It's trickier than just adding idea to matter to equal a thing. — frank
What do you understand by this:
But the observing subject is not anywhere to be found in the objective domain, so in no sense can be derived from or imputed to the properties or attributes of objects.
— Wayfarer — Tom Storm
The problem with this is that the same people reject any evidence that there are some animals that would do something remotely similar, of which there are many. What would constitute "remotely similar" is always subject to revision by those that believe there can be no such thing. — Kenosha Kid
Please, if you would, clarify / explicate the non-trivial differences between "intrinsic" and "non-intrinsic" (modes? degrees? types? of) "reality".Matter exists - but it lacks intrinsic reality. — Wayfarer
:clap: :100:This would be problematic if reality had presented us with anything that obviously did not sit in physics' purview. However, the success of physics relies on their being no such thing. — Kenosha Kid
:fire:Equivalent hit rate for idealism? At last count, zero. All you can really do with it is believe it or not believe it. It's an inert notion on a shrinking stage without an audience. Physicalism is a conclusion; idealism an assumption. They're not in the same league.
In reality, I don't know what it is like to be a bat and never will. But nor will I know what it is like to be a little girl, a gay man in '50s Utah, a gorgeous Hollywood star, autistic, dyslexic, left-handed, or a dwarf. I will never know what it is like to be you, Wayfarer, Nagel, or Trump. — Kenosha Kid
But the observing subject is not anywhere to be found in the objective domain — Wayfarer
The form of idealism I subscribe to, on the contrary, is not denying that material objects possess empirical reality - deny it at your peril - but saying that reality comprises both the observed object and the observing subject — Wayfarer
In reality, I don't know what it is like to be a bat and never will. — Kenosha Kid
The 'what is it like to be' schtick leaves me a little cold. I'm not sure what it is like to be me, let alone Nagel's winged mammal. — Tom Storm
.I would ask, can we also say we don’t know what it’s like for our neurons to fire? — Mww
Nonetheless, many (most?) people insist without compelling justification that there is an additional thing: the so-called hard problem of consciousness, such that if all of the physical barriers to knowing what it is like to be a bat were overcome, we would still not know what it is like to be a bat. This is just proof that sentences can be valid without conveying understanding or meaning imo. — Kenosha Kid
Again, the dualist will admonish against claims regarding insight into ourselves, for which there is a plethora of justifiable speculation, in juxtaposition to claims about the mechanistic origin of ourselves, for which there is barely any insight at all. In short, we have been given what’s necessary for insight into ourselves (brains/matter), but not yet what is sufficient (causality). — Mww
For hundreds of years, the simplest, best, and maximally sufficient explanation for our experiences, their continuities, and our consensus about them has been the existence of a single objective reality that obeys physical laws. Nothing has changed. Yes, there will always be little gaps to fit gods and dualism and idealism in, but these necessarily explain less and less as physicalism explains more and more. Quite likely, the less idealism could explain and the more physicalism does explain, the more enthusiastically idealists (or dualists or theists) must insist that science doesn't work but the unavoidable fact is that it does: we are drowning in an ocean of applications of physicalist assumptions to control our world, each one asking the question: If physicalism is false, why must I act as if it is true?
Again, the dualist will admonish against claims regarding insight into ourselves, for which there is a plethora of justifiable speculation, in juxtaposition to claims about the mechanistic origin of ourselves, for which there is barely any insight at all. In short, we have been given what’s necessary for insight into ourselves (brains/matter), but not yet what is sufficient (causality) — Mww
Now, the pure undifferentiated idealist does have something interesting to say, if he is so bold as to invoke the cum hoc ergo proper hoc argument, in that it is because we don’t think in terms of natural law, that unknowable mitigating factors are proved, which demand explanation, over and above mere brains. And of course, under those conditions, an explanation will be impossible. — Mww
Anyway....didn’t mean to butt in. Ok, fine. I did. Now I’ll butt out. — Mww
What is the causality you're talking about? How matter causes experience? — RogueAI
I'm reminded of people typing on computers connected to the internet that science cannot possibly work... — Kenosha Kid
we are permitted to say we have no idea how the brain causes experience — Mww
Heck no. That didn’t bother me. I’m just not agreeing with what you said (it very much is indirect realism, and the body is in no way representation of Will), but didn’t quite understand why you said it. So I decided to leave it alone. — 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.