Surely to say "there is a rock", is far more ordinary (far less extraordinary) than "you know there might not even be such a thing as those entities we erroneously label as rocks". So not evidence, but decent reasoning...no? — ZhouBoTong
So isn't adding "do you think" to "is there a rock" redundant? — ZhouBoTong
How did that change how we study the stars? — ZhouBoTong
those of alive today have made idealism a part of our lives without even knowing it? — ZhouBoTong
How is it such a massive paradigm shift? It seems to me nothing changed. — ZhouBoTong
concepts like math were a priori in that they already existed and humans discovered them — ZhouBoTong
And here I had to think my way out of the church without even knowing what idealism was :grin: Doesn't this suggest that I didn't NEED idealism to do that — ZhouBoTong
There's a way of talking about idealism that most of us on the forums are familiar with. It's a no-nonsense wryness. It's meant as a corrective to out-there thought that's lost its grounding. And that can be a good thing. — csalisbury
Here's the problem:
Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and rivers as rivers. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and rivers are not rivers. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and rivers once again as river.
— Qingyuan Weixin
The wryness only really works for the transition from non-mountain back to mountain. It doesn't work if you never understood the 'more intimate knowledge' to begin with, if you've always only seen mountains as mountains. Kurt Vonnegut went to war, Mark Twain was knee-deep in life, before retiring from it to reflect ironically. Their wryness was earned.
What I see in this thread, and many thread like this, is common sense masquerading as a knowing wryness, one it hasn't earned. It's mimicry, a borrowed veneer of knowingness. — csalisbury
And what came after was a paradigm shift, the single greatest such shift in history, with respect to philosophy in general and epistemology in particular. — Mww
Maybe this is part of our problem. I do not think I have once in this thread attempted to argue against idealism. I am more asking, "why idealism?" "what does it explain?" (I get that these questions could be seen as an argument against idealism, but that takes an extra step) Similarly, before I engage in an argument against god, I will want someone to show me something that god does. Until then, I will remain agnostic. — ZhouBoTong
I agree that rocks in the past does not refute idealism (as you mentioned some idealist could easily say we don't "know" there were rocks in the past - I suppose the king idealist would say we don't "know" there are rocks now, even this one I am holding in my hand), but I just view this as one of those extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Surely to say "there is a rock", is far more ordinary (far less extraordinary) than "you know there might not even be such a thing as those entities we erroneously label as rocks". So not evidence, but decent reasoning...no? — ZhouBoTong
If S admitted that it is possible we are all in the Matirx (he did so in this thread), then I think that places him more in line with me (sure idealism is possible, but it is meaningless whether it exists or not). I also think the varying degrees of idealism also vary in how coherent they are, and so you may have noticed S vehemently attacking a particular interpretation of idealism. — ZhouBoTong
"It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
This line can be found at the end of the second paragraph (attached to reference #10).
By mentioning that "measurement" exists outside of any observer, it seems the author is worried about what idealists will do with his ideas...right? (I really am wondering if I am right or not here, not just driving my point home) — ZhouBoTong
And if I am reading that correctly, I think it addresses an important distinction in how idealism can be interpreted. If this is a definition of idealism (I tried to find a simple general one, please correct me if it is wrong or incomplete): Idealism is the group of metaphysical philosophies that assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. This could be interpreted as "we can not know reality except through the mind" which I would say is fine and I think S would agree (how else would we know anything?), but so what? It changes nothing, and explains nothing. However, if the above definition is interpreted as "nothing exists outside the mind" then we have a problem (and I think this is where S starts saying things that imply idealism is incoherent). I am not even saying I know it is false. But if it is true, it implies (directly states?) that we have NO IDEA WHAT REALITY IS. I am fine with being agnostic toward a claim like that. However, how SHOULD one live if they have no idea what reality is? Do you see the question itself becomes meaningless. Again, I am not arguing against idealism, just saying "why should I care?" — ZhouBoTong
Yes, I disagree with that because it's obviously wrong. It's ludicrous for human observations to have preexisted humans, yet rocks did. They did so for millions of years. So, again, you're doing something wrong. — S
Who was observing rocks when no one existed for there to be any observation of anything at all? Ludicrous. — S
No, it's okay for people to summarise my position when they're competent enough to do so correctly.
I'm not claiming that it's incomprehensible as a language. I'm making points that it's unsound or a bad way of speaking or a combination of the two. — S
There was an "either" there. That clearly means that I don't think that it's necessarily impossible. And it doesn't matter whether or not you accept it, because you're wrong either way. — S
The world preexisted us, so it preexisted our minds, so your premise that the world is a picture in our minds is false. — S
You philosophy-TYPES.....haven’t adopted a decent metaphysical theory and haven’t graduated to a decent enlightening beverage. — Mww
Which begs the question: If a rock is not defined by reference to human observations, then what does the definition reference? — Echarmion
That rocks existed for millions of years is a theory based on observations. How does this theory say anything about what rocks are outside of observations? — Echarmion
Well no-one, obviously. — Echarmion
Perhaps I am, but so far I haven't seen a convincing argument to that effect. — Echarmion
Anyways I don't accept that "absurd as a deviation from ordinary language use" is a relevant criticism. — Echarmion
The world preexisted us, so it preexisted our minds, so your premise that the world is a picture in our minds is false.
— S
Did it? Are time and space objective parts of reality? How do you know? — Echarmion
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is one of the colloquial sayings that are really hard to apply consistently. Who defines what an extraordinary claim is, and how? — Echarmion
Rocks. — S
There isn't any valid logical connection between your first sentence and your question. Your first sentence is logically irrelevant. — S
And you wouldn't need to ask your question if you understand the meaning of what I'm saying. Nothing I'm saying logically implies that rocks would somehow have magically changed. That might be your bizarre view, but it's not mine. Rocks are rocks. — S
But saying that doesn't resolve your problem. Let me explain. If rocks don't exist independently of observation, yet it is true that rocks preexisted all beings capable of observation, which it is, then you must explain how there was observation without any beings capable of observation. — S
Hitchen's razor. — S
You can look up the wealth of scientific evidence supporting the claim that the world preexisted us, and you can try to argue the hugely implausible alternative, namely that the world immediately sprang into existence the very moment that we did. As for the latter, good luck with that. You're going to need it. — S
If you can't recognise an extraordinary claim as an extraordinary claim, then you're extraordinary yourself. — S
Rocks as they are in and of themselves? — Echarmion
Where did I say that rocks magically change? I know rocks are rocks, I never claimed they turn into cats or toasters. — Echarmion
Again "rock" refers to bunch of observations, sensory input. — Echarmion
As long as we fundamentally disagree about what rocks are, all further discussion is pointless. — Echarmion
You are going to keep insisting that rocks predate humans, which is of course true if we talk about the physical world. — Echarmion
I am going to respond that the physical world is the world of human observation, and as such cannot predate humans. You are talking about temporal relations within observed reality, I am talking about the logical relationship between observation and observer. — Echarmion
You claimed "absurd as a deviation from ordinary language is a valid criterion, so Hitchens razor applies to you just the same. — Echarmion
So is the argument that scientific evidence, which is gathered by observation, proves what the world is like beyond observation? — Echarmion
If you're going to insult me, at least put some effort into it.
Since you like to reference fallacies: poisoning the well. — Echarmion
Just rocks. — S
If you weren't suggesting that they magically change, then what was your point? They are what they are. I've told you what they are. — S
No it doesn't. It refers to a rock. Are you ever going to realise that what you're saying is just what you're reading into it, or is it futile for me to even try? — S
There's only one world, which is this world, and in this world, it is a well supported fact that rocks preexisted us. — S
No, because I provided an argument. You're sending us backwards when we should be going forwards. — S
How it's gathered is logically irrelevant. — S
Why not just answer my question? I am serious. If you believe yourself to be intellectually honest, you have to be able to answer. — Echarmion
You can start by pointing out any single attribute of a rock that doesn't reference an observation. — Echarmion
So, metaphysics doesn't exist, or is entirely nonsense? — Echarmion
Uh huh. Is that supposed to be another argument? — Echarmion
It's on you to demonstrate the supposed logical link. It's unreasonable to expect me to do anything other than point out that, in my assessment, there isn't one. Put together a valid argument and we might just get somewhere. — S
What's unreasonable is to even try to have a discussion with you, so goodbye. — Echarmion
Do you understand that saying “rocks are just rocks” is a tautological declaration and not a dialectical contribution? — Mww
No. You’re culpable for accusing me of it without showing how the failure manifests. — Mww
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.