Okay, that's not a necessary property though. I explained why. — Terrapin Station
Can you address my explanation? Or are you not capable of that?
and if something were to pop out of existence independently of observers, it necessarily wouldn't be objective? Also, what would it be if it's not objective? — Terrapin Station
Re "independently of observers," yes, that's exactly what I mean--I specified that as plainly as I could. — Terrapin Station
It's a thought experiment about something that's logically possible. Logical possibility is different than metaphysical possibility, if you want to argue that it's not metaphysically possible. Of course, metaphysical possibilty is also different than "consistent with our knowledge of reality."Well, that can be ruled out as it conflicts with our knowledge of reality. — tom
If there isn't an objective reality then there isn't any conscious awareness of it. That has been my point the whole time. When you declare that there isn't any objective reality then there cannot be any awareness of it. If you still make the claim that there is an awareness - then what is it aware of? Awareness is about things - like an objective world. If there is no awareness - then there is no aboutness - and that isn't how it seems to me.I highly doubt that intrapersona is claiming that "[existence] is only ever an inference at best". Rather it seems that he's saying "[the existence of things not being seen or thought about] is only ever an inference at best". This would be consistent with the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's definition of "objective reality" as "anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.)." — Michael
If there isn't an objective reality then there isn't any conscious awareness of it. That has been my point the whole time. When you declare that there isn't any objective reality then there cannot be any awareness of it. If you still make the claim that there is an awareness - then what is it aware of? Awareness is about things - like an objective world. If there is no awareness - then there is no aboutness - and that isn't how it seems to me. — Harry Hindu
You didn't seem to have an argument against you being text on a screen. Are you acknowledging that you aren't a mind - but are simply text on a screen? Because there isn't anything more to you than being text on a screen - then I know you completely (there is nothing I don't know about you) - as all you are is text on a screen.
Michael, you seem to only use objective (and "real" in other instances) as referring to something existing when it's not being observed (rather than noting that in your view, that's a necessary upshot of ojective things, that they also continue to exist when they're not being observed). — Terrapin Station
But that's not what awareness seems to me. Awareness seems to be the entire reality. Why say that "what exists in subjective reality I'm aware of"? If to say that what I'm aware of and what exists is the same thing is to redefine awareness as reality, and then there is no awareness - just a reality. What is the meaning of "I" in "I am aware"? Where and what is the "I"? Is it also the same as the awareness/reality? If so, then I guess we can just dispense with both terms, "awareness" and "I" and just use "reality". Do you see where I'm going with this? Idealism ends up redefining words out of existence, or into meaninglessness.Of course there wouldn't be an awareness of an objective reality. There'd just be an awareness of a subjective reality. The things I'm aware of are things that only exist whilst I'm aware of them rather than things that exist even when I'm not aware of them. Objectivity is not logically necessary. — Michael
You didn't seem to have an argument against you being text on a screen. Are you acknowledging that you aren't a mind - but are simply text on a screen? Because there isn't anything more to you than being text on a screen - then I know you completely (there is nothing I don't know about you) - as all you are is text on a screen. — Harry Hindu
How do you reconcile the fact that you have a mind yet this isn't a fact from my perspective. Your mind doesn't exist from my perspective - only text on a screen. Your mind exists independently of my subjective experience of it, or you don't have a mind and are simply text on a screen.I don't understand the relevance of this. — Michael
It just seemed like it to me because you keep stressing that and only that.I'm not using it in that way. — Michael
Why say that "what exists in subjective reality I'm aware of"? If to say that what I'm aware of and what exists is the same thing is to redefine awareness as reality, and then there is no awareness - just a reality. — Harry Hindu
How do you reconcile the fact that you have a mind yet this isn't a fact from my perspective. Your mind doesn't exist from my perspective - only text on a screen. Your mind exists independently of my subjective experience of it, or you don't have a mind and are simply text on a screen. — Harry Hindu
It seems like you're getting at something that I argue, but I instead stress that representationalist-oriented idealism can't get at a support for itself. That is, it can't get at saying that something like the phenomenal data of a toaster is a mental event in the first place. In order to make that claim, it has to assume realism somewhere in the argument--it needs to assume realism to make a mental vs other stuff cleavage in the first place. Otherwise it's just the phenomenon of a toaster, without any further ontological categorization attached. There would be nothing to make it distinctly mental versus other possibilities.But that's not what awareness seems to me. Awareness seems to be the entire reality. Why say that "what exists in subjective reality I'm aware of"? If to say that what I'm aware of and what exists is the same thing is to redefine awareness as reality, and then there is no awareness - just a reality. What is the meaning of "I" in "I am aware"? Where and what is the "I"? Is it also the same as the awareness/reality? If so, then I guess we can just dispense with both terms, "awareness" and "I" and just use "reality". Do you see where I'm going with this? Idealism ends up redefining words out of existence, or into meaninglessness. — Harry Hindu
Another way of saying this is simply that the only way that the ideal/mental category makes any sense in the first place is if we have something to distinguish it from. But under idealism, there's nothing to distinguish it from, since we can't (at least epistemically, or by acquaintance) know anything but the ideal. — Terrapin Station
But for example as a physicalist, I believe that the very idea of nonphysical existents is incoherent. — Terrapin Station
The difference is that my physicalism only arises because people claim dualism etc., where they're relying on a putative distinction that's incoherent.
You could say that one's idealism only arises because people claim objectivism/realism, etc., where they're relying on a putative distinction that the idealist believes is incoherent, but then that would undermine the idea of being able to make sense of the distinction in the first place. — Terrapin Station
I fail to see why "but then that would undermine the idea of being able to make sense of the distinction in the first place" applies to the idealist but not to the physicalist. — Michael
If the physicalist can claim that all is X and that not-X is incoherent then the idealist can claim that all is Y and that not-Y is incoherent — Michael
if they allow for the coherency of not-Y — Michael
Of course it's the same thing. If humans were the only intelligent species, then by using the term, "intelligent species" I'm automatically referring to humans because they are the only species that is intelligent. They would be the same thing. You don't seem to understand the concept of redundancy.Why say that "what exists in subjective reality I'm aware of"? If to say that what I'm aware of and what exists is the same thing is to redefine awareness as reality, and then there is no awareness - just a reality. — Harry Hindu
I've already gone over this. It doesn't redefine awareness as reality. It simply restricts reality to awareness. That's not the same thing. If I restrict "intelligent species" to humanity (i.e. claim that humanity is the only intelligent species) I'm not redefining "humanity" as "intelligent species".
And besides, if awareness is defined as reality and if there is a reality then ipso facto there is awareness, and so what you say above is a contradiction. Just as if I defined a bachelor as an unmarried man and if there is an unmarried man then there is a bachelor. — Michael
Well, that is my point. Idealism logically devolves into solipsism. Once you question the external aspect of your experience as the cause of your internal experience, then you question the existence of all external, un-experienced things, which included other minds. Once you take that step of questioning the existence of just one external thing, you end up questioning all of it, or else you have to come up with a really good explanation as to how you know other minds exist but you know that apples and tables and cars don't exist outside of your experience of them. So you are arguing for solipsism the moment you question the external reality of anything.How do you reconcile the fact that you have a mind yet this isn't a fact from my perspective. Your mind doesn't exist from my perspective - only text on a screen. Your mind exists independently of my subjective experience of it, or you don't have a mind and are simply text on a screen. — Harry Hindu
Firstly, I'm not arguing for or against solipsism, hence why I don't think this relevant. What I'm arguing is that idealism doesn't define subjectivity out of existence, as you claim.
Furthermore, the very question is confused. If I were arguing for solipsism then I wouldn't consider your perspective at all. I'd only consider my perspective. And from my perspective I'm not just words on a screen. You, however, would just be words on a screen to me.
Also, not all idealists are solipsists. One can claim that nothing exists that isn't being aware of without claiming that nothing exists that I'm not aware of. So other minds exist, but not other things. — Michael
Of course it's the same thing. If humans were the only intelligent species, then by using the term, "intelligent species" I'm automatically referring to humans because they are the only species that is intelligent. They would be the same thing. You don't seem to understand the concept of redundancy. — Harry Hindu
Well, that is my point. Idealism logically devolves into solipsism.
Once you question the external aspect of your experience as the cause of your internal experience, then you question the existence of all external, un-experienced things, which included other minds. Once you take that step of questioning the existence of just one external thing, you end up questioning all of it, or else you have to come up with a really good explanation as to how you know other minds exist but you know that apples and tables and cars don't exist outside of your experience of them.
So you are arguing for solipsism the moment you question the external reality of anything.
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.