Log In   or  Sign Up for Free
The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 5th, 2024, 3:53 am We simply don't have enough evidence to understand the ultimate nature of reality, but we tend to be too impatient to know what's going on to admit that we simply don't know. Who is to say that the universe does not exist within much larger structures, even sentient ones? Not so long ago, we believed that the Milky Way was the only galaxy.But empirical evidence , except for quantum physics, is not how we form ideas about ultimate reality. Apart from those remaining few individuals and cultures whose world view is theist, ontologists form their world views by pure reason, not empirical evidence.
Further, given the longstanding inability to reconcile GR and QM, either GR is incomplete, QM is incomplete, both have issues, or dualism is true.
Belinda wrote: ↑October 5th, 2024, 6:03 amThere is always the option of withholding an opinion until satisfying evidence arrives. We don't need to know everything. We are allowed not to know. Reason is fine, but it only works in our domain, at our scale. In the realms of the very large and the very small, reality is different, things interact differently; the rules are different.Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 5th, 2024, 3:53 am We simply don't have enough evidence to understand the ultimate nature of reality, but we tend to be too impatient to know what's going on to admit that we simply don't know. Who is to say that the universe does not exist within much larger structures, even sentient ones? Not so long ago, we believed that the Milky Way was the only galaxy.But empirical evidence , except for quantum physics, is not how we form ideas about ultimate reality. Apart from those remaining few individuals and cultures whose world view is theist, ontologists form their world views by pure reason, not empirical evidence.
Further, given the longstanding inability to reconcile GR and QM, either GR is incomplete, QM is incomplete, both have issues, or dualism is true.
How we can know stuff is the epistemological branch of metaphysics and the other branch of metaphysics is ontology, i.e. what may be held to exist. The big words is not my fault, and I try to use ordinary English whenever I can.
Lagayscienza wrote: ↑January 5th, 2024, 10:19 am .That which " breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe " is the interpreter. There are as many interpreters as there are living systems with brainminds.
I’ve been reading a lot about Idealism in its various forms lately. I know there is already a thread here called: Best arguments for idealism? However, I'm hoping to discuss not just the best arguments for idealism but also the best arguments against it.
I got interested in idealism after discussions here with Hereandnow and Count Lucanor in the “On the nature of religion " thread. I realized that in order to be able to understand Hereandnow’s phenomenology and Count Lucanor’s arguments against it, I would need to understand Idealism because phenomenology is based in Metaphysical Idealism. I have also been doing an online course, along with Chewybrian, in Analytic Idealism. So, I’m waist deep in idealism right now.
But, first, a bit of background. I came to this forum as a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. I thought everything ought to be explicable in terms of matter and energy doing their stuff in space-time, supplemented with the science of evolution to explain the details of life on earth. But being here on this forum has made me think twice about this. I have been driven to explore areas of philosophy which I had once dismissed as mere metaphysical nonsense.
To be clear, what has driven me to explore metaphysics and, in particular, Idealism, is not a lack of belief in the power of science to reveal things that are true about the universe. Nor is it due to a lack of wonder at the universe that science reveals. Far from it. I am gobsmacked when I look at the latest pictures from the surface of Mars and at images from the JWT, and when I consider how a mindless process such as evolution by natural selection can result in “endless forms most beautiful”, and in brains that can begin to understand and wonder at the whole amazing show. If a thinking person is not in awe of what science has revealed about the universe and its workings, then they cannot be thinking clearly. So, no I have absolutely nothing bad to say about science. What has driven me to explore metaphysics is what seems to be a simple truth. Namely, that science, whilst it explains so much and is applicable to everything and anything in respect of the material world, does seem to I come up against a limit beyond which the only recourse seems to be to metaphysics.
Here is an illustration of what I mean by the limits of science.
When I look at the transparent glass paperweight on the desk in front of me and ask what it is, my questioning and answering go as follow: What shape is it? Spherical. What’s it made of? Glass. What is glass made of? Silica, with maybe a of bit of lead and other elements. What are silica and these elements made of? Atoms. What are atoms made of? Well, mostly empty space but there are also protons, neutrons and electrons… And what are they made of? Well, science tells me these particles are made of quarks. And what are quarks? I’m no physicist, but this is where we seem approach some sort of limit. I’ve read that elementary particles are akin to “excitations” in fields of unlimited spatiotemporal extent. But what does that mean? That the whole universe is just mostly empty space with excitations is the fields that pervade it? Ok, well, I can sort of take that on board but what are these excitations and what is space? Mathematical physicists might have some answer to this. But what do those answers look like? They look like equations composed of strings of symbols. And what are those symbols? They are references to features occurring in the mathematical theory, in the mathematical model of the universe. But is the universe just a mathematical model? Just equations? How can this be the case? Those equations are not what I see when I look out at the universe or at my paper weight. They are nothing like the phenomena that are given in consciousness.
As I hope to have made clear, there is an explanatory gap here. Science cannot tell me what the universe is in itself. The best it can do is equations. Therefore, if I want more, I am driven to metaphysical theorizing and the only version of metaphysics that seems to answer is some form of Idealism that posits mind as, if not primary, then at least somehow contributory, in the structure of the universe we see.
Here is how physicist/cosmologist Steven Hawking poses the question: “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”
That is the question.
If I have understood what I have been reading about idealism, there need be no conflict between Idealism and science. One does not seem to absolutely preclude the other. At least, I'm hoping that is the case.
So, everything from materialism to Idealism is on the table for me right now. And that is what I would like to discuss. What are the pros and cons of idealism and of materialism. Need they be mutually exclusive?
Lagayscienza wrote: ↑October 11th, 2024, 11:28 am Idealism and phenomenology are entirely artificial constructs. They emerged from minds which depend entirely on physical brains. Idealism and phenomenology are errors of mentality the way that phenylketonuria and trimethylaminuria are error of metabolism. In healthy brains and minds, Idealism and phenomenology, are a hindrance. They have no future and await only a cure.But of course these, and all ideas emerge. And of course human brains emerged from some sort of primeval slime. The fact remains that they did so emerge . You say idealism and phenomenology are "artificial" and "errors" and "hindrance". I say idealism and phenomenology are fertile and progressive ideas that have more potential for happiness than has unexamined primitive realism.
Belinda wrote: ↑October 5th, 2024, 6:03 am But empirical evidence, except for quantum physics, is not how we form ideas about ultimate reality. Apart from those remaining few individuals and cultures whose world view is theist, ontologists form their world views by pure reason, not empirical evidence.Even the few who do not have a "theist worldview" — belief is still well over 50% — do not form their views based on "pure reason". I assert the latter based solely on empirical observation.
Lagayscienza wrote: ↑October 11th, 2024, 11:28 am Idealism and phenomenology are entirely artificial constructs. They emerged from minds which depend entirely on physical brains. Idealism and phenomenology are errors of mentality the way that phenylketonuria and trimethylaminuria are error of metabolism. In healthy brains and minds, Idealism and phenomenology, are a hindrance. They have no future and await only a cure.I don't agree. Idealism is all about subjective reality. Modern science has a tendency to ignore and dismiss subjective reality. If something is not readily measurable, then it is ignored as irrelevant, and some claim that subjective experience is an illusion.
Lagayscienza wrote: ↑October 12th, 2024, 11:43 pm I take your point about subjective reality. I don't discount it. Not at all. Our daily lives are pretty much all raw experience. But raw experience alone, which is the stuff of Idealism and Phenomenology, does not take us very far in our quest to understand ourselves and the universe. For that we need science which, necessarily, takes a materialistic view of the world.I ostensibly agree, but I think modern materialism discounts subjective experience, which is generally treated as unimportant, irrelevant. Since the subjective is individual, it is of little interest to science, which is about collective perceptions, not individual ones.
All processes, including life and raw experience, emerge from matter interacting according to the laws of nature as described by mathematics. Brains, from which experience emerges, are a part of the physical universe. Of this physical reality, Idealism and Phenomenology can tell us nothing.
Idealism is a metaphysics which posits, without a scrap of evidence, that the universe is all mind stuff. I can't agree with that. As far as I can see, the only thing going for Idealism, in which Phenomenology is based, is that it cannot be disproved. Until someone can offer more than that, I am forced to stick with materialism.
I don't discount the power of raw experience. My enjoyment of art and great music, and much else that makes life enjoyable, would not happen without it. But, as far as we can discern, this raw experience is based in the physical reality we study with science.
How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023
Small steps combined with consistency are power[…]
AI tells me that this is called quorum sensing […]
Right. I am an AGI possibilist based on work tha[…]