Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Gertie]

Lagayscienza

If science cannot tell us whether these these things are material stuff or mental stuff, we can be sure Idealism cannot do so either.

I agree. I'd put it that when we consider the the question of whether the universe is experiential or material, science can't resolve the question.

Science is backed by a wealth of empirical evidence.

Same prob isn't it? ''Empirical evidence'' is experiential. It can't tell us whether we are experiening material or mental stuff.

For Idealism there is none.

Again, the experiential ''empirical evidence'' can work the same for both Idealism and Materialism, yes?

Even if we cannot know what things are in themselves (whatever that means) we know that there is real stuff out there that looks to us like apples, brains etc.

Right, Idealism and Materialism generally agree on that.

Moreover, even if Idealism cannot be disproved, we have no to believe the universe is all mindstuff and much evidence suggesting it is not.

What evidence is left? If science and empiricism can't tell us whether we're experiencing material or mental stuff when we look at an apple or brain or atom, what reliable evidence is there?

It is not clear to me what job you want Idealism to do?

I don't expect Idealism to do anything. I'm not arguing about utility, but the philosophical ontological claims.

What do you think it explains? How does it further our understanding of the universe?

Like materialism, Idealism is a possible explanation for the fundamental nature of the universe.

If everything is mind-stuff why does materialist science work?

I'm saying that calling science ''materialist'' is an assumption, one that's easy to slip into because we take materialism for granted all the time in our daily lives, as does science as a practice.

Idealism is a metaphysical challenge, or alternative, to the assumption that science studies material stuff.

My own position is that our experiential/empirical observations which science uses can be explained by both Idealism and Materialism. It's not a basis for deciding which is correct. I think you agreed with the gist of that when you said - ''If science cannot tell us whether these these things are material stuff or mental stuff, we can be sure Idealism cannot do so either''. ?

That's my point, empiricism and science can't exclude either Materialism or Idealism, or give more weight to one or the other.

Which leads leaves us with the question - if experiential/empirical observation (and science which extrapolates from observation) can't answer which theory is correct, how can we know? Or even assign probabilities?

That's the view which I'm defending - we can't know, or even assign probabilities, about whether Idealism or Materialism is correct. I don't see how either empiricism/science, or reason for that matter, can get us there, even a tool like Occam's Razor can cut both ways here.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, but to what philosophical end? Where does Idealism get us? Isn't it a philosophical cul de sac. And do you not think that, say, the constant ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter (pi) is real and that it is a real property of actual circles in the physical world that exists, and would exist, even when we are not looking at it? I just don't see the point of denying the reality physical the universe. Even the sort of Idealism that says that, yes, there is a real physical world out there, but we cannot know what it is in itself, seems to not be of much philosophical, much less practical, utility.

[Lagayascienza]

Another typo. Apologies. Cataracts.

... denying the reality of the physical universe.

[Gertie]

Another typo. Apologies. Cataracts.

... denying the reality of the physical universe.

[Gertie]

Yes, but to what philosophical end? Where does Idealism get us? Isn't it a philosophical cul de sac. And do you not think that, say, the constant ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter (pi) is real and that it is a real property of actual circles in the physical world that exists, and would exist, even when we are not looking at it? I just don't see the point of denying the reality physical the universe. Even the sort of Idealism that says that, yes, there is a real physical world out there, but we cannot know what it is in itself, seems to not be of much philosophical, much less practical, utility.

I don't think it's useful, but philosophy is largely left dealing with the questions which are difficult to answer, we take care of the useful stuff regardless. Still, I find fundamental ontology interesting, and it's a major branch of philosophy. What actually exists, What is the true nature of reality, What am I - these are questions curious peeps have struggled with for aeons. It's humbling.

Some think Idealism would be significant if it meant our consciousness carries on in some form. I'm iffy about the significance of that myself, because from what we can tell the configuration of stuff correlates with its identity, so it wouldn't be as if gertie continues to exist when I reconfigure into dirt mind-stuff.

The type of Idealism a scientist like Koch might go for would be that science is dealing with mind-stuff in just the same way we thought we were dealing with material-stuff. Like-wise mathematical descriptions. (The same point can be made both ways of course, there's no utility in calling what maths and physics studies mind-stuff or material-stuff).

Re circles and maths, I don't see a prob. If a circular mind-stuff thing (say a frisbee) exists, it presumably has the same mathematical properties as a material-stuff frisbee. And exists whether some other mind-stuff like me or you is looking at it or not.

So... are you agreeing we can't know whether Materialism or Idealism is correct, or even which is more likely correct?

I give materialism the edge myself, partly because conscious experience is the source of all meaning, mattering and purpose, and when we look at the universe it's so petty and complex and mostly banal.

Phenomenologists and religionists imbue Idealism with great significance about Love, Joy, Suffering, Teleology and suchlike, the Big Important Stuff. But mostly the universe, and my conscious life, is so mundane and trivial. Why would a universe of mind-stuff come up with trivial annoying things like itchy toes and toothache, or drizzle, or gas bills, or eating other mind-stuff and pooping it out. It just seems so silly, compared to the grandiose hi-falutin philosophies of Phenomenology and Theology. Basically, I'd expect better of a mind-stuff universe!

[Belinda]

Itchy toes and toothache are common enough ingredients of human Daseins.

[Gertie]

Itchy toes and toothache are common enough ingredients of human Daseins.

Don't you find it weird tho, that they'd exist in an immaterial universe of only conscious experience?

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, but to what philosophical end? Where does Idealism get us? Isn't it a philosophical cul de sac. And do you not think that, say, the constant ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter (pi) is real and that it is a real property of actual circles in the physical world that exists, and would exist, even when we are not looking at it? I just don't see the point of denying the reality physical the universe. Even the sort of Idealism that says that, yes, there is a real physical world out there, but we cannot know what it is in itself, seems to not be of much philosophical, much less practical, utility.

I don't think it's useful, but philosophy is largely left dealing with the questions which are difficult to answer, we take care of the useful stuff regardless. Still, I find fundamental ontology interesting, and it's a major branch of philosophy. What actually exists, What is the true nature of reality, What am I - these are questions curious peeps have struggled with for aeons. It's humbling.

Yes, ontology and epistemology are inherently interesting areas. What exists and how can we know? But I’m not sure we can philosophize our way to answers to these questions – at least, not without science. Science grew out of philosophy but now, in terms of ontology, as in many other philosophical areas, science is doing much of the heavy lifting. 2000 years of philosophy didn’t get much further than clarifying questions and analysing concepts. I don’t think we can philosophize our way to an understanding of the universe. Logic, reason and rationality are essential to both philosophy and science but, without the hands-on approach of science, armchair philosophy can’t get us far, not if a better understanding of the universe is what we are interested in.

Some think Idealism would be significant if it meant our consciousness carries on in some form. I'm iffy about the significance of that myself, because from what we can tell the configuration of stuff correlates with its identity, so it wouldn't be as if gertie continues to exist when I reconfigure into dirt mind-stuff.

Right. It’s tempting to think that our own consciousness will continue after our body-brain dies but it's hard to see how that could be so. Consciousness, that inner “me” seems to be an emergent process that requires a functioning physical brain.

The type of Idealism a scientist like Koch might go for would be that science is dealing with mind-stuff in just the same way we thought we were dealing with material-stuff. Like-wise mathematical descriptions. (The same point can be made both ways of course, there's no utility in calling what maths and physics studies mind-stuff or material-stuff).

Yes, the divide is probably not real, only apparent. Mind-stuff and physical stuff are in a sense the same stuff. However, mind emerges from the physical but, as far as we can tell, not vice versa.

Re circles and maths, I don't see a prob. If a circular mind-stuff thing (say a frisbee) exists, it presumably has the same mathematical properties as a material-stuff frisbee. And exists whether some other mind-stuff like me or you is looking at it or not.

Yes, from the evidence available, that is the conclusion I am driven to. To my mind, mathematics is an abstraction which describe how the world works, the relations between the physical parts and forces. I don’t think there would be mathematics without a physical world for it to describe, just as there could be no consciousness without physical brains.

So... are you agreeing we can't know whether Materialism or Idealism is correct, or even which is more likely correct?

I don’t know. It seems to me that Idealism cannot be disproved, but that’s not saying much - there are lot's of notions cannot be disproved. And, without functioning physical brains, the very notion that the universe is all mind-stuff would itself not exist. However, it seems that we are trapped within our own consciousness and ideas which emerge from our physical brains. And we can’t escape. All we can do is use reason, rationality and science to find better ways of looking outwards. And maybe out there in the physical, we’ll find out stuff about our inner, mental selves.

I give materialism the edge myself, partly because conscious experience is the source of all meaning, mattering and purpose, and when we look at the universe it's so petty and complex and mostly banal.

Phenomenologists and religionists imbue Idealism with great significance about Love, Joy, Suffering, Teleology and suchlike, the Big Important Stuff. But mostly the universe, and my conscious life, is so mundane and trivial. Why would a universe of mind-stuff come up with trivial annoying things like itchy toes and toothache, or drizzle, or gas bills, or eating other mind-stuff and pooping it out. It just seems so silly, compared to the grandiose hi-falutin philosophies of Phenomenology and Theology. Basically, I'd expect better of a mind-stuff universe!

Indeed. I like your “itchy toe” example. You’d think a mind as big as the universe would have better things to do.

[Belinda]

I'm hoping to discuss not just the best arguments for idealism but also the best arguments against it.

Maybe I'm getting idealism wrong, but I've interacted with self-described idealists that suggest that mind, being fundamental, creates everything else. It becomes a solipsistic view. Solipsism is not itself falsifiable, but people find it distasteful.
Wigner interpretation of quantum mechanics essentially was idealistic, that consciousness caused wave function collapse. He later abandoned support of his own interpretation when it was shown that it must be a solipsistic view.

Anyway, my point was about everything being mind-generated, sort of like a dream. Thing is, you cannot learn anything from a dream. You can't read a book about something you don't already know.
So imagine you're investigating Egyptian hieroglyphs. You have these funny symbols and you've studied them for years and have memorized them, being able to replicate them at will from memory. But you don't know what they say. Then, due to some new information or just hard work, you decipher them, and suddenly new information is available to you (what the text says) that was always there, but wasn't from you. You know the text hasn't changed, but now it contains information that wasn't available to you despite being there all along. It is a sort of illustration (proof?) that the information wasn't created by you, but was something existing independent of your ideals.


Anyway, much of my arguments against idealism went along those lines, which is sort of funny since my current favored stance of relational ontology bears an awful lot of resemblance to idealism, but without the problems identified above. For one, my view has nothing to do with mind, epistemology, or any sort of anthropocentrism, all of which are associated with idealism. Just system Y exists in relation to system X if X measures Y. This works only for structures where there is meaningful 'measuring' going on.

Solipsism is not merely distasteful it's impossible because in a relative world each mind relates to an environment that is not itself and which includes other minds.

[Pattern-chaser]

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.

Yet subjective reality is everything to us. "Healthy minds" that refuse to acknowledge the importance of the subjective mind and the wisdom traditions associated with subjective experience are hobbled, rather like one's vision is limited and hobbled by blinders.

It's difficult to disagree with anything you've said here.

[Pattern-chaser]

The only thing that can be said for Idealism is that, like religion and mysticism, it cannot be entirely disproved. But that is not saying much. Yes, the universe might be just one great thought, all mind-stuff, but there is not a scrap of empirical evidence to support such a notion.

But I could just as easily reverse your assertion.

What's your argument/evidence that you have it the right way round?

Ah, the joy of metaphysics! Metaphysics — that forum where so many things simply can't be proven, and all we have is considered (we hope) opinion. The uncertainty of it all unnerves many commentators...

[Pattern-chaser]

Religions sparked people's creative imaginations. Now we dare not have an original thought lest it be contradicted by the new gods of the ivory tower - who are increasingly biased due to post-modernism, politics, ideology, commercial interests and, well, letting themselves be typical humans.

"Gods of the ivory tower"? In these days when experts are reviled for simply knowing more about their chosen subject than most others do? When *individuals* feel entitled to their own opinions (fair enough), and they feel entitled for those opinions to be right, accurate, and correct?

There are few these days who can get away with just saying stuff, and be believed. Donald Trump is one of the few who seem able to buck this trend...

[Pattern-chaser]

But science can't tell us if what we observe is configurations of material stuff, or of mental stuff can it?

When science strays (unwisely) into metaphysics, the consequences are not pretty... Horses for courses.

[Pattern-chaser]

Your experiences will be constrained by your beliefs.

In some cases, your experiences will be defined or determined by your beliefs.

[Pattern-chaser]

Solipsism is not merely distasteful it's impossible because in a relative world each mind relates to an environment that is not itself and which includes other minds.

Solipsism is not "impossible", but it *is* impossible to refute, which is its most valuable lesson, IMO. There are many things we just can't know, even though we have strong opinions/beliefs about them.

As for your 'justification' , is the world "relative"? Is it populated by more than one person? How do you know? Does it include "other minds"? Aren't you offering too many assumptions, and too much wishful thinking, here?

Whether we are 'brains in vats' is another unanswerable question. But it's not a stupid question, only one that can't be answered. Perhaps its main value is as pabulum — food for thought? Perhaps this applies to all of them, that their point and value is that they encourage us to think about stuff...?