Do we just say all is mind just because it is difficult to disprove? — Chaz
Or has anyone produced some refutations to all is mind that are just as difficult to disprove as the position they refute? — Chaz
:100: :up:The idea that an idea has to be proven wrong in order to be wrong is wrong. In order for an idea to even be considered plausible, or worth considering, it must have some justified explanatory power. Can “all is mind” justify its premises? That is question number one. If you cannot answer it affirmatively, there is no need to proceed. If you can, then the next question should be what can it explain better than (insert alternative theory/ies)? Then ask what is left unexplained. Once that is determined, simple arithmetic will decide which idea is best. — Pinprick
The idea that an idea has to be proven wrong in order to be wrong is wrong. In order for an idea to even be considered plausible, or worth considering, it must have some justified explanatory power. — Pinprick
This is backwards. If you reject every possibility until it can be proven, then you reject everything by default and then have nothing with which to prove anything from, leaving you rejecting everything forever. — Pfhorrest
What determines whether an idea is worth considering is largely personal preference. — khaled
You personally seem to prefer the idea that offers the most explanatory power, that may not be the case for others. — khaled
So for the case at hand, we don’t have to worry about the mere POSSIBILITY of solipsism being true; sure, it might be, but so might its negation. Both of those are possibilities. Which seems more likely to be true to you? — Pfhorrest
I don’t necessarily mean rejecting, just not accepting without proof/evidence. Isn’t this what a default position should be? I shouldn’t automatically accept every idea I stumble across and then begin the process of disproving them all. — Pinprick
Also, you seem to imply that if a methodology leads to universal nihilism (rejection of everything forever), then the methodology is wrong. This isn’t warranted. — Pinprick
If someone does something differently than you, that doesn’t automatically make them wrong; but neither does it automatically make you wrong. — Pfhorrest
Neither of you has the burden to justify your ways to the other, nor any obligation to do as the other does if you can’t justify doing otherwise. — Pfhorrest
Both ways of doing things are initially to be presumed fine, until something can be shown to be wrong with one; — Pfhorrest
That implication is intended and warranted. — Pfhorrest
I take it you reject objectivity? — Pinprick
An objective objective? — Pinprick
The idea that an idea has to be proven wrong in order to be wrong is wrong. In order for an idea to even be considered plausible, or worth considering, it must have some justified explanatory power. Can “all is mind” justify its premises? That is question number one. If you cannot answer it affirmatively, there is no need to proceed. If you can, then the next question should be what can it explain better than (insert alternative theory/ies)? Then ask what is left unexplained. Once that is determined, simple arithmetic will decide which idea is best.
the mind is the limit of perception so you can't prove all is not mind. — Chaz
Not necessarily. I don’t know if it exists or not but even if it did there is no point at which we can be sure we have found it so I don’t care if it exists or not. — khaled
I can't be wrong about the existence of mind and thought. — RogueAI
Might as well make thought the building blocks of reality, instead of inanimate non-conscious stuff. — RogueAI
Idealism does not fall prey to the Explanatory Gap/Hard Problem of Consciousness, which imo, is catastrophic for materialism at this point in time. — RogueAI
If that’s the case, then why fuss over whether or not I’m being objective? — Pinprick
If you don’t care, then I don’t see how you can care about obtaining truth at all — Pinprick
Without accepting objectivity how can either of us determine whom is correct? — Pinprick
All evidence supports the idea that “mind” is physical. What evidence is there that anything nonphysical exists?
When did I do that? I didn't utter the word "objective" once before you did. I honestly don't know where you got "So I take it you don't care about objectivity" from. — khaled
I don't. I care about obtaining ideas that seem true. I can't test if they're true or not (because I don't have a hotline to truth) but I can select the ideas that provide the most accurate models. That is my criteria. That is not everyone's criteria. That's all I said. — khaled
By setting up an actually testable standard. For example: Makes the best predictions, Has the fewest words, Most intuitive, etc etc. — khaled
When you think of your mind, do you think in terms of physical properties? What color is your mind? What shape is it? What's its volume? What does it smell like? What's it made out of? How heavy is it? These are nonsense questions because your mind isn't a physical thing. — RogueAI
How does materialism survive such a failure? — RogueAI
My point, or argument, is that everyone prefers ideas that seem true, rather than ideas that seem false. Therefore it seems strange to me to consider someone who does so biased (i.e. subjective). — Pinprick
Therefore choosing explanatory power as the best method is objective, because if something explains something else logically and rationally it by definition is true (or at least seems that way). — Pinprick
So, if the method you select does not provide the most accurate models, then the method you selected is objectively wrong. — Pinprick
But you can’t determine which standard is best without objectivity. — Pinprick
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.