So the object continues to exist without mind but the image is gone. — TheMadFool
You're saying that some of the statements in your initial post followed from other statements, but you just didn't fill out the details that show how they follow? — Terrapin Station
No it doesn't, but you're welcome to make that argument. — S
Then we all die.
Then I draw logical consequences from reasonable premises and definitions, and you...?
Nothing "happens next". There are still rocks, and words still mean what they do. — S
Okay. Could you detail the reductio argument, at least? — Terrapin Station
There is a rock, but no one is there to perceive it, because we all died an hour previously. Is there a rock? Yes or no?
Part 1 is the problematic idealism of Descartes, which allows the empirical reality of physical objects, such as rocks. Part 2 is the dogmatic idealism of Berkeley, which allows for nothing but that which arises out of mind alone, such as rocks and meanings. Both have been sufficiently refuted by German Idealism of the late 18th century. But such philosophical refutation is not thereby unqualified support for realism in and of itself.
Is the rock still there is the same as is the light stay on in the fridge when the door is closed. There’s no reason to suppose it does, given the mechanics of the system, but no way to directly, or without some kind of material support, make a non-contradictory affirmation of truth about the light. With respect to the tautological analytic “to be is to be”, while it may well be sufficient to deflect a contradiction, it does nothing to provide an existential truth, for its predicate conceptions are always empty, equivalent to saying, “all rocks are”.
To list a set of properties or conditions conceived as belonging to an object does not confer meaning to it, but only the means to identify it, and the more conceptions and conditions the greater the precision of the identity. It follows that another intelligence, if it assigns conceptions and conditions at all, may still identify some common object but under its own correspondence system.
It seems to me, that in the event that some intelligence formulating a rational system goes defunct in totality, anything to do with that intelligence immediately becomes irrelevant. In the event of an intelligence going defunct in totality, then for that defunct intelligence to proffer scenarios with respect to itself, is irrational. — Mww
OK, I'll produce the argument. In order that "there is a rock" is true, it is required that a place in space and time be designated, where the rock is located. And that's what you say in the op, in your opening line "there is a rock". — Metaphysician Undercover
So, then you remove that human capacity to designate a particular place in space and time, by saying all humans are gone. And so "an hour" is meaningless because there is no one to interpret "an hour", or to measure that hour. So your scenario is a meaningless impossibility, due to contradiction. You posit the capacity to determine an hour later, when there are no humans and "an hour" is meaningless. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, your premise #1 assumes already, that "there is a rock", after the humans are gone, then proceeds to ask if there is a rock, so it's just begging the question. Of course there is a rock, the premise dictates it. But what I am trying to show you is that your premise is contradictory, so it's nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover
If I am the intelligence that assigns meaning, and then allow meaning to obtain without me assigning it, I have right then contradicted myself. As for the question on meaning then, I must say meaning would not hold outside the intelligence that assigned it originally. — Mww
There is a rock, but no one is there to perceive it, because we all died an hour previously. Is there a rock? Yes or no — S
Well, yes, as it’s your first premise.
The idealist however will say that the first premise and the second premise cannot both be true, so your hypothetical scenario can never obtain. — Michael
Is a world with rocks, but no humans, just a figment of my imagination, and not a real possibility? I don't think so. Isn't that what the world was like before we existed? I think so. Isn't that what it would be like again if we all went extinct in an hour? I think so. — S
This seems to be the only relevant thing you said to Terrapin:
Is a world with rocks, but no humans, just a figment of my imagination, and not a real possibility? I don't think so. Isn't that what the world was like before we existed? I think so. Isn't that what it would be like again if we all went extinct in an hour? I think so.
— S
All you’re saying here is that you find realism more intuitive than idealism, but that’s not an argument and says nothing about logic. — Michael
What I'm doing is sharing what seems more plausible to me, and either suggesting or explicitly asking whether anyone can do any better. — S
Is there a better explanation for what I've mentioned or not? Silence is not a better explanation than what I've said or suggested. It's no explanation at all!
How does idealism explain the stuff I've brought up, and how do the explanations compare? What about all of the evidence in support of rocks prexisting us? And which is more absurd: rocks that suddenly cease to exist along with us, or the idealist premise which links the one and the other together? — S
Some people, however, believe that there isn't a rock, because that would be a contradiction.
— S
The contradiction is believing that their are external minds, but not external rocks when we basically have the same access or information to both. Idealism inexorably leads to solipsism. Solipsism is basically direct realism as the mind IS reality. So idealism defeats itself and realism has the final word. — Harry Hindu
So it isn't an argument. You're just describing what realists believe and stating your support of it. — Michael
I'm not sure if this counts as an explanation:
"Is a world with rocks, but no humans, just a figment of my imagination, and not a real possibility? I don't think so. Isn't that what the world was like before we existed? I think so. Isn't that what it would be like again if we all went extinct in an hour? I think so."
Or would you accept this as the idealist's explanation?
"Is a world with rocks, but no humans, just a figment of my imagination, and not a real possibility? I think so. Isn't that what the world was like before we existed? I don't think so. Isn't that what it would be like again if we all went extinct in an hour? I don't think so." — Michael
The contradiction is believing that their are external minds, but not external rocks when we basically have the same access or information to both. Idealism inexorably leads to solipsism. Solipsism is basically direct realism as the mind IS reality. So idealism defeats itself and realism has the final word. — Harry Hindu
My goodness. I had this with Terrapin already. With each step, we can dig a little deeper. Now, obviously I am in support of it for a reason. As a whole, it is indeed an argument, but not absolutely everything is going to be explicit for all of you Aspies to immediately see. — S
It's a rhetorical point, and an indication of my thinking which can be further examined. If you want to go further, you just have to say so. I'm not going to spend ages presenting a complete presentation of my thinking with all of the workings out. It's going to be a step by step thing. That's what this discussion is for! — S
I'm not really interested in playing a game like that. If you have an actual argument in favour of realism or against idealism then I'd like to read it, but I shouldn't have to coax it out of you. You posted the discussion, so I would assume you'd have something more meaning to say other than "I believe in realism". — Michael
Is there a better explanation for what I've mentioned or not? Silence is not a better explanation than what I've said or suggested. It's no explanation at all!
How does idealism explain the stuff I've brought up, and how do the explanations compare? What about all of the evidence in support of rocks prexisting us? And which is more absurd: rocks that suddenly cease to exist along with us, or the idealist premise which links the one and the other together?
Where are the answers from the idealist camp? Let's see if they can fare any better.
I would explain hieroglyphics by saying the author of them, even if a different culture, is still the same kind of intelligence as I am now. They rationalize in their way as I in mine, merely with distinct conventions. It follows that I should decipher their writing, hence their meanings, given enough information. With an entirely separate kind of rationality, that information would not be available.
What say you? — Mww
Your "argument" begins with a false premise that I have already rejected. I am asking you to support that premise, not to beg the question. Why is a human activity, such as designation presumably is, supposedly required at the time, in the scenario, by humans, in order for there to be a rock? Please don't go around in circles. I don't want a repeat of your reasoning following the assumption of your key premise, I want you to try to justify your key premise. — S
For example, you say that "an hour" is meaningless because there is no one there to interpret what that means. This is precisely the link that I'm questioning. Your argument is therefore fallacious. — S
Oh the irony. Let me clarify: that was a thought experiment. You and I are both capable of thinking about the scenario of there being a rock, but no people, in spite of the false idealist premise which you adhere to. — S
You haven't given an argument. You've just said that you believe that rocks continue to exist when not being seen. — Michael
Consider a situation in which there are no human beings to distinguish one period of time, from another period of time. All time would exist together in an endless time period. — Metaphysician Undercover
It’s your problem because it isn’t an argument. — Michael
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.