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

[atanu]

That is rather too much for me to read, ..

He he. It took time and effort to compile that junk, intended to intimidate. So, it has succeeded, I would say.

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.

This point is already dealt in my earlier post. I will repeat. As per the materialistic concept, 'objects out there' impinge on your senses and the data is processed in brain, which gives you a picture. There is no way to know the reality as-it-is except through the brain processing. So, what is the difference between your seeing an ice cream as an object and seeing the brain as an object? Both the pictures are supposed to be representations.

Furthermore, the conclusion that the object that you see, supposedly outside your mind through certain processing, is the source of the very cognition, is far fetched imo.

Much parsimonious is the view that consciousness -- the knowledge and the knowing, is the ontological primitive and that the universe of matter supervenes on that.

 

[atanu]

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.

Yes. But QM does not militate against vedantic view of world.

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

What kind of success are you talking about here and how is it relevant to what is being talked about?
Why not?

I told you that some people's optimism feels good. Was invention of wheel not revolutionary? It multiplied your mobility. Similarly when mechanical power of lever was understood. Or when Einstein understood the General Relativity. And of course the quantum mechanics too. But all these grand successes are possible because we are given a wonderful power of consciousness. No one says that a cycle is master of man because it can move faster. Why today we foolishly say that AI will become master of us?

Tragedy of materialism is this. Materialism says that 'matter' is the creator of consciousness and thus effectively it hands over the Lordship (control) to inert material. It is we who cognise and define matter, employing this wonderful power, but it is we who then explain away the extraordinary power of consciousness itself. We suppose that it is as an ordinary mechanism of the cognised matter. Is it not a joke?

Godel in his famous disjunctive statements, based on his own Incompleteness theorem, stated it beautifully. In essence, he said that either the human mind is infinitely more powerful than any machine or if it was a mechanism there would be unsolvable problems. Mechanism cannot understand itself.

That we can do philosophy, science, art, music, mediation on self and enquire "Who Am I?" contradicts the supposition that human mind is mechanism. But that is not saying that most human minds are not mere mechanisms. Most minds are indeed unconscious mechanism -- controlled by externalities.

But the whole point is that human mind has the competence to wrest back the control by being conscious.

...

 

[ChristineM]

He he. It took time and effort to compile that junk, intended to intimidate. So, it has succeeded, I would say.

Not in the least, i am dyslexic and when i see a sea of text i simply say f*** it. Sorry you wasted your time

This point is already dealt in my earlier post. I will repeat. As per the materialistic concept, 'objects out there' impinge on your senses and the data is processed in brain, which gives you a picture. There is no way to know the reality as-it-is except through the brain processing. So, what is the difference between your seeing an ice cream as an object and seeing the brain as an object? Both the pictures are supposed to be representations.

Furthermore, the conclusion that the object that you see, supposedly outside your mind through certain processing, is the source of the very cognition, is far fetched imo.

Much parsimonious is the view that consciousness -- the knowledge and the knowing, is the ontological primitive and that the universe of matter supervenes on that.

And still, electrical signals operating nurones are real. And what i see, can be weighed, measured, touched, seen by other people is as real as it gets. Unless you need to invoke magic

 

[atanu]

Not in the least, i am dyslexic and when i see a sea of text i simply say f*** it. Sorry you wasted your time

Oh. Do not worry. I was joking. Nothing was wasted.

[/quote]And still, electrical signals operating nurones are real. And what i see, can be weighed, measured, touched, seen by other people is as real as it gets. Unless you need to invoke magic[/QUOTE]

Magic is the concept that what you see engenders seeing. And magic is the concept that materials characterised by physical parameters suddenly developed phenomenal consciousness. And magic is the concept that billions of discrete pieces of apparatus somehow manage to talk and share the same view of universe.

OTOH, the ‘consciousness first’ worldview has no need to resort to magical explanation.

Furthermore, I showed how materialistic explanations of G.E. Moore and Bertrand Russel ultimately boil down to ‘idealism’, because materialism as such fails to explain ‘prepositional knowledge’.

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.

 

[ChristineM]

Oh. Do not worry. I was joking. Nothing was wasted.


Magic is the concept that what you see engenders seeing. And magic is the concept that materials characterised by physical parameters suddenly developed phenomenal consciousness. And magic is the concept that billions of discrete pieces of apparatus somehow manage to talk and share the same view of universe.

OTOH, the ‘consciousness first’ worldview has no need to resort to magical explanation.

Furthermore, I showed how materialistic explanations of G.E. Moore and Bertrand Russel ultimately boil down to ‘idealism’, because materialism as such fails to explain ‘prepositional knowledge’.

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.

I am not worried, i thought that was obvious in my comment.

Magic is a concept that fools the willing to believe

You showed what a couple of philosophers thought about medical science that did not exist 100 years ago... Cool

Sense data - As in observed, weighed and measured, material, tangible, actual .. i think touched on that.


Methinks you are confusing what you think about something with the thing itself, as if not seeing a physical object causes it to cease to exist.

 

[atanu]

I am not worried, i thought that was obvious in my comment.

Magic is a constant that fools the willing to believe

You showed what a couple of philosophers thought about medical science that did not exist then... Coo

Sense data - As in observed, weighed and measured, material, tangible, actual .. i think touched on that.

Methinks you are confusing what you think about something with the thing itself, as if not seeing a physical object causes it to cease to exist.

You are mistaken, as are most, on this point.

In materialism, there cannot be actual knowledge of actual thing other than what brain constructs about the thing. And the world out there, as it is, must forever remain unknown. In this worldview, we only know as per re-constructions of brain.

I will stop here and begin with the empirical evidences that favour idealistic view, the main purpose of the thread.

 

[ChristineM]

You are mistaken.

In materialism, there cannot be actual knowledge of actual thing other than what brain constructs about the thing and the world out there, as it is, must forever remain unknown. In this worldview, we only know as per re-constructions of brain.

I will stop here and begin with the empirical evidences that favour idealistic view, the main purpose of the thread.

You are mistaken, as is the philosophical concept of materialism. Stuff exists. Note, weighed, measured, touched, etc. If you stop looking it still exists, others can weigh and measure it, observe it. Real stuff is not a figment of the imagination.

 

[atanu]

You are mistaken, as is the philosophical concept of materialism. Stuff exists. Note, weighed, measured, touched, etc. If you stop looking it still exists, others can weigh and measure it, observe it. Real stuff is not a figment of the imagination.

Yes. Stuff exists but brain reconstructs.

 

[wellwisher]

In practical reality, both materialism and idealism exist, side-by-side. It is not one or the other. Our sensory systems input data to the brain from physical reality. Very specific photons enter our eyes allowing us to see a thing. Our senses confirms that reality is tangible, since the same input data; same types of photons, can be confirmed independently by others. This supports the materialist POV.

However, in politics for example, even though we all have access to the same sensory input data, each political POV will interpret the same reality and/or extended reality in different ways; Climate change. This could be due to selective sensory input, based on pre-existing filter bias. We see what we want to see, and ignore the rest, so the data appears to add up to the reality we want or expect to see. This is an example of idealism. Each side has conviction, yet neither can agree, based on the same data access.

In terms of creativity, for both applied science and the arts, the created object or thesis, first exists within the mind of the creator, before it becomes part of material reality; idealism before materialism. After it becomes tangible; constructed, it appears to be materialistic, in origin, for everyone else.

Most of what we know; education, started within key individuals, before it became part of collective knowledge; Darwin's published paper. It was not obvious at first based on sensory data, nor did everyone develop it, simultaneously, from scratch, in a purely materialistic way. It begins as idealism yet confirms materialism, based on collective sensory input.

But on the other hand, if you have an idea; idealism, there are physical constraints in terms of how it can be expressed within tangible reality. We cannot build a large bridge out of gummy bears or write a song based only on noise, even if this is idealistic. It is when both idealism and the practical limits of materialism work together, that our collective knowledge, technology and art improves. Even the artist is limited to how the brain and sensory systems harmoniously coordinate.

An interesting area of human knowledge is religion. It is not easy or nor is it common to see God; materialism. On the other hand, we cannot see gravity, either. We can see what appears to be the affect of gravity on objects; second hand evidence for inference. On the other hand, we can feel gravity pulling on our body. But we can also feel God through intuitions.

Human has five external sensory systems. But we also has many internal sensory systems, that monitor the workings of the body via the nervous system. These internal sensory system monitor materialistic chemical state data associated with the internal micro and macro environments of cells and organs. These will feedback to the brain and nervous system. If we have an upset stomach we know it. Others will infer this through, via the five external system, as second hand data, such as body language and sounds.

This extra sensory data, that is conscious from within, is also materialistic in origin; provable by science. However, although materialistic in origin, the idealistic conventions of science filters this data out of the observational sphere. It is called subjective, even though this is valid data, in a material sense, as much as is external sensory data.

The difference is, this internal data is not easy to verify by others, since each brain is wired to be separate at this level. The five collective sensory systems are externally oriented and can simultaneously verified. However, these same internal senses, are often the basis for hunches and feelings, behind the creative knowledge of idealism, that can be made manifest, for external sensory confirmation. This is where idealism and materialism overlap, but are treated as separate by the idealism within extroverted science; bias filter that only allows external senses.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes. Stuff exists but brain reconstructs.

The stuff still exists no matter what you think of it

And the brain thinks, although it can guide reconstruction it does not actually do it itself

 

[atanu]

...

This extra sensory data, that is conscious from within, is also materialistic in origin; provable by science. .

How?

Please explain a single experience starting with material. Please explain how 'material out there', characterised by physical parameters, acquire phenomenality?

 

[atanu]

The stuff still exists no matter what you think of it

No doubt stuff exists, else we would not have these discussions. But the question in OP was: Can any stuff exist outside of awareness/experience? So, is 'realism -- that an objective world exists independent of mind, provable without taking recourse to 'awareness'? And can you ever know the stuff 'as-it-is'? As per materialism, the stuff 'as-it-is' is unknowable. We can only know the processed output. Cognitive scientists have, employing evolutionary game theory, shown that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality | Quanta Magazine

Furthermore, Quantum Contextuality entails that measurements of quantum observables cannot simply be thought of as revealing pre-existing values. Any attempt to do so leads to values that are dependent upon which other measurements are being performed (the measurement context). Quantum physics indicates that even a non local realism is untenable.

Quantum contextuality - Wikipedia
An experimental test of non-local realism

So, the concept that stuff exist objectively, independent of the context of measurement, is not tenable. And, our knowing is always of the interface and not of the 'thing-as-it-is'.

And the brain thinks, although it can guide reconstruction it does not actually do it itself

I do not understand what that means.

 

[ChristineM]

Can any stuff exist outside of awareness/experience?

All matter/energy (stuff) that exists now existed in one form or another before human beings existed to even think they are bigger than the universe. Bigging yourself up with philosophical concepts that are irrelevant to the nature of the universe is simply an ego trip.

I do not understand what that means.

You said the brain reconstructs. It doesn't.

 

[atanu]

All matter/energy (stuff) that exists now existed in one form or another before human beings existed

How do you know that? Is your claim separate from your awareness?

to even think they are bigger than the universe. Bigging yourself up with philosophical concepts that are irrelevant to the nature of the universe is simply an ego trip.

On the contrary. It is a gratefulness and a realization of the gift given to me so that I may enjoy sensual delights, so that I may enjoy lofty thoughts, music and art. I am thankful that this small individual consciousness is powered by a beautiful divine gift.

You said the brain reconstructs. It doesn't.

So? What does brain do?

 

[ChristineM]

How do you know that? Is your claim separate from your awareness?

1st law of thermodynamics

On the contrary. It is a gratefulness and a realization of the gift given to me so that I may enjoy sensual delights, so that I may enjoy lofty thoughts, music and art. I am thankful that this small individual consciousness is powered by a beautiful divine gift.

Most people call them dreams, pleasure and sensation, they attach no (or little) fundimental or spiritual significance to them.

So? What does brain do?

I dont usually repeat myself but just for you

And the brain thinks, although it can guide reconstruction it does not actually do it itself

 

[atanu]

1st law of thermodynamics

How does 1st law of thermodynamics prove that 1st law of thermodynamics can be known in absence of consciousness? My question was that. How do you know anything at all without awareness?

Most people call them dreams, pleasure and sensation, they attach no (or little) fundamental or spiritual significance to them.

You attach importance to matter that supposedly gave rise to love, joy etc. I reject that view. There is no explanation as to how material ultimates, characterized by mass, spin, charge, momentum etc., give rise to phenomenality: experience of love and joy and also absence of these.

{quote]I dont usually repeat myself but just for you[/QUOTE]

I still do not understand as to what you meant by "And the brain thinks, although it can guide reconstruction it does not actually do it itself".

 

[ChristineM]

How does 1st law of thermodynamics prove that 1st law of thermodynamics can be known in absence of consciousness? My question was that. How do you know anything at all without awareness?

The first law of thermodynamics does not need proof because every single observed chemical and physical process is known to obey that law.

You attach importance to matter that supposedly gave rise to love, joy etc. I reject that view. There is no explanation as to how material ultimates, characterized by mass, spin, charge, momentum etc., give rise to phenomenality: experience of love and joy and also absence of these.

Are you saying emotions are not the result of electrochemical action in the brain? Neuroscience is learning more and more about the way the brain works. You are welcome to reject their views, they dont actually need your approval.

I still do not understand as to what you meant...

Obviously, nor sure i can teach you.

 

[atanu]

The first law of thermodynamics does not need proof because every single observed chemical and physical process is known to obey that law.

I am not questioning the law. But 1st law of thermodynamics might not be applicable before Planck epoch. Or if we consider Big Bang as zero time, then energy of the universe at t=zero and now would be zero. In either case 1st law of thermodynamics would have nothing to do with proof of realism — that there is an objective universe external to mind. It is an axiom. It cannot be proven since nothing can be known outside of awareness.

Are you saying emotions are not the result of electrochemical action in the brain? Neuroscience is learning more and more about the way the brain works. You are welcome to reject their views, they dont actually need your approval.

Why should a skeptic's question be taken as seeking approval? Who needs it?

I am simply asking you to provide a mechanism that explains how ‘matter’ characterised by physical properties such as mass etc., give rise to phenomenal qualities such love and hatred; taste of garlic and onion; the bliss of orgasm?

 

[ChristineM]

I am not questioning the law. But 1st law of thermodynamics might not be applicable before Planck epoch. Or if we consider Big Bang as zero time, then energy of the universe at t=zero and now would be zero. In either case 1st law of thermodynamics would have nothing to do with proof of realism — that there is an objective universe external to mind. It is an axiom. It cannot be proven since nothing can be known outside of awareness.

The laws of thermodynamics did not even begin to form until after 10e-32 of a second after the bb. But what has this to do with human thought or even matter which did not exist then?

Why should a skeptic's question be taken as seeking approval? Who needs it?

I am simply asking you to provide a mechanism that explains how ‘matter’ characterised by physical properties such as mass etc., give rise to phenomenal qualities such love and hatred; taste of garlic and onion; the bliss of orgasm?

Ok, so you have no answer your own question, fair enough.

No you were asking why the brain does not reconstruct. My reply was the brain thinks. Thinking about something does not reconstruct it, it imagines it

As to emotion, as i stated, electrochemical processes. As to the neuroscience behind that, i suggest you ask a neuroscientist.

 

[atanu]

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

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 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.

Wrong. Materialism is mythical and unfalsifiable. Material ultimates characterised by mass etc. suddenly developing phenomenally is mythical. And the claim /assertion that materials developed consciousness is not only falsifiable but has no evidence in its support. OTOH, the worldview that consciousness is the ontological primitive is supported by the ability of meditators to control their mind-body. Brain plasticity is almost a certain proof that the self is not the brain but is its controller.

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

Yes. In the following posts I will note evidences that support the 'consciousness first' worldview.