Therefore, I see no reason to commit to eternal oblivion, although it would seem likely from the material point of view. — Zebeden

When there is no mind to perceive, is eternal oblivion possible?

Think of how many times a book has given you an idea, or the words of another person, a painting, etc. This means that ideas are contextualized in and by an extramental world. — JuanZu

Yes, I agree that our ideas can be passed onto other minds in forms of materialised media, books, words, music, arts etc. And when those materialised ideas are passed onto other minds, they can form new ideas and creativities in forms of other materials, so forth and so fifth ad infinitum. Could this be similar idea with Hegel's absolute idea or spirit? I am not sure, but just inferring here.

Nice. Like Ross Ryan. — Banno

:up:

But he is not Pegasus. Pegasus is mythical, so any real creature claiming to be Pegasus is a con. — Banno

How can a mythical creature be real? Mythical already implies not real.

What you are describing appears to be a novice version of transcendental idealism. — Banno

It was not transcendental idealism I was trying to describe. It was ideal realism I was trying to describe.
So what is your account of non-novice version of transcendental idealism?

is right to ask you how it can explain both the consistency of your perceptions, and how it is that we overwhelmingly agree as to how things are. — Banno

Mok doesn't seem to understand that perception just presents to us the world as it is. Perception doesn't give us coherence of reality. It just perceives the objects and world as they are, and feeds us with the information in most raw form of data i.e. images. motions, shapes, sounds and words. That is where perception ends.

He has been keep asking how perception can tell coherence of reality, which doesn't make sense.

From ideal realism, perception don't give us coherence of reality. Coherence of reality can be known via our analytic thinking and reasoning on the perceived contents via the principle of cause and effect and necessity.

I am not talking about perception but coherence in perception. — MoK

Coherence comes from your reasoning, not from perception. You must ask yourself why your reasoning cannot understand your own perception.

Show me how idealism can explain coherence in perception. — MoK

Idealism is the way you see the world. It is simply saying that what you perceive is ideas, and what you believe, think, remember, see and imagine in your mind are real.

Coherence comes from your reasoning on your perception. You seem to be not able to tell the difference between your perception and your reasoning on perception.

Presumably the same as for the idealists and the materialists. — RussellA

You haven't answered the key point question.

What do you mean by "regardless of any cause"? Why is it relevant to the point? — Corvus

I asked whether idealism can explain the coherence in reality. Yes, or no? — MoK

Do you mean you cannot understand your own perception?

If not, then it is not the proper metaphysical theory of reality! — MoK

Why do you think it is the case?

The statement "When I perceive the colour red, I perceive the colour red regardless of any cause" is not a tautological statement. — RussellA

It sounds an empty statement as well as tautology too. What do you mean by "regardless of any cause"? Why is it relevant to the point?

A bold statement that neither Indirect nor Direct Realism are interested in the nature of ultimate reality. — RussellA

It is a fair statement, not a bold one.

Indirect Realism is about the limits of knowledge of ultimate reality. Direct Realists do believe that they know ultimate reality. — RussellA

What are the ultimate reality for these folks in detail?

You are connecting reasoning process to ideas as if they are necessary, but they are not.
— Corvus
Reasoning is an analysis of ideas. — MoK

The world just present to you as it appears. It doesn't tell you reality is true or false. You perceive what is given and presented to you. You must gather up the ideas you perceived, and organise your thoughts, and come to your own judgement on its coherence or absurdity.

Please don't confuse ideas and coherence of the reality. They are different category of existences.

I doubt that the cause of a medical condition is always known. — RussellA

There would be always possible causes when the cause is uncertain. But there is no absolute unknown causes.

When I perceive the colour red, I perceive the colour red regardless of any cause. — RussellA

It sounds like a tautological statement, which doesn't convey any knowledge.

You may not deny Indirect and Representational Realism, but you infer there is no point in them. — RussellA

The point of idealism or materialism is to define what the ultimate reality is in the end. But IR and DR seem to just make vague statements on how they perceive via unknown causes or directly. They just end there. So what is the ultimate reality? They don't seem to be interested in it. Hence no point.

I am a great believer in synchronicity. I also see parallels between inner and outer reality rather than dreams as being simply about the personal. We are all aspects of the cosmic web and are interconnected as systems within systems, the macrocosm and the microcosm. — Jack Cummins

Could it be in line with C G Jung's thoughts? Sychronicity, world soul and oneness in consciousness.

It would be like a doctor refusing to treat someone in pain with a broken leg until they knew the cause of the break. — RussellA

There would be no cases such that the cause of break is unknown in medical incidents.

It is a brave statement that there is no point in Indirect or Representational Realism, and philosophers such as Aristotle, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza and Bertrand Russell were mistaken. — RussellA

Not really. Their systems are not denied here. Rather, the OP is based on their systems, but seeing the world in a different way like Husserl and Merlou Ponty have done.

Normally, we have no difficulty distinguishing the real thing from the copy.

But, sometimes, when we don't have the original for comparison, we may mistake the ideal copy for the real original. — Gnomon

In Kant's transcendental idealism, what we are seeing is appearance, and the reality is hidden in noumena. In Hume, what we see is impressions of the external world, not the world itself. In Schopenhauer, the world is representation and will of us. Hence we are not experiencing the reality as is at all. :)

For example if you think of an idea that another person gave you, that idea is present in your mind but it is no longer present in the mind of the other person. — JuanZu

It sounds like one aspect of idea. What I was meaning with idea was a way of seeing the world. It is all in our mind. What we see, notice, think, reflect, imagine, draw, and remember in our mind i.e. the whole contents in the mind are ideas, and they are real.

Why should I believe in the existence of an object in the world that I have never observed existing? — RussellA

You don't need to. You are free to believe what you want to believe, and that is what belief is about.
But if you believe that Australia exists even you have never been there, it is likely your belief must be based on what you read, were told and saw on the media.

What the Indirect Realist does believe is that there is something in the world that has caused them to perceive the colour red, but it is unknowable whether this something in the world is actually red or not. The Indirect Realist reasons that it is not, but cannot know for sure. — RussellA

Doesn't sound it has a point in saying that something has cause but they don't know what the cause is.

I asked, how is coherent thought possible in idealism? — MoK

Idealism is not for coherent thoughts. It is a way of seeing the world. Idealism says your mind, the representation in your mind is real. The coherent thinking comes from the principle of logic, reasoning, inference and observation on the things happening in space and time which are your intuition.

When I say that ideas are material, I do not mean that they are physical, but a third option between the mental and the physical that respects the identity of each one. — JuanZu

Idea can be different types i.e. ideas as mental representations, images of the physical objects, meanings of the words, and ideas as resolutions or answers to the problems, and indeed ideas as words themselves and symbols and signs. But here we are manly talking about mental representations i.e. images and concepts in our minds.

I don't think that Australians will be happy to know that they don't exist because an Ideal Realist in the Kerguelen Islands has never heard of them. — RussellA

Any objects or world unobserved don't exist. They are imagined or believed to exist.

This sounds like the existing term "Indirect Realism" (Wikipedia - Direct and indirect realism) — RussellA

Indirect realism's problem is using sense data as the medium of perception, which doesn't make sense. Sense data is ambiguous in terms of its legitimacy of the meaning, implication, origin, uses, and existence. It is a muddled and confused claim.

Even the Direct Realist can dream and imagine. — RussellA

But what does Direct Realism say about the existence of unperceived objects? In Ideal Realism, unperceived objects such as the country of Australia or the object Eifel Tower don't exist until observed or perceived.

Ideal Realism also says that we perceive the world with experience via the bodily sense organs loaded with ideas, not direct. Bodily sense organs in human body are not just physical perceptive organs, but they are supported by rational ideas with inferring capacities.

When we are looking at a cup with drink in it, we are not only simply seeing it (like Direct Realism, which ends there), but also looking for evidence and qualities which are the premeditated or inferred drink i.e. coffee or tea. Coffee will look darker in colour than tea, and when drank, it will have the taste of coffee, not tea. All perception is accompanied by the rich mental states and operations backed by experienced and reasoned ideas.

Therefore Ideal Realism is not simple naive Direct Realism.

I didn't say that. — MoK

You are connecting reasoning process to ideas as if they are necessary, but they are not.

How is the thought process possible in idealism? — MoK

You see drink in a cup, and think it is coffee. The idea of drink in a cup itself doesn't tell you truth or falsity on your thought. You must drink and taste it to be able to tell it is coffee or tea. Truth or falsity is only possible by your judgement on sense perception (in empirical cases) or thought process (in analytic cases).
Images and concepts themselves don't tell you about coherence of reality.

Not at all. The reasoning is based on working on the ideas. — MoK

If X is based on Y, then X is not Y. Reasoning is not ideas. Reasoning is a thought process. Ideas are images and concepts.

I already argued against idealism. — MoK

You seem to be confused in the difference between idea and reasoning.

What do you mean by this? — MoK

If you have an idea of tree, then the idea itself cannot tell you it is correct or not. It only gives an image of tree. To know the idea is correct or not, you must check if it has all the correct qualities for a tree. The checking process is from your reasoning, not a work from the idea.

I am saying that idealism should not be accepted as a correct metaphysical theory if it cannot explain the coherence in reality. — MoK

I am not sure to say that idealism is not correct is a correct statement. Idealism is a way to view to the world. It is your reasoning to tell if the idea you have is correct or not. Ideas are just copy of the objects in the world.

Of course, it wouldn't be able to tell you whether they are correct or not. You need your own thinking process, observations, confirmations and logical affirmation to be able to say your ideas were correct or not. The world doesn't tell you if it is correct or not. It is your thought which does that.

A raw idea doesn't have coherence attached to it. You need to analyse the idea with your reasoning process to come to the judgement on coherence or not.

This implies that the idea is not enclosed in the head but that literally the world is made of ideas unfolding, our world, but the idea is something necessarily material, if by material we understand the finiteness of the sign, its appearance, its action and reaction, its contact, its causality, its transformation, its difference, etc.... — JuanZu

Ideas manifest when we materialize our ideas into physical entities.  But ideas themselves are not matter.

This morning I was thinking about whether to drink coffee or tea.  The coffee or tea was ideas in my mind.  When I decided to have coffee, and made coffee, the idea of coffee manifested into matter.   When I drank the coffee, it was a real experience of coffee in a form of matter.

Likewise matter can be idealised when perceived.  Before perception, there is no matter, and no existence.  When we perceive an object, it is perceived as matter.  When we remember it, or think about it in our mind, it is an idea of the matter.

Matter is not ideas, and ideas are not matter.   Between the two states of existence, experience and perception are needed for the transformation. Idea is not just a copy of matter, and matter is not just physical existence on its own.

For that process, we need our perception and the body with working brain to carry out the perceptual process or experience. Could it be a phenomenological view? I need to read some Husserl, Heidegger and Merlou Ponty, if their ideas were in line with the OP.

This explanation can only be carried out if the idea and its representation are part of the same system of signs. This implies that the idea is not enclosed in the head but that literally the world is made of ideas unfolding, our world, but the idea is something necessarily material, if by material we understand the finiteness of the sign, its appearance, its action and reaction, its contact, its causality, its transformation, its difference, etc.... — JuanZu

I think this is a very interesting point. Here we are not just simply talking about idealism and materialism, but the nature and scope of ideas and realities too. I will read over your post a few times, and let it sink in me before returning with my points. Later~

Explained in the OP The Mind Created World. Not that I'm wanting to hijack your thread, but I also don't want to try and explain it all again here. — Wayfarer

I recall your OP you mentioned above. The OP could be written in 3 sentences, and perhaps needed 2-3 pages of postings. Instead the OP read like a novel, and it was filled with the over 2k irrelevant postings for ages. What was the conclusion in the end?

You seem to be trying hard to make things unnecessarily complicated. Talking about the existence of the world when observer is not present is not relevant to the point as well.

Fair enough. A thing and the idea of a thing are separate, in that sense. — Wayfarer

Of course they are, but we know which one is real. To perceive the real Lady Gaga, you must go to her live concert. What you listen to, and watch on youtube is virtual real, not the real.

If I had to explain it in a sentence or two, it would be that the world (object) always exists for an observer. — Wayfarer

The OP wasn't denying the existence of the world. The OP was about the way we see the world. Both representation and matter are real depending on what type of experience and perception the observer has with the world.

When we perceive the physical objects in front of us, and when the objects are available to our senses, also backed by our ideas on them, they are real. When they are not available to our senses, but when we think, remember or imagine about them, the physicals fade away from our perception, and they become ideas in our minds.

Have you been on that road before, or are you relying on a second-hand accounts? — Wayfarer

We have seen the arguments on the dualism all the time, haven't we?

You need to do some homework on what idealist philosophy actually is. The Brittanica has a decent introductory article on it. It's not nearly so naive as you're making it out to be. — Wayfarer

Idealism could be a broad topic, but here I am talking under most brief and general concept of idealism for the argument bearing in mind that idealism itself is not the main topic.

What do you think the actual idealism is? What is your account for non-naive idealism?

As I said idealism is false because it cannot explain the coherence in the reality that we perceive. — MoK

Idealism cannot explain the coherence in reality therefore it is false. I have more examples but this one is sufficient to deny idealism. — MoK

Idealism is not about explaining the coherence in the reality. It is about how we see the reality.

So yeah, there’s at least one “other folk(..) who thought about this aspect of worldview before. — Mww

Who would it be?

‘Naive realism’ is the philosophical attitude that things just are as they appear, and there is no question to solve about the relationship between reality and appearance.

Although it’s not as common an expression, ‘naive idealism’ is the view that idealists believe that the world is simply a figment of the individual mind, or what goes on inside a conscious mind.

I think your post presents a pretty naive version of both materialism and idealism. Serious philosophers in both schools have long grappled with the conundrums of mind and matter, or matter and form. — Wayfarer

But if you divide the world into reality and representation, then you are back in the old dualistic view of the world. We have been on that road before.

You end up having 2x copies of every object in your perception, and wonder which one is the real object.   If you say the physical tree is the real tree, then you are back to denying the representation being a plain physicalist. If you say the representation is the real object, then you are back to the idealist. And there is always the mysterious thing-in-itself lurking behind all the objects you perceive without revealing what they really are.

Here we are suggesting, well why not leap out from the old well, and see the world from the real experiential point of view.

If you are thinking about the tree, then you are only having an idea of the tree.  If you go out, and see the tree in front of you feeling and confirm the physical tree, then you have the physical tree as well as the sensation and ideas of the tree. The reality is in your living experience interacting and accessing the objects, not just in the objects themselves.

This way of seeing things comes under the general heading of pragmatism. — T Clark

Yes, good point. :up:

Idealism is false since it cannot explain coherence in the ideas that we perceive. Physicalism also is false since it cannot explain mental phenomena and the correlation between mental phenomena and physical ones. — MoK

But when I think of a tree, it is just a image and some qualities of the tree in the mind. It is a concept. When I go out to the garden, and touch the tree trunk or branches, it is physical matter. In both occasions of my engagement of the interaction with the tree, I get different knowledge and perceptual experience from the tree.

So why do you think idealism is false and also physicalism is false? Isn't the case that what type of level of experience and interactions you have with the object, and also availability of data, which either can give you knowledge or not? In that sense aren't both way of seeing the world true?

So you just told me something and now I'm being accused of being grossly dishonest when I indicate that I know what you just told me. Strange claim there. For the record, even if you define existence by perception, I have perceived your object precisely via your telling me about it. That perception told me the one predicate of the object that I care about. — noAxioms

You seems to be taking the statement too personally. If you read carefully, it says "That sounds like". It doesn't mean that "That is". What makes you think "sounds like" is "is", is a mystery to me. There was NO accusation on anyone, but it was just describing about the post with a simile form of expression.

You are also still in confusion between the sentence in the post to you with your own visual perception of the object on my desk. You have no visual perception on the object on my desk, hence you have no idea what the object is, and the object doesn't exist in your mind or perception, and that was the point. But your saying that you know the object relation to my desk sounded not quite right, which SOUNDED LIKE some kind of pretention or dishonest assertion,

I will respond to further points in rest part of your post later.

Faith is a philosophy with all the questions left out. — PoeticUniverse

Faith doesn't give you knowledge or truth. You must work hard to keep up your faith in something you believe in.

When it is found out, what you believed in turned out to be illusion or false later, your faith will be broken or evaporate into the thin air.

"The Derrida Reader - Writing Performances" - Edited by Julian Wolfreys, Edinburgh University 1998. pp.231 - 232. — Corvus

This book has a chapter titled "Khora".

I do know more. It exists in relation to your desk. That's the only predicate that matters for this topic. — noAxioms

That sounds like gross dishonesty to keep pretending to know, when not knowing anything about it.
The point is that without perception, you don't have existence.

That is not a very mind-independent view. This topic is meant to discuss the meaning of mind-independent existence. Do you have anything to contribute to that besides assertions of definitions not compatible with the topic subject? — noAxioms

Mind-independent existence? Tell us some examples of mind-independent existence.

Assertions of definitions not compatible with the topic subject? It has been noticed some folks resort to this claim when they run out of ideas on what to say, or don't want to admit their claims are wrong. A typical act of self defense mechanism motivated by dishonesty.

In order to understand what existence prior to predicates, you must first understand what existence means. Would you not agree?