When I say that ideas are material, I do not mean that they are physical, but a third option between the mental and the physical that respects the identity of each one. — JuanZu

Idea can be different types i.e. ideas as mental representations, images of the physical objects, meanings of the words, and ideas as resolutions or answers to the problems, and indeed ideas as words themselves and symbols and signs. But here we are manly talking about mental representations i.e. images and concepts in our minds.

I don't think that Australians will be happy to know that they don't exist because an Ideal Realist in the Kerguelen Islands has never heard of them. — RussellA

Any objects or world unobserved don't exist. They are imagined or believed to exist.

This sounds like the existing term "Indirect Realism" (Wikipedia - Direct and indirect realism) — RussellA

Indirect realism's problem is using sense data as the medium of perception, which doesn't make sense. Sense data is ambiguous in terms of its legitimacy of the meaning, implication, origin, uses, and existence. It is a muddled and confused claim.

Even the Direct Realist can dream and imagine. — RussellA

But what does Direct Realism say about the existence of unperceived objects? In Ideal Realism, unperceived objects such as the country of Australia or the object Eifel Tower don't exist until observed or perceived.

Ideal Realism also says that we perceive the world with experience via the bodily sense organs loaded with ideas, not direct. Bodily sense organs in human body are not just physical perceptive organs, but they are supported by rational ideas with inferring capacities.

When we are looking at a cup with drink in it, we are not only simply seeing it (like Direct Realism, which ends there), but also looking for evidence and qualities which are the premeditated or inferred drink i.e. coffee or tea. Coffee will look darker in colour than tea, and when drank, it will have the taste of coffee, not tea. All perception is accompanied by the rich mental states and operations backed by experienced and reasoned ideas.

Therefore Ideal Realism is not simple naive Direct Realism.

I didn't say that. — MoK

You are connecting reasoning process to ideas as if they are necessary, but they are not.

How is the thought process possible in idealism? — MoK

You see drink in a cup, and think it is coffee. The idea of drink in a cup itself doesn't tell you truth or falsity on your thought. You must drink and taste it to be able to tell it is coffee or tea. Truth or falsity is only possible by your judgement on sense perception (in empirical cases) or thought process (in analytic cases).
Images and concepts themselves don't tell you about coherence of reality.

Not at all. The reasoning is based on working on the ideas. — MoK

If X is based on Y, then X is not Y. Reasoning is not ideas. Reasoning is a thought process. Ideas are images and concepts.

I already argued against idealism. — MoK

You seem to be confused in the difference between idea and reasoning.

What do you mean by this? — MoK

If you have an idea of tree, then the idea itself cannot tell you it is correct or not. It only gives an image of tree. To know the idea is correct or not, you must check if it has all the correct qualities for a tree. The checking process is from your reasoning, not a work from the idea.

I am saying that idealism should not be accepted as a correct metaphysical theory if it cannot explain the coherence in reality. — MoK

I am not sure to say that idealism is not correct is a correct statement. Idealism is a way to view to the world. It is your reasoning to tell if the idea you have is correct or not. Ideas are just copy of the objects in the world.

Of course, it wouldn't be able to tell you whether they are correct or not. You need your own thinking process, observations, confirmations and logical affirmation to be able to say your ideas were correct or not. The world doesn't tell you if it is correct or not. It is your thought which does that.

A raw idea doesn't have coherence attached to it. You need to analyse the idea with your reasoning process to come to the judgement on coherence or not.

This implies that the idea is not enclosed in the head but that literally the world is made of ideas unfolding, our world, but the idea is something necessarily material, if by material we understand the finiteness of the sign, its appearance, its action and reaction, its contact, its causality, its transformation, its difference, etc.... — JuanZu

Ideas manifest when we materialize our ideas into physical entities.  But ideas themselves are not matter.

This morning I was thinking about whether to drink coffee or tea.  The coffee or tea was ideas in my mind.  When I decided to have coffee, and made coffee, the idea of coffee manifested into matter.   When I drank the coffee, it was a real experience of coffee in a form of matter.

Likewise matter can be idealised when perceived.  Before perception, there is no matter, and no existence.  When we perceive an object, it is perceived as matter.  When we remember it, or think about it in our mind, it is an idea of the matter.

Matter is not ideas, and ideas are not matter.   Between the two states of existence, experience and perception are needed for the transformation. Idea is not just a copy of matter, and matter is not just physical existence on its own.

For that process, we need our perception and the body with working brain to carry out the perceptual process or experience. Could it be a phenomenological view? I need to read some Husserl, Heidegger and Merlou Ponty, if their ideas were in line with the OP.

This explanation can only be carried out if the idea and its representation are part of the same system of signs. This implies that the idea is not enclosed in the head but that literally the world is made of ideas unfolding, our world, but the idea is something necessarily material, if by material we understand the finiteness of the sign, its appearance, its action and reaction, its contact, its causality, its transformation, its difference, etc.... — JuanZu

I think this is a very interesting point. Here we are not just simply talking about idealism and materialism, but the nature and scope of ideas and realities too. I will read over your post a few times, and let it sink in me before returning with my points. Later~

Explained in the OP The Mind Created World. Not that I'm wanting to hijack your thread, but I also don't want to try and explain it all again here. — Wayfarer

I recall your OP you mentioned above. The OP could be written in 3 sentences, and perhaps needed 2-3 pages of postings. Instead the OP read like a novel, and it was filled with the over 2k irrelevant postings for ages. What was the conclusion in the end?

You seem to be trying hard to make things unnecessarily complicated. Talking about the existence of the world when observer is not present is not relevant to the point as well.

Fair enough. A thing and the idea of a thing are separate, in that sense. — Wayfarer

Of course they are, but we know which one is real. To perceive the real Lady Gaga, you must go to her live concert. What you listen to, and watch on youtube is virtual real, not the real.

If I had to explain it in a sentence or two, it would be that the world (object) always exists for an observer. — Wayfarer

The OP wasn't denying the existence of the world. The OP was about the way we see the world. Both representation and matter are real depending on what type of experience and perception the observer has with the world.

When we perceive the physical objects in front of us, and when the objects are available to our senses, also backed by our ideas on them, they are real. When they are not available to our senses, but when we think, remember or imagine about them, the physicals fade away from our perception, and they become ideas in our minds.

Have you been on that road before, or are you relying on a second-hand accounts? — Wayfarer

We have seen the arguments on the dualism all the time, haven't we?

You need to do some homework on what idealist philosophy actually is. The Brittanica has a decent introductory article on it. It's not nearly so naive as you're making it out to be. — Wayfarer

Idealism could be a broad topic, but here I am talking under most brief and general concept of idealism for the argument bearing in mind that idealism itself is not the main topic.

What do you think the actual idealism is? What is your account for non-naive idealism?

As I said idealism is false because it cannot explain the coherence in the reality that we perceive. — MoK

Idealism cannot explain the coherence in reality therefore it is false. I have more examples but this one is sufficient to deny idealism. — MoK

Idealism is not about explaining the coherence in the reality. It is about how we see the reality.

So yeah, there’s at least one “other folk(..) who thought about this aspect of worldview before. — Mww

Who would it be?

‘Naive realism’ is the philosophical attitude that things just are as they appear, and there is no question to solve about the relationship between reality and appearance.

Although it’s not as common an expression, ‘naive idealism’ is the view that idealists believe that the world is simply a figment of the individual mind, or what goes on inside a conscious mind.

I think your post presents a pretty naive version of both materialism and idealism. Serious philosophers in both schools have long grappled with the conundrums of mind and matter, or matter and form. — Wayfarer

But if you divide the world into reality and representation, then you are back in the old dualistic view of the world. We have been on that road before.

You end up having 2x copies of every object in your perception, and wonder which one is the real object.   If you say the physical tree is the real tree, then you are back to denying the representation being a plain physicalist. If you say the representation is the real object, then you are back to the idealist. And there is always the mysterious thing-in-itself lurking behind all the objects you perceive without revealing what they really are.

Here we are suggesting, well why not leap out from the old well, and see the world from the real experiential point of view.

If you are thinking about the tree, then you are only having an idea of the tree.  If you go out, and see the tree in front of you feeling and confirm the physical tree, then you have the physical tree as well as the sensation and ideas of the tree. The reality is in your living experience interacting and accessing the objects, not just in the objects themselves.

This way of seeing things comes under the general heading of pragmatism. — T Clark

Yes, good point. :up:

Idealism is false since it cannot explain coherence in the ideas that we perceive. Physicalism also is false since it cannot explain mental phenomena and the correlation between mental phenomena and physical ones. — MoK

But when I think of a tree, it is just a image and some qualities of the tree in the mind. It is a concept. When I go out to the garden, and touch the tree trunk or branches, it is physical matter. In both occasions of my engagement of the interaction with the tree, I get different knowledge and perceptual experience from the tree.

So why do you think idealism is false and also physicalism is false? Isn't the case that what type of level of experience and interactions you have with the object, and also availability of data, which either can give you knowledge or not? In that sense aren't both way of seeing the world true?

So you just told me something and now I'm being accused of being grossly dishonest when I indicate that I know what you just told me. Strange claim there. For the record, even if you define existence by perception, I have perceived your object precisely via your telling me about it. That perception told me the one predicate of the object that I care about. — noAxioms

You seems to be taking the statement too personally. If you read carefully, it says "That sounds like". It doesn't mean that "That is". What makes you think "sounds like" is "is", is a mystery to me. There was NO accusation on anyone, but it was just describing about the post with a simile form of expression.

You are also still in confusion between the sentence in the post to you with your own visual perception of the object on my desk. You have no visual perception on the object on my desk, hence you have no idea what the object is, and the object doesn't exist in your mind or perception, and that was the point. But your saying that you know the object relation to my desk sounded not quite right, which SOUNDED LIKE some kind of pretention or dishonest assertion,

I will respond to further points in rest part of your post later.

Faith is a philosophy with all the questions left out. — PoeticUniverse

Faith doesn't give you knowledge or truth. You must work hard to keep up your faith in something you believe in.

When it is found out, what you believed in turned out to be illusion or false later, your faith will be broken or evaporate into the thin air.

"The Derrida Reader - Writing Performances" - Edited by Julian Wolfreys, Edinburgh University 1998. pp.231 - 232. — Corvus

This book has a chapter titled "Khora".

I do know more. It exists in relation to your desk. That's the only predicate that matters for this topic. — noAxioms

That sounds like gross dishonesty to keep pretending to know, when not knowing anything about it.
The point is that without perception, you don't have existence.

That is not a very mind-independent view. This topic is meant to discuss the meaning of mind-independent existence. Do you have anything to contribute to that besides assertions of definitions not compatible with the topic subject? — noAxioms

Mind-independent existence? Tell us some examples of mind-independent existence.

Assertions of definitions not compatible with the topic subject? It has been noticed some folks resort to this claim when they run out of ideas on what to say, or don't want to admit their claims are wrong. A typical act of self defense mechanism motivated by dishonesty.

In order to understand what existence prior to predicates, you must first understand what existence means. Would you not agree?

From my faint memory, Descartes wasn't too keen on Aristotelianism. Maybe Leibniz was.

I have a few old paperback copies by Derrida. It is "The Derrida Reader - Writing Performances" - Edited by Julian Wolfreys, Edinburgh University 1998. pp.231 - 232.

Sure I do. It's an object. It's on your desk. You just perceive more details than do I. — noAxioms

The point is that you don't know anything about it apart from it is an object. And you know even that much, because I told you about it.

Hence, the object I am seeing, doesn't exist in you.
It doesn't exist in you either, unless you ate your desk. — noAxioms

"It doesn't exist in you." means it doesn't exist in your mind, not in your stomach.

Since this topic isn't about epistemology, no, I don't see any problem. Said object exists under E2,3,4,5,6, and perhaps meaninglessly under E1. That's the whole list. — noAxioms

Existence is the result of perception. Of course it is about epistemology too.

But you indicated that the telling of time was necessary, not just an option, for said object to exist. Maybe you meant something else by that wording, but rather than clarifying, you seem to be doubling down on the assertion. — noAxioms

Time is always implicated in perception. You just don't seem to be able to understand it.

Where did you get that idea? Elaborate more please.

which we dream and affirm that it is necessary that all that is be somewhere in some place and occupy some khôra; and that that which is neither on earth nor anywhere in the heaven is nothing." — Plato, Timaeus, 52a-b

Derrida mentions Khora as the images we see in our dreams, which sounds interesting. Is that where our dreams come from?

Perceiving X means perceiving of the time X was perceived. Hence all existence exists in time, and time is perception.
None of this is logically valid. I might think of something while being totally unaware of the time. Even if I was aware of the time, only under E4 or E5 would existing things be in time, and not even then since proper time itself exists under E4 and yet does not exist in time.
Your assertion doesn't even work under E2 (the only one based on perception) since you consider time to be a concept, and your mind does not exist within a concept. — noAxioms

I am looking at an object on my desk right now. I can say I know what it is because it exists in front of me. Or conversely, because I see it exists, I know what it is.

But you can't. You don't see it, and you don't know what it is. Hence, the object I am seeing and is existing concretely and solidly, doesn't exist in you. You don't even know what it is. Where do you see problem in my argument here?

When I see the object, I can also tell the time of seeing it. The time I read belongs to the concept of time. It is not a concept of time. It is a read time, which instantiated at the moment of reading and noticing. So you seem to be confusing between the concept of time and read time.

"existential quantification"? Surely that is not time itself is it?
No, it has nothing to do with time. 35 is not prime because (∃x) (x is non-trivial factor of 35). That's straight up existential quantification, and an example that makes no reference to time. — noAxioms

When 35 is perceived or stated as a non prime, its instantiation of the idea emerges with time perceived. When the perception ends, and the statement is forgotten, the instantiation disappears or fades away into nonexistence and the associated time fades away too.

Hence it is too simple to say X doesn't exist means there is nothing to it, or X exists means we know it and use it. There are more involved in existence.

Type 4 is more of an E1 definition: All that exists or all that is real. I find that pretty meaningless. — noAxioms

Exactly !!

This is a classical example of a definition that comes from quantum mechanics. — noAxioms

Not a standard definition afraid.

E5 denies the principle of counterfactual definiteness which states that systems are in a defined state even when not measured. — noAxioms

Existence is also nonexistence, and nonexistence is also existence. Something cannot exist without possibility of nonexistence. Nonexistence cannot exist without possibility of existence.

"existential quantification"? Surely that is not time itself is it?
No, it has nothing to do with time. 35 is not prime because (∃x) (x is non-trivial factor of 35). That's straight up existential quantification, and an example that makes no reference to time. — noAxioms

Existence of X means that X was perceived. Perceiving X means perceiving of the time X was perceived. Hence all existence exists in time, and time is perception.

What needs clarification then is your notion of 'time'. — noAxioms

My notion of time is that it is a concept. Can concepts be said to exist? We have concepts, and use them. But they don't exist like trees and cups do.

I said nothing so ambiguous as any of the definitions being applicable or not to time. — noAxioms

The list of 6 definitions of Existence you listed are made up of ambiguous words, that need to be clarified.

I listed three very well known and very different kinds of time, all three of which are heavily defined, used, and discussed in literature, and are not obscure at all. Hence my ability to render a meaningful opinion about how the various definitions of 'exists' might apply to each or not. — noAxioms

Where are the 3 definitions of time you listed? I cannot locate them in the thread, and I have not been reading all the posts in the thread but just have been replying to your posts to me. Could you list them again?

Interestingly, your description of time in the prior post seems to correspond to my third kind, the kind whose existence I put on par with the tooth fairy. I suspect that it is this definition of 'time' is how you're using the word. — noAxioms

It is not the tooth fairy at all. If time is a concept, then how we use the concept in our statements and propositions reflect time. If our temporal statements are to be meaningful, then time must be real in the statements.

For instance, what do you mean by "part of objective reality"?
That's E1, which I did not list for anything, since I do not identify as a realist. As for what it means, that is unclear. The meaning needs to be clarified by anybody who asserts it, but from my standpoint, a thing that has this property is indistinguishable from a things that doesn't have it, but is otherwise identical. — noAxioms

Now you are trying to clarify the definitions of Existence, which is good. E1 saying that

E1 "Is a member of all that is part of objective reality" — noAxioms

sounds like tautology or circular. Objective reality sounds also unclear. Isn't reality supposed to be objective, if there is such a thing as reality. But what is objectivity? What is reality? Can we ever get to know the reality? If E1 doesn't make sense, should it not be dropped, and move on to E2?

E2 "I know about it" — noAxioms

E4 "Is part of this universe" or "is part of this world" — noAxioms

If you know something, is it Existence? I know a name called Pegasus. Is Pegasus existence, because you know, and I know it? Pegasus has predicates too. It is a horse, has wings and suppose to fly.
Or if someone comes along and say he is a Pegasus, is he the real Pegasus? Or is he someone pretending to be a Pegasus, therefore a fake Pegasus? Can he be qualified as the existence of Pegasus? Hence these definitions present us further questions than firm definitions.

In the history of Christianity, for example, the orthodoxy emphasized using reason to prove God's existence while the mystics spoke of intuition and being one with God. See the article on intuition in the Catholic encyclopedia (new advent website) for more information. I am not against reason, but there are higher levels i believe. Nous is higher than logos, dialectic above understanding — Gregory

Not sure if God's existence could be proved using reason. In Kant, space and time is intuition, and God's existence is beyond reason. God belongs to the world of faith.

I agree with the gist of what you are saying. — ENOAH

:up: :cool:

Even calling it linear or dialectical is just as illusory as time itself. But as long as we're born into history, we can't but move in that world of codes. — ENOAH

Agreed.

How is it possible for me to believe, when I am asleep, that something is real, which is completely distinct from, and inconsistent with, what I believe is real when I am awake? — Metaphysician Undercover

Beliefs can be groundless, irrational, misleading and blind.

Am I a completely different person when I am asleep, from when I am awake? — Metaphysician Undercover

No.

The title of the OP "The Relationship between Body and Mind" implies body and mind is separate, but because of the fact body is material, it implies mind is material existence too.

In the era of AI dominating the world, material mind is not impossible. But it would depend on what mind actually is.

Orthodoxy frowns on intuition more often than reason because it is seen as esoteric — Gregory

Why is intuition esoteric? In what sense? Do you think it makes sense?

E1 "Is a member of all that is part of objective reality"
E2 "I know about it"
E3 "Has predicates"
E4 "Is part of this universe" or "is part of this world"
E5 "state X exists to state Y iff X is part of the causal history of Y"
E6 "existential quantification", where 51 is not prime because there exists an even divisor that is neither — noAxioms

If you want my opinion, Proper time exists by E2,3,4,5,6. Coordinate time exists E2,3,6 The time you mention above exists E2,3 (pretty much the same score as the tooth fairy).
E1 thus far is meaningless and I cannot assign that to anything. — noAxioms

I am not sure if E1,4,5,6 make sense or are meaningful for existence of time, when they are made up of abstract and obscure concepts which need clarification.

For instance, what do you mean by "part of objective reality"? Are we supposed to be able to understand and grasp the full meaning of objective reality? What is "this universe"? How far and how much "this universe" supposed to cover, or be? "the causal history"? What do you mean by that? "existential quantification"? Surely that is not time itself is it?

I complained before about the necessity of bringing a point of view to reading Plato. Even in the original, one can't tell whether a speech or argument is actually Plato's belief or just that of the dramatic speaker in the dialogue. Is the receptacle part of Plato's overall scheme or is it a tall tale from the Pythagorean sophist Timaeus? When it is emphasized as likely, is likely to be taken positively or negatively? — magritte

Plato's original texts had been written in archaic Greek, which even Greek folks living now don't understand unless they study the archaic language.

So for us non Greek readers of Plato in English translated copies, they must be translated from the original archaic Greek to modern Greek, then translated again from modern Greek to English. Hence unless one reads them in the original archaic Greek, could it be seen as reading the actual text?

I try to base my reading on coherence to other things Plato said elsewhere in other dialogues hoping that his philosophy was logically founded. — magritte

When I read the classic philosophical texts, I try to read them interpreting from my own view rather than trying to understand them under officially accepted interpretation. Not sure if this is good way of reading them.

My preference is for something like the SEP article Timaeus written by two experts who have a definite approach to Plato. Their view however is still only their view. — magritte

That looks a good article for the topic too. Thank for the info.