to what is being talked about?

The question is, if intelligence was born of mechanism, would this unlimited grandeur be expected?

Why not?