To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

[JackDaydream]

This has always been for me one of the biggest philosophy questions. It is at the core of the debate between materialism and idealism. The way in which consiousness is seen is dependent on it, with Dennett's idea of consciousness being an illusion being bound up with a physicalist approach. B F Skinner's model of psychology, which was central to the behaviourist approach to psychology was based on the philosophy of materialism.

Assumptions about whether the material reality is the most 'real' reality are at the basis of the various psychological models. The cognitive school of psychology seems to embrace both, through incorporating the objective findings of neuroscience with the meanings of human beings, in the way in which the beliefs and interpretative meanings of a person are central to psychological awareness and to human behaviour. Social psychology and other social sciences, especially sociology and anthropology also focus upon the meanings and values of individuals and cultures.

Some of the ideas of biological essentialism, including seeing gender as being simply about the physical categorisation of the body into the sexes rest upon physicalist assumptions. To what extent is a person equatable with the body alone? What about the inner world of consciousness as an important aspect of reality. My own metaphysical viewpoint is that mind and matter are both essential and it is not possible to say that one is more real than the other. The philosophy of realism focuses on the outer world as the 'real'. However, it is a difficult area to think about and it does involve what was asked in postmodernism: what is the difference between the real and the imaginary? This also relates to the nature of symbolic structures, as well as reason and ideas itself. So, what is the most 'real' reality?

[stevie]

Eliminative materialism appears as appropriate working hypothesis to me which entails that all of mentality (mental phenomena like "consciousness", "mind", "feelings", "volition", "intention", an appearing sense of "self" but also all concepts and ideas) are - best case - illusory but useful artifices created by the brain or - worst case - illusory and harmful by-products of the brains outstanding computational capacities which entail temporary or pathological imbalances in the system of regulating neurological circuits.
It's important that this working hypothesis needs to be applied to itself, i.e. to the thoughts I am expressing here, too, so I am neither speculating about a "reality" nor am I trying to find a "true reality" but - as per working hypothesis - the brain makes me express what I am expressing and creates my sense of "self" which supports the useful illusion that it would be me who decides about what I am thinking, affirming and negating and intending to express and do. But all this is - as per working hypothesis - only an artifice of the brain's system of self regulating circuits which is completely in line with what humans understand as "everyday life".

[3017Metaphysician]

This has always been for me one of the biggest philosophy questions. It is at the core of the debate between materialism and idealism. The way in which consiousness is seen is dependent on it, with Dennett's idea of consciousness being an illusion being bound up with a physicalist approach. B F Skinner's model of psychology, which was central to the behaviourist approach to psychology was based on the philosophy of materialism.

Assumptions about whether the material reality is the most 'real' reality are at the basis of the various psychological models. The cognitive school of psychology seems to embrace both, through incorporating the objective findings of neuroscience with the meanings of human beings, in the way in which the beliefs and interpretative meanings of a person are central to psychological awareness and to human behaviour. Social psychology and other social sciences, especially sociology and anthropology also focus upon the meanings and values of individuals and cultures.

Some of the ideas of biological essentialism, including seeing gender as being simply about the physical categorisation of the body into the sexes rest upon physicalist assumptions. To what extent is a person equatable with the body alone? What about the inner world of consciousness as an important aspect of reality. My own metaphysical viewpoint is that mind and matter are both essential and it is not possible to say that one is more real than the other. The philosophy of realism focuses on the outer world as the 'real'. However, it is a difficult area to think about and it does involve what was asked in postmodernism: what is the difference between the real and the imaginary? This also relates to the nature of symbolic structures, as well as reason and ideas itself. So, what is the most 'real' reality?

Jack!

RE: So, what is the most 'real' reality?

If we ask to what extend we find ourselves in a mind-dependent reality, which is in itself logically necessary (that it requires a consciousness) to even apperceive reality, then we must recognize the primacy of the mind itself. Accordingly, that would lead us to some form of philosophical Subjectivity. And to some extent, the concept of Subjective Idealism would correspond. In short, Subjective truth's that result from that sense of self-awareness, is "most real" to most people.

In that context, your question of what is real or imaginary, would be answered Subjectively by saying both. In other words, no distinction can be made. This is not to deny an external objective existence or reality, it's just to invoke primacy of the subject over the object. And those truth's are real to us and no one else (sort of).

[SteveKlinko]

This has always been for me one of the biggest philosophy questions. It is at the core of the debate between materialism and idealism. The way in which consiousness is seen is dependent on it, with Dennett's idea of consciousness being an illusion being bound up with a physicalist approach. B F Skinner's model of psychology, which was central to the behaviourist approach to psychology was based on the philosophy of materialism.

Assumptions about whether the material reality is the most 'real' reality are at the basis of the various psychological models. The cognitive school of psychology seems to embrace both, through incorporating the objective findings of neuroscience with the meanings of human beings, in the way in which the beliefs and interpretative meanings of a person are central to psychological awareness and to human behaviour. Social psychology and other social sciences, especially sociology and anthropology also focus upon the meanings and values of individuals and cultures.

Some of the ideas of biological essentialism, including seeing gender as being simply about the physical categorisation of the body into the sexes rest upon physicalist assumptions. To what extent is a person equatable with the body alone? What about the inner world of consciousness as an important aspect of reality. My own metaphysical viewpoint is that mind and matter are both essential and it is not possible to say that one is more real than the other. The philosophy of realism focuses on the outer world as the 'real'. However, it is a difficult area to think about and it does involve what was asked in postmodernism: what is the difference between the real and the imaginary? This also relates to the nature of symbolic structures, as well as reason and ideas itself. So, what is the most 'real' reality?

The Inter Mind sections on Volition, Knowledge, Understanding, Creativity, Humor, and Emotions have shown that these aspects of the Human Mind are firmly based in the Conscious Mind (CM). I believe it can be said that these are some of the main activities of Thinking. But the Physical Mind (PM) has no Volition, Knowledge, Understanding, Creativity, Humor, or Emotions. In other words, the Physical Mind is unable to Think. Thinking involves a CM as the place where these things happen. Also, we have previously realized that all Sensory Experience happens in the CM. Consider Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, the Smell of Bleach, and the Touch of a Rough Surface.

Taking this one step further, it is Logical to Speculate that everything we are, everything we thought we were, and Everything Else, is some kind of Conscious Experience. We might actually only Exist as CMs in Conscious Space, and are merely Connected to our PMs in Physical Space. There might be no Conscious or Thinking aspect in the PM that is part of what we are. The PM would be an Unconscious, Electrochemical, Mechanistic, Tool that the CM uses. In terms of a Ghost in the Machine concept, I think we can say that the CM is not a Ghost in the Machine, but rather a Ghost Connected to the Machine. The Human Body/Brain Machine is the Phantom that does not Consciously Exist and eventually dies and goes away. The CM Ghost is the only Real thing that we Are and have Known.

When the PM goes away, the CM will probably just say: ... Hmmm ... What was that? ... and then go about the business it was doing for eons prior to that Physical Life Connection. Or maybe it will Think and Remember, and Realize it has learned from the Experience.

[3017Metaphysician]

This has always been for me one of the biggest philosophy questions. It is at the core of the debate between materialism and idealism. The way in which consiousness is seen is dependent on it, with Dennett's idea of consciousness being an illusion being bound up with a physicalist approach. B F Skinner's model of psychology, which was central to the behaviourist approach to psychology was based on the philosophy of materialism.

Assumptions about whether the material reality is the most 'real' reality are at the basis of the various psychological models. The cognitive school of psychology seems to embrace both, through incorporating the objective findings of neuroscience with the meanings of human beings, in the way in which the beliefs and interpretative meanings of a person are central to psychological awareness and to human behaviour. Social psychology and other social sciences, especially sociology and anthropology also focus upon the meanings and values of individuals and cultures.

Some of the ideas of biological essentialism, including seeing gender as being simply about the physical categorisation of the body into the sexes rest upon physicalist assumptions. To what extent is a person equatable with the body alone? What about the inner world of consciousness as an important aspect of reality. My own metaphysical viewpoint is that mind and matter are both essential and it is not possible to say that one is more real than the other. The philosophy of realism focuses on the outer world as the 'real'. However, it is a difficult area to think about and it does involve what was asked in postmodernism: what is the difference between the real and the imaginary? This also relates to the nature of symbolic structures, as well as reason and ideas itself. So, what is the most 'real' reality?

The Inter Mind sections on Volition, Knowledge, Understanding, Creativity, Humor, and Emotions have shown that these aspects of the Human Mind are firmly based in the Conscious Mind (CM). I believe it can be said that these are some of the main activities of Thinking. But the Physical Mind (PM) has no Volition, Knowledge, Understanding, Creativity, Humor, or Emotions. In other words, the Physical Mind is unable to Think. Thinking involves a CM as the place where these things happen. Also, we have previously realized that all Sensory Experience happens in the CM. Consider Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, the Smell of Bleach, and the Touch of a Rough Surface.

Taking this one step further, it is Logical to Speculate that everything we are, everything we thought we were, and Everything Else, is some kind of Conscious Experience. We might actually only Exist as CMs in Conscious Space, and are merely Connected to our PMs in Physical Space. There might be no Conscious or Thinking aspect in the PM that is part of what we are. The PM would be an Unconscious, Electrochemical, Mechanistic, Tool that the CM uses. In terms of a Ghost in the Machine concept, I think we can say that the CM is not a Ghost in the Machine, but rather a Ghost Connected to the Machine. The Human Body/Brain Machine is the Phantom that does not Consciously Exist and eventually dies and goes away. The CM Ghost is the only Real thing that we Are and have Known.

When the PM goes away, the CM will probably just say: ... Hmmm ... What was that? ... and then go about the business it was doing for eons prior to that Physical Life Connection. Or maybe it will Think and Remember, and Realize it has learned from the Experience.

SK!

Nice! Perhaps the CM will return to its place of Kantian noumenon. There, an informational paradox, much like Hawking's black hole, may reside within some category of thought that transcends our understanding of both the subject and object (the physical and metaphysical, mind and matter, etc.). A realism that goes beyond the usual categories of understanding. Perhaps an open manifold of unobserved spacetime...a truly novel intellect so abstract that comprehension of its essence remains noumenal. That archetype of conscious existence, could be that which breath's fire into the Hawking equations.

Here's a thought. Maybe add to your philosophy:

CM, PM as well as CE (conscious existence). This way, one could be allowed (making use of their consciousness/the synthetic a priori) to speculate into the nature of reality or otherwise those things-in-themselves.

[JackDaydream]

Eliminative materialism appears as appropriate working hypothesis to me which entails that all of mentality (mental phenomena like "consciousness", "mind", "feelings", "volition", "intention", an appearing sense of "self" but also all concepts and ideas) are - best case - illusory but useful artifices created by the brain or - worst case - illusory and harmful by-products of the brains outstanding computational capacities which entail temporary or pathological imbalances in the system of regulating neurological circuits.
It's important that this working hypothesis needs to be applied to itself, i.e. to the thoughts I am expressing here, too, so I am neither speculating about a "reality" nor am I trying to find a "true reality" but - as per working hypothesis - the brain makes me express what I am expressing and creates my sense of "self" which supports the useful illusion that it would be me who decides about what I am thinking, affirming and negating and intending to express and do. But all this is - as per working hypothesis - only an artifice of the brain's system of self regulating circuits which is completely in line with what humans understand as "everyday life".

Your post gives a really good description of eliminative materialism. The way in which you portray is very clear and when evaluating an argument it is worth examining the viewpoint in it's best form, in order to understand strengths and weaknesses fully. In your description of a 'working hypothesis' and 'an artifice of the brain's system of self regulating circuits, do you see consciousness as having any reflective capacity and connection to anything beyond the physical as a category or dimension in any kind of independent way?

[JackDaydream]

This has always been for me one of the biggest philosophy questions. It is at the core of the debate between materialism and idealism. The way in which consiousness is seen is dependent on it, with Dennett's idea of consciousness being an illusion being bound up with a physicalist approach. B F Skinner's model of psychology, which was central to the behaviourist approach to psychology was based on the philosophy of materialism.

Assumptions about whether the material reality is the most 'real' reality are at the basis of the various psychological models. The cognitive school of psychology seems to embrace both, through incorporating the objective findings of neuroscience with the meanings of human beings, in the way in which the beliefs and interpretative meanings of a person are central to psychological awareness and to human behaviour. Social psychology and other social sciences, especially sociology and anthropology also focus upon the meanings and values of individuals and cultures.

Some of the ideas of biological essentialism, including seeing gender as being simply about the physical categorisation of the body into the sexes rest upon physicalist assumptions. To what extent is a person equatable with the body alone? What about the inner world of consciousness as an important aspect of reality. My own metaphysical viewpoint is that mind and matter are both essential and it is not possible to say that one is more real than the other. The philosophy of realism focuses on the outer world as the 'real'. However, it is a difficult area to think about and it does involve what was asked in postmodernism: what is the difference between the real and the imaginary? This also relates to the nature of symbolic structures, as well as reason and ideas itself. So, what is the most 'real' reality?

Jack!

RE: So, what is the most 'real' reality?

If we ask to what extend we find ourselves in a mind-dependent reality, which is in itself logically necessary (that it requires a consciousness) to even apperceive reality, then we must recognize the primacy of the mind itself. Accordingly, that would lead us to some form of philosophical Subjectivity. And to some extent, the concept of Subjective Idealism would correspond. In short, Subjective truth's that result from that sense of self-awareness, is "most real" to most people.

In that context, your question of what is real or imaginary, would be answered Subjectively by saying both. In other words, no distinction can be made. This is not to deny an external objective existence or reality, it's just to invoke primacy of the subject over the object. And those truth's are real to us and no one else (sort of).

Hello, the division between inner and outer, mind and matter, as well as subjective and objective do all hinge on how the nature of what is real in emphasis. I do see the splitting of these qualities as problematic, especially when taken to the extremes of such position. However, even when I try to go beyond such dualistic thinking it still seems debatable to what extent they can be blended entirely without going towards one of the aspects of duality.

As you say it requires 'to perceive a reality'. This seems to go back to the question as to whether a falling tree makes a sound if no one is around to hear it? This throws the issue of the nature of perception as being connected to the mind, and possibly subjective idealism. Part of the problem is that it is not possible to get out of the mind and perceive without a mind. To a large extent, the validation of reality beyond one's own mind is consensus shared perceptions. That is often how inner and outer are put together in thinking about the nature of reality, but it does often seem that many people seem to come down to the philosophy of realism, with the objects of the material world being primary, and I am not sure that this bias is not too strongly towards physicalism, especially in the understanding of consciousness. Nevertheless, I will admit that the idea of a disembodied mind does seem questionable.

[JackDaydream]

This has always been for me one of the biggest philosophy questions. It is at the core of the debate between materialism and idealism. The way in which consiousness is seen is dependent on it, with Dennett's idea of consciousness being an illusion being bound up with a physicalist approach. B F Skinner's model of psychology, which was central to the behaviourist approach to psychology was based on the philosophy of materialism.

Assumptions about whether the material reality is the most 'real' reality are at the basis of the various psychological models. The cognitive school of psychology seems to embrace both, through incorporating the objective findings of neuroscience with the meanings of human beings, in the way in which the beliefs and interpretative meanings of a person are central to psychological awareness and to human behaviour. Social psychology and other social sciences, especially sociology and anthropology also focus upon the meanings and values of individuals and cultures.

Some of the ideas of biological essentialism, including seeing gender as being simply about the physical categorisation of the body into the sexes rest upon physicalist assumptions. To what extent is a person equatable with the body alone? What about the inner world of consciousness as an important aspect of reality. My own metaphysical viewpoint is that mind and matter are both essential and it is not possible to say that one is more real than the other. The philosophy of realism focuses on the outer world as the 'real'. However, it is a difficult area to think about and it does involve what was asked in postmodernism: what is the difference between the real and the imaginary? This also relates to the nature of symbolic structures, as well as reason and ideas itself. So, what is the most 'real' reality?

The Inter Mind sections on Volition, Knowledge, Understanding, Creativity, Humor, and Emotions have shown that these aspects of the Human Mind are firmly based in the Conscious Mind (CM). I believe it can be said that these are some of the main activities of Thinking. But the Physical Mind (PM) has no Volition, Knowledge, Understanding, Creativity, Humor, or Emotions. In other words, the Physical Mind is unable to Think. Thinking involves a CM as the place where these things happen. Also, we have previously realized that all Sensory Experience happens in the CM. Consider Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Taste of Salt, the Smell of Bleach, and the Touch of a Rough Surface.

Taking this one step further, it is Logical to Speculate that everything we are, everything we thought we were, and Everything Else, is some kind of Conscious Experience. We might actually only Exist as CMs in Conscious Space, and are merely Connected to our PMs in Physical Space. There might be no Conscious or Thinking aspect in the PM that is part of what we are. The PM would be an Unconscious, Electrochemical, Mechanistic, Tool that the CM uses. In terms of a Ghost in the Machine concept, I think we can say that the CM is not a Ghost in the Machine, but rather a Ghost Connected to the Machine. The Human Body/Brain Machine is the Phantom that does not Consciously Exist and eventually dies and goes away. The CM Ghost is the only Real thing that we Are and have Known.

When the PM goes away, the CM will probably just say: ... Hmmm ... What was that? ... and then go about the business it was doing for eons prior to that Physical Life Connection. Or maybe it will Think and Remember, and Realize it has learned from the Experience.

Thanks for your detailed reply. The most interesting statement which I find in your post is about the conscious mind is not 'a Ghost in the Machine, but rather a Ghost connected to a Machine.'. The idea of the ghost in the machine was too problematic as involving a potential separation between mind and body, almost as a mind within a body as a container. The notion of a Ghost connected to a machine is more intricate as seeing the brain as the basis of wiring between brain and body.

It may well be that consciousness fizzles with the end of the brain's existence as the idea of disembodied consciousness. The nature of consciousness does seem to be imminent rather than separate, although my one query would be the possibility that the brain is a filtering down of consciousness. This was the view of Henri Bergson of and Aldous Huxley, with the idea of there being 'mind at large'. This concept would also relate to Jung's idea of the collective unconscious, which would be about a source for the existence of consciousness itself. But, the nature of this source is a little unclear because it does depend whether the unconscious is completely unconscious, or whether anything remains of a person's consciousness beyond the death of the brain. Is consciousness once it exists simply a product of the physical or does it develop into any independent form of existence which transcends matter?

[3017Metaphysician]

This has always been for me one of the biggest philosophy questions. It is at the core of the debate between materialism and idealism. The way in which consiousness is seen is dependent on it, with Dennett's idea of consciousness being an illusion being bound up with a physicalist approach. B F Skinner's model of psychology, which was central to the behaviourist approach to psychology was based on the philosophy of materialism.

Assumptions about whether the material reality is the most 'real' reality are at the basis of the various psychological models. The cognitive school of psychology seems to embrace both, through incorporating the objective findings of neuroscience with the meanings of human beings, in the way in which the beliefs and interpretative meanings of a person are central to psychological awareness and to human behaviour. Social psychology and other social sciences, especially sociology and anthropology also focus upon the meanings and values of individuals and cultures.

Some of the ideas of biological essentialism, including seeing gender as being simply about the physical categorisation of the body into the sexes rest upon physicalist assumptions. To what extent is a person equatable with the body alone? What about the inner world of consciousness as an important aspect of reality. My own metaphysical viewpoint is that mind and matter are both essential and it is not possible to say that one is more real than the other. The philosophy of realism focuses on the outer world as the 'real'. However, it is a difficult area to think about and it does involve what was asked in postmodernism: what is the difference between the real and the imaginary? This also relates to the nature of symbolic structures, as well as reason and ideas itself. So, what is the most 'real' reality?

Jack!

RE: So, what is the most 'real' reality?

If we ask to what extend we find ourselves in a mind-dependent reality, which is in itself logically necessary (that it requires a consciousness) to even apperceive reality, then we must recognize the primacy of the mind itself. Accordingly, that would lead us to some form of philosophical Subjectivity. And to some extent, the concept of Subjective Idealism would correspond. In short, Subjective truth's that result from that sense of self-awareness, is "most real" to most people.

In that context, your question of what is real or imaginary, would be answered Subjectively by saying both. In other words, no distinction can be made. This is not to deny an external objective existence or reality, it's just to invoke primacy of the subject over the object. And those truth's are real to us and no one else (sort of).

Hello, the division between inner and outer, mind and matter, as well as subjective and objective do all hinge on how the nature of what is real in emphasis. I do see the splitting of these qualities as problematic, especially when taken to the extremes of such position. However, even when I try to go beyond such dualistic thinking it still seems debatable to what extent they can be blended entirely without going towards one of the aspects of duality.

As you say it requires 'to perceive a reality'. This seems to go back to the question as to whether a falling tree makes a sound if no one is around to hear it? This throws the issue of the nature of perception as being connected to the mind, and possibly subjective idealism. Part of the problem is that it is not possible to get out of the mind and perceive without a mind. To a large extent, the validation of reality beyond one's own mind is consensus shared perceptions. That is often how inner and outer are put together in thinking about the nature of reality, but it does often seem that many people seem to come down to the philosophy of realism, with the objects of the material world being primary, and I am not sure that this bias is not too strongly towards physicalism, especially in the understanding of consciousness. Nevertheless, I will admit that the idea of a disembodied mind does seem questionable.

Jack!

Excellent point about 'if the tree falls in the forest and nobody heard it' riddle/phenomenon. This corresponds to things like Kantian neumenon, objectivity, ideal forms, realism, among many abstract philosophical concepts that give us a sense of some things having an independent existence. And that is to emphasize that different language's are required to decode the informational database in order to even attempt understanding the Transcendence of the Subjectivity-Objectivity dichotomy (from our epistemology).

The simple example to the former is that a metaphysical language of mathematics is required to explain the physics of sound waves. The paradox of that particular understanding of sound without a human to hear it, results from something metaphysical (mathematics) describing something physical (sound waves). Our abstract understanding of gravity is yet another example... . And that's in spite of the problem with unchanging objective truth's associated with abstract reasoning (mathematics) that describ change (dualism in the universe). In any event, there is no consistent object-to-object, physical-to-physical, metaphysical-to-, metaphysical language to help reconcile parts if this 'reality' paradox.

All that is to say pure objective reasoning that science uses (mathematics), can also correspond to a platonic existence, independent of our reality. But there again another paradox rears its head, because if it takes a human to appercieve, cognize, or otherwise appreciate mathematics, how could it correspond to something outside of us, having an independent existence? Hence, Subjectivity is, 'more' real (using your phrase) to most all people. And that suggests consciousness itself, takes primacy. Henceforth, the idea of an ordered intelligence within, as well as outside, the universe.

I think, among others, Kant and Schopenhauer understood that dynamic in their metaphysical philosophy... . Einstein's block universe contemplates an independent objective view of space-time. Is that real or an illusion, I wonder?

[stevie]

Eliminative materialism appears as appropriate working hypothesis to me which entails that all of mentality (mental phenomena like "consciousness", "mind", "feelings", "volition", "intention", an appearing sense of "self" but also all concepts and ideas) are - best case - illusory but useful artifices created by the brain or - worst case - illusory and harmful by-products of the brains outstanding computational capacities which entail temporary or pathological imbalances in the system of regulating neurological circuits.
It's important that this working hypothesis needs to be applied to itself, i.e. to the thoughts I am expressing here, too, so I am neither speculating about a "reality" nor am I trying to find a "true reality" but - as per working hypothesis - the brain makes me express what I am expressing and creates my sense of "self" which supports the useful illusion that it would be me who decides about what I am thinking, affirming and negating and intending to express and do. But all this is - as per working hypothesis - only an artifice of the brain's system of self regulating circuits which is completely in line with what humans understand as "everyday life".

Your post gives a really good description of eliminative materialism. The way in which you portray is very clear and when evaluating an argument it is worth examining the viewpoint in it's best form, in order to understand strengths and weaknesses fully. In your description of a 'working hypothesis' and 'an artifice of the brain's system of self regulating circuits, do you see consciousness as having any reflective capacity and connection to anything beyond the physical as a category or dimension in any kind of independent way?

Well, "consciousness" is - as per working hypothesis - at best a useful conceptual illusion to talk about mental/cognitive phenomena considering that there is a long tradition of speaking this way.

[Pattern-chaser]

Topic title: To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

...

Assumptions about whether the material reality is the most 'real' reality are at the basis of the various psychological models.

I think this is a matter of perspectives, in the sense that (nearly) all perspectives offer some value, even if some do offer more than others!

One perspective is the familiar scientific one: that only the physical universe can be measured, observed and tested, so there is no evidence for anything else, and no reason to seek anything else. This is an understandable and reasonable perspective, from that particular point of view.

Another perspective is the human-centric one. For all the overwhelming 'reality' of the physical universe, the lives we experience have little or nothing to do with it, even though those lives are played out on its stage. If I ask you what you did yesterday, your answer will probably not mention anything directly and significantly associated with the physical universe. It will instead be based on politics and current affairs, religion, the winner of the latest sports match, Britney Spears' latest video, and so on. We remember our lives having taken place in the arena of human culture, and not really in the physical universe at all.

[JackDaydream]

This has always been for me one of the biggest philosophy questions. It is at the core of the debate between materialism and idealism. The way in which consiousness is seen is dependent on it, with Dennett's idea of consciousness being an illusion being bound up with a physicalist approach. B F Skinner's model of psychology, which was central to the behaviourist approach to psychology was based on the philosophy of materialism.

Assumptions about whether the material reality is the most 'real' reality are at the basis of the various psychological models. The cognitive school of psychology seems to embrace both, through incorporating the objective findings of neuroscience with the meanings of human beings, in the way in which the beliefs and interpretative meanings of a person are central to psychological awareness and to human behaviour. Social psychology and other social sciences, especially sociology and anthropology also focus upon the meanings and values of individuals and cultures.

Some of the ideas of biological essentialism, including seeing gender as being simply about the physical categorisation of the body into the sexes rest upon physicalist assumptions. To what extent is a person equatable with the body alone? What about the inner world of consciousness as an important aspect of reality. My own metaphysical viewpoint is that mind and matter are both essential and it is not possible to say that one is more real than the other. The philosophy of realism focuses on the outer world as the 'real'. However, it is a difficult area to think about and it does involve what was asked in postmodernism: what is the difference between the real and the imaginary? This also relates to the nature of symbolic structures, as well as reason and ideas itself. So, what is the most 'real' reality?

Jack!

RE: So, what is the most 'real' reality?

If we ask to what extend we find ourselves in a mind-dependent reality, which is in itself logically necessary (that it requires a consciousness) to even apperceive reality, then we must recognize the primacy of the mind itself. Accordingly, that would lead us to some form of philosophical Subjectivity. And to some extent, the concept of Subjective Idealism would correspond. In short, Subjective truth's that result from that sense of self-awareness, is "most real" to most people.

In that context, your question of what is real or imaginary, would be answered Subjectively by saying both. In other words, no distinction can be made. This is not to deny an external objective existence or reality, it's just to invoke primacy of the subject over the object. And those truth's are real to us and no one else (sort of).

Hello, the division between inner and outer, mind and matter, as well as subjective and objective do all hinge on how the nature of what is real in emphasis. I do see the splitting of these qualities as problematic, especially when taken to the extremes of such position. However, even when I try to go beyond such dualistic thinking it still seems debatable to what extent they can be blended entirely without going towards one of the aspects of duality.

As you say it requires 'to perceive a reality'. This seems to go back to the question as to whether a falling tree makes a sound if no one is around to hear it? This throws the issue of the nature of perception as being connected to the mind, and possibly subjective idealism. Part of the problem is that it is not possible to get out of the mind and perceive without a mind. To a large extent, the validation of reality beyond one's own mind is consensus shared perceptions. That is often how inner and outer are put together in thinking about the nature of reality, but it does often seem that many people seem to come down to the philosophy of realism, with the objects of the material world being primary, and I am not sure that this bias is not too strongly towards physicalism, especially in the understanding of consciousness. Nevertheless, I will admit that the idea of a disembodied mind does seem questionable.

Jack!

Excellent point about 'if the tree falls in the forest and nobody heard it' riddle/phenomenon. This corresponds to things like Kantian neumenon, objectivity, ideal forms, realism, among many abstract philosophical concepts that give us a sense of some things having an independent existence. And that is to emphasize that different language's are required to decode the informational database in order to even attempt understanding the Transcendence of the Subjectivity-Objectivity dichotomy (from our epistemology).

The simple example to the former is that a metaphysical language of mathematics is required to explain the physics of sound waves. The paradox of that particular understanding of sound without a human to hear it, results from something metaphysical (mathematics) describing something physical (sound waves). Our abstract understanding of gravity is yet another example... . And that's in spite of the problem with unchanging objective truth's associated with abstract reasoning (mathematics) that describ change (dualism in the universe). In any event, there is no consistent object-to-object, physical-to-physical, metaphysical-to-, metaphysical language to help reconcile parts if this 'reality' paradox.

All that is to say pure objective reasoning that science uses (mathematics), can also correspond to a platonic existence, independent of our reality. But there again another paradox rears its head, because if it takes a human to appercieve, cognize, or otherwise appreciate mathematics, how could it correspond to something outside of us, having an independent existence? Hence, Subjectivity is, 'more' real (using your phrase) to most all people. And that suggests consciousness itself, takes primacy. Henceforth, the idea of an ordered intelligence within, as well as outside, the universe.

I think, among others, Kant and Schopenhauer understood that dynamic in their metaphysical philosophy... . Einstein's block universe contemplates an independent objective view of space-time. Is that real or an illusion, I wonder?

It does seem that it is seeing from different angles and making links. The particular issue, which you introduced me to about 6 months ago was that of Kant's understanding of the way Schopenhauer translates Kant's idea of 'the thing in itself' down to the human will as an aspect of this. This seems important because it makes consciousness imminent as opposed to transcendent. This is compatible with the idea of emergent consciousness. However, it does still leave the question of order in the universe. Maths looks at this, and the laws of physics raise questions about the manifestation of order amidst chaos as a background, like the Gnostic demuirge.

As humans we can only see from the human perspective, and the many disciplines all contribute. But, it does seem like there is some inherent organisation principle and even the notion of the survival of the fittest suggests order within evolution and, perhaps, consciousness itself is one of the underlying purposes within evolution. This may be compatible with the cosmological anthropic principle, in conjunction with Schopenhauer's understanding of Will. Somehow, this could bring the ideas of Western and Eastern metaphysics together, and with reference to the findings of sciences, especially the ideas of quantum physics. In this way, even though there are many angles and ways of seeing 'reality' it may be possible to build bridges between the various viewpoints.

[JackDaydream]

Topic title: To What Extent Are Physical Bodies, and the Material World the Most 'Real' Aspects of Reality?

...

Assumptions about whether the material reality is the most 'real' reality are at the basis of the various psychological models.

I think this is a matter of perspectives, in the sense that (nearly) all perspectives offer some value, even if some do offer more than others!

One perspective is the familiar scientific one: that only the physical universe can be measured, observed and tested, so there is no evidence for anything else, and no reason to seek anything else. This is an understandable and reasonable perspective, from that particular point of view.

Another perspective is the human-centric one. For all the overwhelming 'reality' of the physical universe, the lives we experience have little or nothing to do with it, even though those lives are played out on its stage. If I ask you what you did yesterday, your answer will probably not mention anything directly and significantly associated with the physical universe. It will instead be based on politics and current affairs, religion, the winner of the latest sports match, Britney Spears' latest video, and so on. We remember our lives having taken place in the arena of human culture, and not really in the physical universe at all.

It does seem that ideas of 'reality' all depends on the view of the observer in this. The principle does seem to coincide with the idea of the role of the participant observer effect. Seeing depends on the role of the observer, who has an active role in events which occur.

The idea of seeing from various viewpoints can give rise to relativism. However, the concept of pluralism may be more helpful in signifying that rather than everything being reduced to personal perception, the concept of plurality does specify that it may be possible to build some structures in the wider understanding of reality, even if it is recognised that the various pictures are limited and need to be revised. Of course, it doesn't mean that the various ways of putting it together will include agreements always. But, if it did, it would probably be the end of philosophy rather than it being an ongoing quest.

[JackDaydream]

Eliminative materialism appears as appropriate working hypothesis to me which entails that all of mentality (mental phenomena like "consciousness", "mind", "feelings", "volition", "intention", an appearing sense of "self" but also all concepts and ideas) are - best case - illusory but useful artifices created by the brain or - worst case - illusory and harmful by-products of the brains outstanding computational capacities which entail temporary or pathological imbalances in the system of regulating neurological circuits.
It's important that this working hypothesis needs to be applied to itself, i.e. to the thoughts I am expressing here, too, so I am neither speculating about a "reality" nor am I trying to find a "true reality" but - as per working hypothesis - the brain makes me express what I am expressing and creates my sense of "self" which supports the useful illusion that it would be me who decides about what I am thinking, affirming and negating and intending to express and do. But all this is - as per working hypothesis - only an artifice of the brain's system of self regulating circuits which is completely in line with what humans understand as "everyday life".

Your post gives a really good description of eliminative materialism. The way in which you portray is very clear and when evaluating an argument it is worth examining the viewpoint in it's best form, in order to understand strengths and weaknesses fully. In your description of a 'working hypothesis' and 'an artifice of the brain's system of self regulating circuits, do you see consciousness as having any reflective capacity and connection to anything beyond the physical as a category or dimension in any kind of independent way?

Well, "consciousness" is - as per working hypothesis - at best a useful conceptual illusion to talk about mental/cognitive phenomena considering that there is a long tradition of speaking this way.

The problem with this idea is that it may throw out the understanding of the observer in the process of perception, rather than seeing the perceiver as having an active role in processes of interpreting and developing and understanding 'reality'. The concept of reality itself is a product of thought and in this way related to the existence of consciousness as an idea or 'reality', just like the language of scientific theory is idea based.

[stevie]

Eliminative materialism appears as appropriate working hypothesis to me which entails that all of mentality (mental phenomena like "consciousness", "mind", "feelings", "volition", "intention", an appearing sense of "self" but also all concepts and ideas) are - best case - illusory but useful artifices created by the brain or - worst case - illusory and harmful by-products of the brains outstanding computational capacities which entail temporary or pathological imbalances in the system of regulating neurological circuits.
It's important that this working hypothesis needs to be applied to itself, i.e. to the thoughts I am expressing here, too, so I am neither speculating about a "reality" nor am I trying to find a "true reality" but - as per working hypothesis - the brain makes me express what I am expressing and creates my sense of "self" which supports the useful illusion that it would be me who decides about what I am thinking, affirming and negating and intending to express and do. But all this is - as per working hypothesis - only an artifice of the brain's system of self regulating circuits which is completely in line with what humans understand as "everyday life".

Your post gives a really good description of eliminative materialism. The way in which you portray is very clear and when evaluating an argument it is worth examining the viewpoint in it's best form, in order to understand strengths and weaknesses fully. In your description of a 'working hypothesis' and 'an artifice of the brain's system of self regulating circuits, do you see consciousness as having any reflective capacity and connection to anything beyond the physical as a category or dimension in any kind of independent way?

Well, "consciousness" is - as per working hypothesis - at best a useful conceptual illusion to talk about mental/cognitive phenomena considering that there is a long tradition of speaking this way.

The problem with this idea is that it may throw out the understanding of the observer in the process of perception, rather than seeing the perceiver as having an active role in processes of interpreting and developing and understanding 'reality'. The concept of reality itself is a product of thought and in this way related to the existence of consciousness as an idea or 'reality', just like the language of scientific theory is idea based.

As per working hypothesis there is no problem at all for everything that may appear to you.