The point of idealism is that the things that exist are the things we are conscious of, isn't it? — Banno

Not quite. It's more that facts exist for a mind, which picks out something specific or particular which is designated a fact or an object. 'If I take away the thinking subject, the whole material world must vanish, as this world is nothing but the phenomenal appearance in the sensibility of our own subject, and is a species of this subject's representations' says Kant. But I think this 'vanishing' also has to be interpreted carefully: it's not that the world suddently ceases to exist, but the nature of existence is within the conception that the mind has of it. The sense in which the world exists outside of that is by definition unknown to us (Kant's (in)famous 'things in themselves'.)

Numbers and other objective facts are uniform and invariant structures in the mind. In this, they, along with many other artifacts of language, science and culture, are held in common with other like minds. (However, 'if lions could speak' .....)

The subject is third-person when referred to in the third person.

What is an experience? Would it be fair to define experience as the information of the subject/object/person relative to the world? — Harry Hindu

I don't know if it can be defined as that, but certainly experience implies the subject for whom, or to whom, it occurs.

Why should I doubt Minds, tables , bodies , quarks and chairs - after all, they are a more apparent "other" than "relational patterns". — Banno

To a chemist a chair is a conglomeration of molecules, to a furniture maker it is an assemblage of materials, to a historian it is a cultural object , to a cat it is a scratching post, to an actor it is a prop. Is there some common essence of chair underlying all these accounts, or is Nelson Goodman correct in saying “Truth cannot be defined or tested by agreement with 'the world'; for not only do truths differ for different worlds but the nature of agreement between a world apart from it is notoriously nebulous.”

According to Goodman’s irrealism, none of the above accounts of a chair can claim to be “the way things are independent of experience”. There is no one uniquely true description of reality.

To a chemist a chair is a conglomeration of molecules — Joshs

Sure. He contemplates such stuff while sitting on the chair. The chair is still a chair.

These categories are not as exclusive as you seem to suppose. It's not that we must choose between the chair and the conglomeration of molecules.

Sure, there are multiple true descriptions of reality.

They need not contradict one another.

But most importantly, they are of reality.

There are some descriptions that are much more important than others. When I used to debate on Dharmawheel, there were Buddhist scholastics who would often insist that, in line with their doctrine of emptiness (śūnyatā) that 'on analysis, [any object] is lacking in essence'. I would ask them, say you have ingested a poison, and you're presented with two identical bottles, one of which contains the antidote, the other only a placebo. Surely in this case even though both bottles may be 'devoid of essence', one of them contains something important, and knowing which one it is, is of the utmost importance at that time. Never did get a satisfactory answer to that question.

Not quite. — Wayfarer

I'm still puzzled by your idealism that is apparently the same as realism. Sure, mind constructs what we see round us. But you have agreed that it is constructed from non-mind.

Edit: I am having difficulty locating our disagreement, apart from your insistence on separating a material and spiritual world.

I'm still puzzled by your idealism that is apparently the same as realism. — Banno

That's because you're still criticizing a strawman version of idealism. What I believe idealism argues is that the fundamental constituents of reality are experiential. Not inanimate material entities, and not objects - there are no fundamental objects, as such. Whereas the mainstream view of neo-darwinian materialism is that objectively-existent material entities are fundamental and that the mind is a product of that, which has evolved through a fundamentally physical process. Hope that is clear.

But that is exactly what I have been criticising. You say that the fundamental constituents of reality are experiential, then that our experiences are constructed... and I ask "what from?"

Because the thing that our experiences are constructed from also has a claim to being fundamental.

And that thing seems to be not too dissimilar to what @Hello Human called the "external material world".

And that thing seems to be not too dissimilar to what Hello Human called the "external material world". — Banno

But that is not an explanatory principle.

I ask "what from?" — Banno

Ask almost anyone, and they will say, 'from atoms'. That is the view of the proverbial man in the street isn't it? So I suppose to really get down to tin tacks, that's where the question starts, isn't it?

That book I referred to before, Manjir Kumar's Quantum, is subtitled 'the great debate about the nature of reality'. Many popular books about quantum physics have similar sub-titles. And I would propose that the reason quantum physics is controversial is because it undermines the idea of the atom as the fundamental unit of matter or an eternally-existing material point-particle. And no, I'm not a physicist, but that is a question of interpretation, about what the theory means.

Likewise, evolutionary theory. I'm not pushing any kind of ID barrow, just finished reading Cro Magnon by Brian Fagan (recommended!) But again - what does evolution mean? Is it really just the output of dumb stuff that became combined under certain circumstances, like a kind of runaway chemical reaction. That's what Daniel Dennett says. The contrary to that is not necessarily creationism.

So the question 'what from?' has to take all of those kinds of sub-questions into account.

Is there a point of difference between us? — Banno

Of course there is a very significant difference between you: @Wayfarer, if I am not mistaken believes there is an afterlife and I think that is why he doesn't like materialism, because if it were true then the conclusion would be that there is no afterlife. Whether or not one seriously believes there is an afterlife constitutes perhaps the greatest difference imaginable concerning how one would be inclined to live their lives.

Might be so. But @Wayfarer has presented converse arguments such that those who espouse materialism are afraid less they be obliged to face the reality of a spiritual or transcendent world - they refuse to countenance such things out of fear of having their world overturned. And I think this is probably right, too, in many cases.

More importantly, even if @Wayfarer's beliefs are based on a desire for an afterlife, that does not render his arguments wrong.

And his arguments are entertaining, often novel and demonstrate a mastery both broad and deep.

So much better than most folk hereabouts.

why thanks, Banno, that is very touching for you to say that. Deeply appreciated. :pray:

But that is not an explanatory principle. — Wayfarer

Positing a world, independent of our perceptions, beliefs and attitudes, explains a fair bit that is otherwise concealed. Like how it is that you and I are able to agree on so much: we share the same world. And what it is to be wrong: to believe something that is not true of the world.

thanks, Banno — Wayfarer

You are welcome. You are also wrong. :wink:

I wasn't offering an assessment of @Wayfarer's arguments, just highlighting that if one really seriously believed in the importance of preparing for an afterlife, then one would live a very different life. The only beliefs in immanent philosophies which are comparable to the life-altering ethical power of belief in a transcendent reality that I can think of are totally committed or fanatical adherences to political ideologies and their purported critical importance for the quality of human life going forward. I suppose global warming would be another possibility, but I am yet to meet anyone who is really prepared to make the necessary lifestyle and prosperity sacrifices.

So much better than most folk hereabouts. — Banno

"Comparisons are odious".

But Wayfarer has presented converse arguments such that those who espouse materialism are afraid less they be obliged to face the reality of a spiritual or transcendent world - they refuse to countenance such things out of fear of having their world overturned. And I think this is probably right, too, in many cases. — Banno

This warrants a reply. I can't imagine anyone who genuinely and committedly believed in a transcendental reality "refusing to countenance" it. And I can't imagine anyone who saw no reason to believe in such a thing needing to refuse to countenance it; it is usually not even under consideration. My experience has has shown me that of all those I've met who espouse such transcendental beliefs, the vast majority don't practice in accordance with what they claim to believe anyway.

if I am not mistaken believes there is an afterlife — Janus

I don't think I've ever used that as a premise in an argument. But I also don't believe that the human is simply a physical body - I suppose that means, and I will acknowledge, that soul has an actual referent. But then, I'm also coming around to the understanding that nothing whatever is 'purely physical'.

As for materialism, I reject it on these grounds:

The debate between Idealism and Materialism may seem abstract and academic, far removed from everyday life, but on closer inspection the opposite is true. From the Scientific Revolution in the 16th and 17th centuries onward, Materialism has steadily grown into the dominant worldview of Western civilization. As such, Materialism has exerted an enormous – and very harmful – influence in our culture. It is not for nothing that the word “materialism” is synonymous with greed and the exclusive focus on material possessions. The most important cultural consequence of scientific Materialism has undoubtedly been modern individualism, an extreme form of the dualistic belief in the reality of the separate ego.

The seemingly separate ego experiences itself as detached from – and at odds with – an indifferent outside world, in which it must struggle to maintain itself. Materialism naturally leads to belief in separation because this philosophy sees Consciousness as a by-product of the brain. In that case, Consciousness is by definition tied to an individual and mortal body, and thus different from individual to individual. In this way, Materialism is in large part responsible for the suffering that the dualistic belief in separation entails: egoism, greed, exploitation, feelings of inferiority, hatred, abuse, violence… These are all thoughts, feelings and behavioral patterns that originate in the conviction that I – as this person, with this body and this mind – am nothing more than this individual being, separate from the other people around me, separate from nature, separate from the Universe, separate from the Divine... — Peter Sas, Critique of Pure Interest (Blog)

I'm going to spend a bit of time reading Kastrup's thesis.

I don't think I've ever used that as a premise in an argument. — Wayfarer

But isn't that why you object to materialism, why you think it is demeaning of human life; because it seems to you to rule out soteriology?

That's only one aspect of it. Materialism treats humans as objects, rather than recognising them as subjects of experience, which in its view has no particular significance. “I’m a robot, and you’re a robot", says Daniel Dennett, "but that doesn’t make us any less dignified or wonderful or lovable or responsible for our actions,” he said. “Why does our dignity depend on our being scientifically inexplicable?” I think the answer is obvious, but apparently he doesn't, presumably on account of the blind spot we have discussed before.

(Actually in the following paragraph, he says had he not grown up in an academic household, he'd probably have been an engineer. Now, there's a man who's obviously missed his calling!)

I love the eternal @Janus @Wayfarer saga.

I get what you're saying, but I view it a bit differently. I don't believe Dennett is stupid enough to deny that we are subjects of experience; to say that would be to say that we don't experience anything at all, which is totally absurd. Even under the aegis of materialism we can be understood to grow and develop, be more or less compassionate and ethical in our treatment of others and ourselves; but if there is no afterlife then these things only matter in the context of this life. So, what I am saying is that under materialism we can have it all except (perhaps?) eternal life.

I love the eternal Janus @Wayfarer saga. — Noble Dust

I'm glad we are providing you with some love in this often harsh world,,,or is it merely entertainment?

I'm glad we are providing you with some love in this often harsh world,,,or is it merely entertainment? — Janus

Both? I feel familial love for the both of you, but I can't help but grab the metaphorical popcorn anytime I see the giants collide. :sweat:

I love the eternal Janus @Wayfarer saga. — Noble Dust

Even under the aegis of materialism — Janus

The only reason you say that is because both you and Dennett have the residue of Christian faith.

:rofl:

That's very kind ND. I, for one, have always found you and your ideas to be very congenial, and by no means insignificant.

I don't know where to place myself in that picture.

:yikes: Thank you.

Well you or I could be either, the point was they spent their days trying to outwit and beat each other up then walked home together.

Morning Ralph. Morning Sam.

, just highlighting that if one really seriously believed in the importance of preparing for an afterlife, then one would live a very different life — Janus

I'm not sure that is right. Plenty of people who believe in an afterlife manage to be shit heels and treat others abominably. Just as those who are atheists may be entirely about self-sacrifice and compassion. I am doubtful that this idea of afterlife necessarily inspires different behaviour in people but it does in some instances.

The sense of a rule is its immediate, contextual use. To apply it is to create its sense. Before we choose to apply rules, we already find ourselves ‘thrown into’ a particular discursive world, as Heidegger put it. — Joshs

Maybe, but that doesn't answer the question. Derrida appears to be saying that there are rules of interpretation that apply to his work. I could make up a different rule of interpretation "All works mean exactly what the author says they mean and nothing else". As a rule, it couldn't be clearer. So why do we not apply that?

Or worse "All works should be read backwards and the sense of them taken from whatever meaning remains in the reversed text". Again, crystal clear as a rule, no one would be in any doubt as to how to follow it, yet it's a rule which apparently Derrida thinks is wrong. So on what ground are some rules right and others wrong?