:up:Idealism seems to me an example of philosophy poisoning. — wonderer1
Heideggerian phenomenology – in other words, privileging secondary qualities over primary qualities by conflating epistemology with ontology. Anthropocentric antirealism (contra Mediocrity Principle) aka "idealism". :zip:Phenomenology seeks to remedy this condition by returning attention to the primacy of being - the reality of lived experience - *not* as something to analyse through science or metaphysics but through attention to 'what is’ - ‘dasein’. — Wayfarer
I don't think so. The issue here is that Kastrup would agree that conscious creatures emerged 'later' and the cosmological events or the 'reality' we have detected which predate life, like consciousness, is simply what mind looks like when viewed from a different perspective. — Tom Storm
Why should even "inanimate" matter not appear as striving, if it is fundamentally energetic? But a blind, striving will cannot explain how it is that we all see the same things in the world around us, unless the will generates real structures that are continually being formed and broken down by real forces. But this would just be a physicalist view, not an idealist one. — Janus
s it aware of us and does it have a plan for us. It all seems too nebulous and far out to me to be taken seriously as anything more than a wishful fantasy. There is only one more wishful step up to a Giod that cares about us. — Janus
. Anthropocentric antirealism (contra Mediocrity Principle) — 180 Proof
The question we can ask of this scenario is why did a great mind splinter off and develop dissociated alters over time (as we understand time) is consciousness engaged in an act of getting to know itself? — Tom Storm
Nagel’s starting point (in Mind and Cosmos) is not simply that he finds materialism partial or unconvincing, but that he himself has a metaphysical view or vision of reality that just cannot be accommodated within materialism. This vision is that the appearance of conscious beings in the universe is somehow what it is all for; that ‘Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself’. — Dhivan Thomas Jones - The Universe is Waking Up
The importance of individuation, and how we individuate, is I think key to understanding the so-called wave function collapse of quantum physics — Metaphysician Undercover
Can you provide additional reasoning for why you think "philosophy should provide the ability to explore the matter directly without needing to rely on neuroscientific research." — wonderer1
He talks about evolution as if it is a physical thing, and we've evolved a "dashboard of perception" to navigate the world. But idealism posits the existence of only mind and thought. — RogueAI
Ernst Mayr, one of the architects of the modern synthesis, has been one of the most outspoken supporters of the view that life is fundamentally different from inanimate matter. In The growth of biological thought [15], p. 124, he made this point in no uncertain terms: ‘… The discovery of the genetic code was a breakthrough of the first order. It showed why organisms are fundamentally different from any kind of nonliving material. There is nothing in the inanimate world that has a genetic program which stores information with a history of three thousand million years!’
Certainly, any philosophy has to be able to deal with empirical discoveries, and certainly the background worldview of the ancients was hardly scientifically informed by today's standards - but if you consider the main subjects of interest in the Platonic dialogues, many of them - the nature of love, of justice, of wisdom, of courage - are hardly affected by that.
However, I'd suggest some study of evolutionary psychology and game theory *might* disabuse you of the belief that understanding of the nature of love, justice, wisdom, and courage are hardly affected by knowledge of science. — wonderer1
Although I am not sure I entirely understood your post yet, let me try to adequately respond. — Bob Ross
Analytic Idealism would posit that our minds are alters of a universal mind, and space and time only emerge as a production of perceptive conscious beings. In terms of analytic idealism, the world around you that you are perceiving is fundamentally the unfolding in space and time (which are synthetic but arguably not a priori in the sense schopenhauer exactly meant it) of eternal platonic ideas. Although space and time do not behave necessarily as we would intuit from normal every day-to-day experience, they are also within the eternal ideas as we are, as evolved emergent perceptive and self-conscious beings, a part of those eternal ideas. — Bob Ross
Are you saying that the mind can “switch” (so to speak) between two modes of existence or perceptive capabilities? — Bob Ross
In every metaphysical theory, I find there is the problem of accounting for the inevitable eternal somehow continually “converting” into something temporal—and I don’t know how to account for it adequately under any theory. — Bob Ross
Physicalism is a paradigm for generating conjectures or models and not a theoretical explanation of phenomena. — 180 Proof
In terms of science, I think that science proper is the acquiring of how entities relate to each other and not what they fundamentally are…. — Bob Ross
Thank you for your readiness! But I don't think we should get involved in such a quest. Not worthwhile.I would need you to explain further what you mean by those terms to give a more precise answer. — Bob Ross
I can give you a few references. However, I don't know what you actually expect from this. If you are not involved in the Eastern philosophy, I don't know if what I can refer you to will make much sense or even be useful to you.Could you give an example of such a detailed description of consciousness? — Bob Ross
This is indeed so.It isn’t even apparent that we will one day be able to definitively understand the entirety of reality. — Bob Ross
This is plausible too.[Re Einstein] one should be able to articulate their position concisely and precisely — Bob Ross
Exactly. This is what I'm saying.If by “explain what ‘consciousness’ is” you are asking how it works, then only via empirical inquiry will we find out. — Bob Ross
See my first reply.[Re: A few I know that have descibed this quite well ...] Could you give an example? — Bob Ross
I didn't say that consciousness is synonymous with perception. They are two totally different kinds of things. What I mean is that consciousness is strongly connected to perception, in the sense that it is a state and abiity to preceive things outside us (environment) as well as inside us (thoughts, emotions, etc.)For analytic idealism, consciousness is not synonymous with perception. — Bob Ross
OK, but consciousness a characteristic of all life: Living organisms as well as plants.“Perception” is used to denote conscious beings that have evolved to have the faculties to represent its environment to itself — Bob Ross
All this is fine. But the "universal mind" is only a concept for me: I have no experience of it.The universal mind, for instance, does not perceive ... — Bob Ross
Certainly. Each form of life has a different level of consciousness, or better, it is consious on a different level, depending on its complexity as an organism, as you say.Think of it like the difference between plants, which will on a basis of very basic stimulus responses, vs. a complex animal (like a dog): the plant is perceiving anything but yet, under analytic idealism, is conscious. — Bob Ross
Not capable of initiating anything. — Wayfarer
That’s the whole point - you can't get outside the appearance to see it as it 'truly is'. — Wayfarer
The mind-independent world is not naturally divided into individual parts — Pinter, Charles. Mind and the Cosmic Order (p92)
My view is that it really exists, but that the very notion of existence always implies an observer for whom it exists, — Wayfarer
Distance between Moon and Earth is in our heads...? :chin: — jorndoe
If you know the distance between here and earth, it's in your head. I don't, so it's not in my head. Of course distance is something in human heads, it's a value, something measured. There is no value without the measurement. — Metaphysician Undercover
It does look like he is trying to have his cake and eat it, but maybe that's how it appears when someone builds a comprehensive account. It's human cognition that puts time and space into it. Natural selection is a process we have interpreted, based on our cognitive apparatus, and our understanding of consciousness, which we have interpreted as physicalism. I understand Kastrup sees evolution as an account of consciousness evolving and changing (our conceptual frame) over aeons. — Tom Storm
”I think Kant's claim that we don't know what things are in themselves stands”
I disagree: I think schopenhauer finished Kant’s project by correcting this error of Kant’s. — Bob Ross
if Kant were correct in saying that we never come to understand the noumena—but we can. — Bob Ross
”There isn’t a proof, per se, only an internal affirmative logical consistency”.
I just mean what is the case for it? What do you mean by it being an internal affirmative logical consistency? — Bob Ross
As you say, the object really exists. — Fooloso4
Do you have a link for that? — RogueAI
It is a foundational unprovable assumption/premiss, resting its laurels on terminological consistency(coherence) and/or 'logical' possibility alone(scarequotes intentional).
Indeed, there are all sorts of things that could be said to follow from it, if accompanied by some other premisses, but - by my lights anyway - 'logical' possibility alone does not warrant belief, and untenability is completely unacceptable.
— creativesoul
OK, I don't see it that way: I think that the attributes of things that can be revealed in perception could not be exhaustive of what they are unless some form of idealism were true, and idealism seems very implausible to me. So, it's as I said a logical or conceptual distinction between things as they are perceived and things as they are in themselves, but I don't see the idea that things have their own existence independently of perception as being a mere logical possibility. — Janus
Does that question even have an answer? It seems clear to me that it does not! Watching a sunset is not like anything. To quite the contrary, each viewing is different. One could watch the sun set as many times as one likes, and each time it will be different. — creativesoul
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.