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

Here is a hand.

Gasp! :scream:

So isn't adding "do you think" to "is there a rock" redundant? — ZhouBoTong

No, because one can always think a rock without there being a rock. By the same token, it would be redundant to say I think there are rocks after one already has the experience of extant rocks. Knowledge is a stronger judgement of truth than mere thought.
———————-

How did that change how we study the stars? — ZhouBoTong

It may not, although the idea has been forwarded after the advent of QM that reason determines the nature of the experiment which in turn manifests in the experiment determining the nature of that which is being experimented on. This is because observation has been supplanted by the expectation given from mathematical prediction. Overall, however, in the macro world of direct experience, idealism in and of itself doesn’t change how we study, but rather how we understand what we study.

those of alive today have made idealism a part of our lives without even knowing it? — ZhouBoTong

They haven’t “made” it a part of their lives; it is an intrinsic part, exactly half, actually, of the system that makes us human. If you’d said without realizing it, I would be more inclined to agree.
———————-

How is it such a massive paradigm shift? It seems to me nothing changed. — ZhouBoTong

If one has no experience of what was, he thinks what is now has always been the norm. History books, the written record and imagination all say differently.
————————

concepts like math were a priori in that they already existed and humans discovered them — ZhouBoTong

The thesis:
Those certain natural relations already existed; that which became mathematical conceptions and the principles legislating their truths are determined in the mind a priori, sufficient to explain and necessary to understand those natural relations.

The proof:
In the absence of a priori knowledge, no figure is possible to conceive from the thought of two lines. Given a 6 and a 3, no concept of 9 is possible from them alone. Given a triangle, it is impossible to conceive from it, that perpendicular lines drawn from the midpoints of each line will meet at a point central to all of them.

With respect to th OP, humans will retain knowledge of post-human rocks in general via their extant experience, but that a priori knowledge is not the same as the direct a posteriori knowledge of a particular set of extant rocks required by the OP. The former is given from intuition, the latter is given from sense.

Think of it this way: instead of asking after rocks post-human, ask about the temperature. There were humans, humans look at thermometers, humans henceforth have indication of a natural phenomenon. Vacate all humans, then ask about the thermometer. Just because there’s no reason to think there’s no natural phenomenon to register on the thermometer doesn’t lend itself to any possible knowledge of what the indication is. Hell, I can’t even tell you the temperature in the next town over and I haven’t been deleted from anything.
————————

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

Absolutely not. You had to reason your way out, which makes explicit your formal transcendental idealism. Unless of course, you simply got kicked out for stealing from the collection plate.

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

At least you understand where I'm coming from, and accept that this can be a good thing.

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

That's how you see it. The following is how I see it.

Here's the problem. There's this assumption that because of my similarities with the average guy on the street, the same criticisms that apply to him, also apply to me. It's basically a guilty by association error. And your reply is also basically an ad hominem where you're calling me unthinking and unworthy. How judgemental of you. It's a shame you didn't go about replying in a better way.

Here's the difference. Believe it or not, I have actually thought about this a lot, and I feel like I've reached a point where I've come out the other side, only to find that my initial assumptions were pretty much right all along (albeit perhaps with a few qualifications here and there), kind of like your quote. And I've gained the insight of why it is that others go wrong, and get stuck at an earlier stage. This is basically the triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. You perhaps see my position as one of the first two. I see my position as the synthesis. You think that you're right and I'm wrong, and, funnily enough, I think that I'm right and you're wrong.

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

If you're thinking of Kant here, then yes, he was great. But he is an obstacle, just like Hume was. Just as Kant saw Hume in this way, I see Kant in this way. And that Kant is an obstacle does not mean that he is an insurmountable obstacle. It seems to me that you're stuck in the past and a hindrance to progress. There have been important contributions to philosophy after Kant, and some of them have influenced my argument here.

Ok.

Ok. — Mww

Now fetch me a beer.

You philosophy-TYPES.....haven’t adopted a decent metaphysical theory and haven’t graduated to a decent enlightening beverage.

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 just listed the argument for the sake of completeness. I understand your position. As to your question: Idealism tells us what we can know about physics and how we can know it. In this sense, it is relevant for our formulation of the scientific method. Enpirical Knowledge is based on subjective observation, and not some other "direct" access to objective reality. There are also rules for constructing a theory (simplicity and parsimony, for example, often called Ockham's razor) that will change slightly based on what you think you are doing when you construct a theory.

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

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? Either way metaphysical questions are not decided by evidence in the way physical questions are. How would you even apply evidence to the question of what evidence actually represents?

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

I wasn't able to extract much information about S' post at all. But that is somewhat beside the point, I don't want to talk above someone else's head.

"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

I don't know if they thought about idealism as philosophy or the consciousness interpretation of QM. In any event I don't think that the author is worried about a misinterpretation is the same as sqauring the theory with idealism. That'd be actively advocating a theory of QM that references the mind of the observer. But other interpretations, such as many worlds, seem to be essentially realist metaphysics.

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

Well why does anyone care about philosophy? For the love of wisdom, no?

I also don't think either realism or idealism can tell you what you should do. Both are speculative, not normative. That the world really is what it looks like doesn't tell you what to do, either.

That nothing exists outside the mind is the position of solipsism, which is a very specific version of idealism. I haven't seen anyone here argue for metaphysical solipism.

But apart from that, why is it a problem if we don't know what reality "is"? Isn't it sufficient to know how our reality works, what observations to expect, or rather not to expect?

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

Which begs the question: If a rock is not defined by reference to human observations, then what does the definition reference?

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?

Who was observing rocks when no one existed for there to be any observation of anything at all? Ludicrous. — S

Well no-one, obviously.

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

And incoherent is not an acceptable term for "unsound or a bad way of speaking"? Anyways this side argument seems rather pointless.

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

Perhaps I am, but so far I haven't seen a convincing argument to that effect.

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?

You philosophy-TYPES.....haven’t adopted a decent metaphysical theory and haven’t graduated to a decent enlightening beverage. — Mww

I don't know why you're saying it like that and talking as though you're not one yourself. And it's interesting how your drink snobbery matches your philosophical snobbery. Do you listen to Beethoven? Go to the theatre?

Which begs the question: If a rock is not defined by reference to human observations, then what does the definition reference? — Echarmion

Rocks.

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

There isn't any valid logical connection between your first sentence and your question. Your first sentence is logically irrelevant. 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.

Well no-one, obviously. — Echarmion

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.

Perhaps I am, but so far I haven't seen a convincing argument to that effect. — Echarmion

I don't need one, because you never gave one for this:

Anyways I don't accept that "absurd as a deviation from ordinary language use" is a relevant criticism. — Echarmion

Hitchen's razor.

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

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.

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

If you can't recognise an extraordinary claim as an extraordinary claim, then you're extraordinary yourself. I don't believe that you're extraordinary. I'd find it more plausible that you're in denial or pretending.

This is like the photocopier guy from the video. I might call these kind of questions photocopier questions from now on.

Rocks. — S

Rocks as they are in and of themselves?

There isn't any valid logical connection between your first sentence and your question. Your first sentence is logically irrelevant. — S

Uh, ok. Just replace the words "this theory" in the second sentence with the first sentence, then you have your question.

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

Where did I say that rocks magically change? I know rocks are rocks, I never claimed they turn into cats or toasters.

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

Again "rock" refers to bunch of observations, sensory input. As long as we fundamentally disagree about what rocks are, all further discussion is pointless.

You are going to keep insisting that rocks predate humans, which is of course true if we talk about the physical world. 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.

Hitchen's razor. — S

You claimed "absurd as a deviation from ordinary language is a valid criterion, so Hitchens razor applies to you just the same.

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

So is the argument that scientific evidence, which is gathered by observation, proves what the world is like beyond observation?

If you can't recognise an extraordinary claim as an extraordinary claim, then you're extraordinary yourself. — S

If you're going to insult me, at least put some effort into it.

Since you like to reference fallacies: poisoning the well.

Re: philosophy-TYPE

“Snobbery” rather than “preference”

QED

Rocks as they are in and of themselves? — Echarmion

Just rocks.

Where did I say that rocks magically change? I know rocks are rocks, I never claimed they turn into cats or toasters. — Echarmion

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.

Again "rock" refers to bunch of observations, sensory input. — Echarmion

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?

As long as we fundamentally disagree about what rocks are, all further discussion is pointless. — Echarmion

Yes, until you learn to let go off your funny way of thinking and speaking, it will continue to pose a problem.

You are going to keep insisting that rocks predate humans, which is of course true if we talk about the physical world. — Echarmion

There's only one world, which is this world, and in this world, it is a well supported fact that rocks preexisted us.

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

I'm talking about reality. You're free to keep rambling about observation, but you shouldn't expect me to care about logical irrelevancies.

You claimed "absurd as a deviation from ordinary language is a valid criterion, so Hitchens razor applies to you just the same. — Echarmion

No, because I provided an argument. You're sending us backwards when we should be going forwards.

So is the argument that scientific evidence, which is gathered by observation, proves what the world is like beyond observation? — Echarmion

How it's gathered is logically irrelevant.

If you're going to insult me, at least put some effort into it.

Since you like to reference fallacies: poisoning the well. — Echarmion

It wasn't intended as an insult, even if you find it insulting. You really would be extraordinary, because ordinary people can and do recognise extraordinary claims as extraordinary claims.

And I did say that I don't believe that you're extraordinary in this way. I believe that you're ordinary in this regard, like me, and like the rest of us.

Just rocks. — 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.

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

I have told you what the point is further down in my post.

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

You can start by pointing out any single attribute of a rock that doesn't reference an observation.

There's only one world, which is this world, and in this world, it is a well supported fact that rocks preexisted us. — S

So, metaphysics doesn't exist, or is entirely nonsense?

No, because I provided an argument. You're sending us backwards when we should be going forwards. — S

We aren't going anywhere anyways, that much is abundantly clear.

How it's gathered is logically irrelevant. — S

Uh huh. Is that supposed to be another argument?

QED — Mww

"Kwed"?

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

I refuse to talk in your funny way, with your funny distinction. Rocks are just rocks.

You can start by pointing out any single attribute of a rock that doesn't reference an observation. — Echarmion

That's all of them, so just pick any.

So, metaphysics doesn't exist, or is entirely nonsense? — Echarmion

That doesn't follow from what I said.

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.

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.

Do you understand that saying “rocks are just rocks” is a tautological declaration and not a dialectical contribution? Nobody can back-and-forth with “just rocks”. When the proposition is presented showing it is possible under certain conditions that rocks are not just rocks, and the rejoinder is, “Wrong. Rocks are just rocks”, the conversation’s over.

The votes exhibit the illegitimacy of your argument, and the fact nobody sticks around very long to parley with you should tell you you’re a philosophy_TYPE that doesn’t have much to say. To say you’re admittedly not a nice guy means nothing to someone here just to dialogue over a metaphysical quandry; nobody’s here to go out for drinks, but to see what you got for a brain, to investigate your capacity for reason.

You may well have it, but the precedents shown here and elsewhere certainly don’t display any of it. When your argument from authority is your own, small wonder folks just shake their heads and slowly back away.

........slowly backing away.

What's unreasonable is to even try to have a discussion with you, so goodbye. — Echarmion

Oh noes. Please don't go. You make so much sense. Tell me more about how it is that rocks don't exist, and up is down, and the sea is the sky. I love that special kind of wisdom you get with philosophy-types.

Do you understand that saying “rocks are just rocks” is a tautological declaration and not a dialectical contribution? — Mww

Do you understand that missing what I was purposefully doing there only reflects badly on you? Try thinking outside of the box.

And this isn't a popularity contest. If it was, I would lose, because gadflies are unpopular with horses. Sometimes, it's like you're speaking, but all I hear is "Neigh! Neigh!".

Answering a question with a question, and deflection of culpability.

Wonderful.

Answering a question with a question.

Wonderful. — Mww

You'd rather I spoonfeed you the answer straightaway than give you an opportunity to reconsider?

And again

And again. — Mww

No, that wasn't in reply to a question. :lol:

Do you recognize this: first positive, first negative, second positive second negative....

...and deflection of culpability. — Mww

So I'm culpable for your failure to think outside of the box?

No. You’re culpable for accusing me of it without showing how the failure manifests.

Do you recognize this: first positive, first negative, second positive, second negative....

No. You’re culpable for accusing me of it without showing how the failure manifests. — Mww

Okay, so you want me to spoonfeed you the answer. You could have just said that.

I did it on purpose to show that I reject his funny way of speaking. Someone who is capable of thinking outside of the box should be capable of figuring out what I was doing, why I was doing it, and what I meant by that, instead of just narrowly seeing it as a tautology.

A rock is just a rock. By which I mean that it is just as it is defined. And the way that it's defined says nothing of how it looks or feels or whatever to an observer. What it says is what it is. What it does is describe it terms of objective properties.

Of course, I could have humoured him by answering the question by adopting his funny way of speaking, but I don't approve of his funny way of speaking, so that would be counterproductive. In case it hasn't become apparent to you by now, I'm a proponent of ordinary language philosophy, not Kantian language philosophy.