ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd December 2019, 02:17 PM   #721
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,027
BTW, perhaps you are gripped by the materialism mindset where consciousness is a local process, occurring with a skull. The idealist begins not with matter as reality, but consciousness. All things all processes are consciousness.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 02:23 PM   #722
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,082
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
I have answered the question multiple times. The taste of an apple, the warmth and ahh of a fresh cup of coffee, measurements such as temperature, mass, charge, etc - these are observations and are there images or processes in consciousness.
Gibberish.

Again can you just answer question clearly for once. Just as, like a change of pace.

The apple, the coffee, they exist. They aren't waiting until you experience them to *poof* into existence.

YOU... ARE... NOT... GOD.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 2nd December 2019 at 02:25 PM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 02:24 PM   #723
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,416
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
it appears as though the (dogmatic) Materialists / Physicalists have gone off the deep end with ad hominem and straw man attacks . . .
I'm wondering who you are trying to insult. It can't be me as I am not a materialist.....
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 02:25 PM   #724
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,082
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
BTW, perhaps you are gripped by the materialism mindset where consciousness is a local process, occurring with a skull. The idealist begins not with matter as reality, but consciousness. All things all processes are consciousness.
This is a lot of words to say "I want to be right without actually having to be right."

You can throw "materialism" out as a slur as much as you want, you aren't going to make "Doesn't deny reality just to sound deep" into a positive trait.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 02:32 PM   #725
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,086
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
I have answered the question multiple times. The taste of an apple, the warmth and ahh of a fresh cup of coffee, measurements such as temperature, mass, charge, etc - these are observations and are there images or processes in consciousness.
Your syntax is lacking, and this is by no means the first time. Could you please write in complete sentences?
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 02:32 PM   #726
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,082
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I'm wondering who you are trying to insult. It can't be me as I am not a materialist.....
The Philosophizers don't grasp that the people they are throwing "Materialist" at as if it's a slur aren't arguing for materialism, they are arguing the entire distinction they are trying to build this grand philosophical debate around is so much hot air.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 02:33 PM   #727
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,416
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
If you accept that the observer is a real human person, then that's an acceptance of what we call "reality" ...



... are you claiming there can be some other "observer" that is not a person or animal or any such entity? Are you claiming some "observer" that consists only of so-called "thoughts" (or as you called it, "perceptions")?



And how long is going to take you to answer a perfectly straight question such as that?
You are seeing the way idealists try to skirt over or hide their necessary supreme consciousness. Problem of course is that idealism can only "work" if there is a "god" so when they try to avoid admitting that they are trying to sit on a three legged stool that has lost one of its legs.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 02:37 PM   #728
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,086
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
I have answered the question multiple times. The taste of an apple, the warmth and ahh of a fresh cup of coffee, measurements such as temperature, mass, charge, etc - these are observations and are there images or processes in consciousness.
Do these observations, images and processes exist? Do the words you use to identify them exist? Does the entity towards whom you are directing these words exist?
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 02:43 PM   #729
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,082
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Do these observations, images and processes exist? Do the words you use to identify them exist? Does the entity towards whom you are directing these words exist?
Let me guess. The best answer we're gonna get with him is some variation on "I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying it doesn't exist" beneath a lot of romaine, croutons, and Thousand Island.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 02:48 PM   #730
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,086
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Let me guess. The best answer we're gonna get with him is some variation on "I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying it doesn't exist" beneath a lot of romaine, croutons, and Thousand Island.
I know. Recent posts confirm this. But it is interesting to see the knots that amateur "philosophers" tie themselves up in trying to explain things they really don't understand.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 02:52 PM   #731
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,869
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
I have answered the question multiple times. The taste of an apple, the warmth and ahh of a fresh cup of coffee, measurements such as temperature, mass, charge, etc - these are observations and are there images or processes in consciousness.

You are confusing all sorts of different things. Look - "taste" is a percieved sensation, but what is it that's causing any such sensation? As far we can tell (eg from science) it's a chemical reaction that is sensed by your taste cells, and that sends a particular type of signal to the brain ... the chemical reaction + your sensory system + brain exist as "material reality", i.e. they are not just your conscious thoughts ...

... are you claiming that no such sensory system, and no such chemical reactions, and no such brain actually exists and that all of that only exists as mere "thoughts or perceptions" in something you call a "mind"?

Can you answer that please? I mean, it's a simple enough question! It's not a trick question. I'm just trying to get you to state clearly what it is you are claiming for an example like that (which was of course your own example).
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 05:27 PM   #732
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 639
Assuming that since I am a conscious being, consciousness must be the fundamental basis of reality is akin to believing that because I live on the Earth, this planet must be the center of the universe.
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 06:20 PM   #733
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,256
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
In nature there are no colors: they are wavelengths.
Not true. A color may consist of many wavelengths, but both 'color' and 'wavelength' are merely the labels we attach to the actual phenomena. The two words may be used in different contexts, but both are equally valid. A radio transmitter is characterized by frequency, but a LASER is usually specified by color - even when the color is invisible to us (infrared, ultraviolet).

The words we use to describe phenomena do not become invalid just because they do not describe reality in perfect detail. They are labels that we use for convenience. When someone says that they see a particular color they may be talking about their perception, but the color itself has a well understood scientific definition rooted firmly in objective reality - and it's not 'just' a wavelength.

Quote:
Color, volume and tone, are the effects on nerve cells by brain constructions, resulting in what is considered "external reality" is largely a projection made by the brain.
Not true. We know that 'external reality' is more than just our observations made into a 'projection' by the brain. We also know that the perception of color is subjective, which is why we have developed ways to measure and characterize colors objectively, independent of an individual's perception.

Quote:
it is something that we will probably never know in itself. What we call “external reality” only is the special features of a kind of sensations that our brain sets apart from others that we call “dreams” or “illusions”.
Nonsense. Just because we will never know everything about reality (which is impossible according to information theory) doesn't mean we can't know something about it.

Dreams and illusions can be triggered by the exact same sensations as 'real' ones - the only difference is the interpretation. In fact to a large extent everything we normally interpret as reality is an illusion - but one which we know is created by reality.

I turn a switch on and - as if by magic - a light appears in another part of the room. I can see no way for this to happen. I take the switch apart and see wires going from it to the bulb, but they appear to be inert. Only by probing them with a multimeter do I see that there is voltage and current present, which electronic theory tells me is sufficient to make the bulb glow. Neither can I see the electromagnetic fields surrounding the wires, which push the current around the circuit and transfer energy to the bulb. For that I would need another instrument, another physical device which 'observes' without needing a mind to feel 'sensations'.

My perceptions tell me that electricity doesn't exist. My eyes can't see it, my ears can't hear it, my skin can't feel it through the insulated wires, and my brain can't 'project' it. To my mind it is magical action at a distance with no perceivable mechanism. But my instruments say otherwise. That and knowledge of the physical 'laws' that describe how it behaves are enough for me to build up a 'projection' in my mind - which I fully accept is not real. I use the model in my mind for convenience, knowing that it is an imperfect and incomplete (but useful) description of one aspect of reality.

When attempting to understand the operation of an electronic device I prefer the schematic over the real thing, even though it is just a drawing that looks nothing like it. Why? Because the symbols are easier for my brain to interpret than the actual device - easier to trace the wires, easier to identify components, easier to recognize configurations that indicate particular functions etc. It's just an illusion inside my head, but it's more useful for understanding the device than my 'perceptions' (sometimes no schematic is available, and then creating one takes hours of carefully tracing the wiring and examining and testing parts).

Quote:
The deception that the brain does to us, according to an increasingly widespread opinion in the scientific world, is that the brain is not an organ formed for philosophical speculation on Truth or Reality. The main function of the brain is to guarantee the survival of the organism that houses it.
But 'philosophical speculation on Truth or Reality' is an effort to survive. The more we can figure out about how reality works the better we can make use of it. Humans are by far the best species on this planet for doing that - it is the only reason for our success. But perhaps not for much longer...

That is why this conversation is important. It is important for our survival as a species that we don't become deceived by wrong-headed philosophical arguments. If we are to prosper we need to accept that reality is real and that science is the best way to learn more about it - not an illogical belief in mind over matter based on a feeling that our thoughts must be more than just electrochemical impulses in the brain.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 2nd December 2019 at 06:33 PM.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 07:12 PM   #734
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,082
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
You are confusing all sorts of different things.
Conflating, not confusion. Confusion implies it's not 100% intentional.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 07:24 PM   #735
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,628
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You are seeing the way idealists try to skirt over or hide their necessary supreme consciousness. Problem of course is that idealism can only "work" if there is a "god" so when they try to avoid admitting that they are trying to sit on a three legged stool that has lost one of its legs.

Actually idealism seems to me to be an excellent starting point. Perfectly valid, as a place to begin from. The trouble is, when you stop there. Or when you attempt to very klunkily interpret science in idealist terms, in the process either ignoring parsimony or else staying content with no explanation at all.

As for using idealism to shoehorn in a God idea, there appear (to my philosophically untutored eyes) two difficulties with that:

First, if a material reality is not to be accepted, nor, presumably, should time. Past impressions then simply become present impressions of things only apparently in the past. Establishing causality becomes an impossibility, or so it seems to me.

And second, while one may argue for primacy of one's own perceptions, it seems a reach to imagine that one's perceptions are felt by others, or indeed that others exist. Given this, I don't see how one can posit that one's perceptions must have their source in another's (nor Another's, with a capital A). I sense a circularity here, a going around in circles as far as the logic. (Quite apart from the evidence thing, I mean, the evidence thing that makes all of this moot anyway.)
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 07:35 PM   #736
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,628
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Conflating, not confusion. Confusion implies it's not 100% intentional.

I'm not given to reporting posts, and in any case you and I agree in our worldview and our arguments here, but do you see the ... well, the error in personal comments of this nature? (Quite apart, that is, from the discourtesy?)

You claim that all the people here who're arguing that idealism is valid interpretation for science -- so Scorpion, and caveman1917, and phiwum, and David Mo, and LarryS -- are not just mistaken, but are deliberately arguing dishonestly, not on specifics but overall as far as their larger argument, in furtherance of some mysterious agenda. Does that really make sense?

This insistence on descending to the personal makes no sense, IMO.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 07:42 PM   #737
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,641
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don't know what telepathy has to do with the examples you propose.

Telepathy enters into it if you insist that the cause of sensations in the mind must be related prior proximal sensations in the mind. When being hit from behind unexpectedly with a thrown snowball, the only related prior proximal sensations are in the mind of the person who threw it (and perhaps additionally, in third parties who witness the throwing). In order for those sensations to be the cause of the sensation of being hit by the snowball, which are in a different person's mind, mental telepathy is required.

Of course, as I pointed out before, even that doesn't account for all cases. Such as a branch falling unexpectedly from a tree (unless the tree has a mind; are you adding panpsychism to the assumptions of idealism?), or the scenario in which a terrorist sets a time bomb, hides it, and then commits suicide before it explodes. The explosion therefore happens with no living person's prior sensations to cause it.

Quote:
The hard subjective idealist will say that there are snowball-impact-sensations that are effects of previous snowball-sensations and other snowball-impact-sensations that have no known cause. While the former are possible to avoid when previous sensations are present, the latter are unpredictable accidents.

Yes, and my point is that concluding the cause of being hit unexpectedly from behind with a thrown snowball is mysterious is really stupid and maladaptive.

How many times can I burgle an idealist's house or apartment before he figures out (1) he really did used to have furniture and electronics, not just shrug and disregard that fact as memories of sensations (2) the disappearance of the items was not an ineffable cosmic accident, (3) he should lock his front door?

Quote:
In terms of assuming a cause independent of the sensations, the idealist does not see what may be. The realist proposes that the cause is in a mysterious thing-in-itself. Berkeley proposes that it is in God. The sensible idealist sees no difference in one explanation or the other. So he prefers to stick to the basic principle: we know our sensations and nothing else. Neither noumena nor God. Nor any telepathy.

The phenomenalist or epistemological idealist will admit the possibility that something external may be the cause of our sensation of impact. But since nothing can be known about that something, our knowledge is limited to the occasions when a set of sensations have produced the sensation effect. With this we are like the subjective idealist in something very important: our knowledge of things is limited to what we have in the mind. Reality, if it exists, is unknowable. It goes without saying that this type of epistemological idealism is quite widespread among today's great scientists.

Our knowledge of things is limited to what we know? ("have in the mind" = "know"). Well, what an amazing revelation! No wonder so many great scientists, and no doubt quite a few lousy ones as well, agree with it.

But of course, that only applies in the present tense. Our current knowledge of things is limited to what we know. Our future knowledge of things is limited to what we know plus what we can find out by interacting with the world. Not by contemplating ideal forms. Not by thinking about thinking. Not by appealing to the unknowableness of it all.

Everything that exists, exists in the interaction between our minds and the world. Yeah, that's kind of a complex model. If only minds existed it would be simpler. If only matter existed it would be simpler too. A car with only an engine and no wheels, or a car with wheels but no engine, is simpler than one with wheels and an engine. But simplicity is useless if the thing doesn't go.

When you can't provide a convincing reason, consistent with your philosophy, to give a thirsty toddler a drink of water, your world model is lethally flawed.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 08:04 PM   #738
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,082
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
This insistence on descending to the personal makes no sense, IMO.
Acknowledging that these people are playing a character and not making an argument is not a "personal attack."

And again pearl clutching when someone simply points out that their entire argument boils down to "I'm a god being and reality doesn't exist until my perception deems it to do so, now argue otherwise you mere figment of my imagination" seems rather disingenuous.

I find the Naval Gazers opinions that my very existence is somehow up for intellectual debate a thousand times more offensive then me just pointing out that's what they are doing but nobody is mother hening them over it.

If you disagree, click on the report button.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 09:06 PM   #739
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,628
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Acknowledging that these people are playing a character and not making an argument is not a "personal attack."

As I've acknowledged upthread, I do find it curious that it does seem de rigueour for philosophones here -- as opposed to the oddity of one single poster -- to endlessly catalog and label past arguments of past philosophers, rather than present first-hand arguments.

While that criticism is valid, I'm not sure, though, that they're "playing a role". I mean, why would they, one and all? Sounds far-fetched, CT-ish, to suggest that.


Quote:
And again pearl clutching when someone simply points out that their entire argument boils down to "I'm a god being and reality doesn't exist until my perception deems it to do so, now argue otherwise you mere figment of my imagination" seems rather disingenuous.

If you can clearly demonstrate specific instances of disingenuity in specific arguments, then sure, I'll agree with you. But to make blanket judgments like this seems, well, not disingenuous, but misplaced. (See what I did? )


Quote:
I find the Naval Gazers opinions that my very existence is somehow up for intellectual debate a thousand times more offensive then me just pointing out that's what they are doing but nobody is mother hening them over it.

But why shouldn't it be open for debate, and open to debunking via debate? Of course, you personally or I personally may keep away from this kind of debate if we don't like to participate, but why heckle those who do want to talk this out?


Quote:
If you disagree, click on the report button.

I've already said I'm not reporting this.

My point was that heckling and personalizing serve no purpose. I guess my implicit reasoning was that camp-mates carry an especial responsibility to point stuff like this out. Well, I've done that, and that's that. Up to you now to carry on as you think best.

Peace!

Last edited by Chanakya; 2nd December 2019 at 09:08 PM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 09:52 PM   #740
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,628
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
simplicity is useless if the thing doesn't go.

This.

Occam's Razor guides us towards the most parsimonious explanation, but it's kind of given, I should have thought, that this is an optimization thing. The aim is to get a serviceable explanation, that seems common sense -- except, apparently, it isn't, to some.

In theory they do have a point, they and their pure skepticism (Tommy's "old-fashioned skepticism", in threads past, comes to mind), but in practice, given how far science has already taken us, pragmatism clearly does point us towards materialism.

*

But what I find troublesome, piquant, interesting, is the philosophones' argument that science is ontology-agnostic. Apparently some pedigreed scientists add their voice to philosophers' in agreement on this.

I've tried to counter this as best I could by exposing what appeared to me to be a sleight of hand (in effect if not in intention) that takes ontology away from the here and now and into a realm of deep causality that is impervious to rules/conventions of evidence. My arguments along these lines on this thread, while I've stuck to them, are hobbled by my lack of expertise in both philosophy and QM. I wonder if someone better versed in either/both -- you perhaps? -- might take this on, head on?

I refer to caveman1917's claim, and phiwum's, and David Mo's, and LarryS's as well (although he seems open, on discussion, to bringing this down to a working model level), that science is ontology-agnostic, as ontology is classically defined (indeed as apparently the only way it's defined, so that my insistence on operational ontologies is, I'm told -- and told correctly, so far as I can see -- actually a redefinition of established terms, and to that extent moot.)

Last edited by Chanakya; 2nd December 2019 at 10:03 PM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 12:23 AM   #741
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,776
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Not true. A color may consist of many wavelengths, but both 'color' and 'wavelength' are merely the labels we attach to the actual phenomena. The two words may be used in different contexts, but both are equally valid. A radio transmitter is characterized by frequency, but a LASER is usually specified by color - even when the color is invisible to us (infrared, ultraviolet).

The words we use to describe phenomena do not become invalid just because they do not describe reality in perfect detail. They are labels that we use for convenience. When someone says that they see a particular color they may be talking about their perception, but the color itself has a well understood scientific definition rooted firmly in objective reality - and it's not 'just' a wavelength.

Not true. We know that 'external reality' is more than just our observations made into a 'projection' by the brain. We also know that the perception of color is subjective, which is why we have developed ways to measure and characterize colors objectively, independent of an individual's perception.

Nonsense. Just because we will never know everything about reality (which is impossible according to information theory) doesn't mean we can't know something about it.

Dreams and illusions can be triggered by the exact same sensations as 'real' ones - the only difference is the interpretation. In fact to a large extent everything we normally interpret as reality is an illusion - but one which we know is created by reality.

I turn a switch on and - as if by magic - a light appears in another part of the room. I can see no way for this to happen. I take the switch apart and see wires going from it to the bulb, but they appear to be inert. Only by probing them with a multimeter do I see that there is voltage and current present, which electronic theory tells me is sufficient to make the bulb glow. Neither can I see the electromagnetic fields surrounding the wires, which push the current around the circuit and transfer energy to the bulb. For that I would need another instrument, another physical device which 'observes' without needing a mind to feel 'sensations'.

My perceptions tell me that electricity doesn't exist. My eyes can't see it, my ears can't hear it, my skin can't feel it through the insulated wires, and my brain can't 'project' it. To my mind it is magical action at a distance with no perceivable mechanism. But my instruments say otherwise. That and knowledge of the physical 'laws' that describe how it behaves are enough for me to build up a 'projection' in my mind - which I fully accept is not real. I use the model in my mind for convenience, knowing that it is an imperfect and incomplete (but useful) description of one aspect of reality.

When attempting to understand the operation of an electronic device I prefer the schematic over the real thing, even though it is just a drawing that looks nothing like it. Why? Because the symbols are easier for my brain to interpret than the actual device - easier to trace the wires, easier to identify components, easier to recognize configurations that indicate particular functions etc. It's just an illusion inside my head, but it's more useful for understanding the device than my 'perceptions' (sometimes no schematic is available, and then creating one takes hours of carefully tracing the wiring and examining and testing parts).

But 'philosophical speculation on Truth or Reality' is an effort to survive. The more we can figure out about how reality works the better we can make use of it. Humans are by far the best species on this planet for doing that - it is the only reason for our success. But perhaps not for much longer...

That is why this conversation is important. It is important for our survival as a species that we don't become deceived by wrong-headed philosophical arguments. If we are to prosper we need to accept that reality is real and that science is the best way to learn more about it - not an illogical belief in mind over matter based on a feeling that our thoughts must be more than just electrochemical impulses in the brain.
The colour sensation is not the wavelength. It is the effect of it on mind according to the commonly accepted scientific theory today. Theories about cause and effect in this case are based on theoretical objects: wavelengths that nobody has never seen. They have never been observed directly. If they appear in certain representations it is through instruments that depend on other theories that are based on objects that have never been observed directly. It is evident that there is a contradiction between sensations and science. I see things that science tells me are not like that. If you mean that these theories are more true than the sensations we have in the brain you risk a scientific realism: reality is what science says. This theory has more holes than an Emmental cheese. If you want we can discuss it. The main hole in scientific realism is that scientific theories constantly evolve so that the concept of reality would evolve as well. Which one do we keep? Did you know that some scientists are defending a theory of reality similar to that of Aristotle and others to that of Plato? I'm not talking about philosophers, I'm talking about scientists.

But then don't say again that reality is what we see. According to you reality is what scientific theories explain what we see. A changing and diffuse reality, about which the scientists themselves seem to disagree.

By the way, my comment was an adaptation of statements by one of the most prominent European neuroscientists.




And I don't think the human species is surviving with the help of science. It is destroying the planet with the help of science. But this is another issue.

Last edited by David Mo; 3rd December 2019 at 12:26 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 12:51 AM   #742
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,776
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post

Yes, and my point is that concluding the cause of being hit unexpectedly from behind with a thrown snowball is mysterious is really stupid and maladaptive.
In other words, since you cannot give a logical answer to the anti-realist, you send him off with a string of insults. I don't think this method is very rational.

I take this opportunity to repeat once again that the world of the idealist is quite similar to ours: it is full of furniture, houses, and so on. The difference lies in the interpretation we give to these things. We believe that they are external things, the subjective idealist don't believes so.

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Our knowledge of things is limited to what we know? ("have in the mind" = "know"). Well, what an amazing revelation! No wonder so many great scientists, and no doubt quite a few lousy ones as well, agree with it.
(...)

Everything that exists, exists in the interaction between our minds and the world. Yeah, that's kind of a complex model. If only minds existed it would be simpler. If only matter existed it would be simpler too. A car with only an engine and no wheels, or a car with wheels but no engine, is simpler than one with wheels and an engine. But simplicity is useless if the thing doesn't go.

When you can't provide a convincing reason, consistent with your philosophy, to give a thirsty toddler a drink of water, your world model is lethally flawed.
Your comment will not become more persuasive because you repeat over and over again the firmness of your belief in the outside world. It's not about convincing anyone, but demonstrating that your beliefs are more rational. You are failing in that, unfortunately, as your insults and your continual proclamations of faith show.

Besides, you are starting to repeat yourself. I had already commented above about giving water to the thirsty. It is not a serious objection for a subjectivist. See my two answers in comment #677:
"If we are talking about a moderate idealist or a phenomenalist he could make a Pascalian bet... [etc.]".
And
"But blaming him for being a moral monster does not imply any true proposition... [etc.]".

We can discuss them if you want. But without insults and proclamations of faith.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 01:01 AM   #743
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,776
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
But what I find troublesome, piquant, interesting, is the philosophones' argument that science is ontology-agnostic. Apparently some pedigreed scientists add their voice to philosophers' in agreement on this.
I don't think that science is ontological-agnostic. I think that science is ontological-pluralist. I am against dogmatic scientificism, be realist or agnostic. That is to say that in some high levels of science there are diverse interpretations about what science refers to.

By the way, is the word "scientificism" correct in English?
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 01:53 AM   #744
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,494
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
But then don't say again that reality is what we see. According to you reality is what scientific theories explain what we see. A changing and diffuse reality, about which the scientists themselves seem to disagree.
It's not reality that's changing, it's our progression towards a more accurate model of reality that changes. Every now and again there is a new scientific theory that completely overturns our existing understanding. But as far as I know this doesn't happen very often.

edit: and of course scientists disagree all the time on many things, that's how science is done is it not. It seems to work reasonably well most of the time though.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here

Last edited by BadBoy; 3rd December 2019 at 01:55 AM.
BadBoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 04:19 AM   #745
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,776
Originally Posted by BadBoy View Post
It's not reality that's changing, it's our progression towards a more accurate model of reality that changes. .
How do you know that each new scientific paradigm is a more exact description of what reality is and not a different interpretation of what reality is?
What if science has a relativistic concept of reality?
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 06:07 AM   #746
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,416
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Actually idealism seems to me to be an excellent starting point. Perfectly valid, as a place to begin from. The trouble is, when you stop there. Or when you attempt to very klunkily interpret science in idealist terms, in the process either ignoring parsimony or else staying content with no explanation at all.



As for using idealism to shoehorn in a God idea, there appear (to my philosophically untutored eyes) two difficulties with that:



First, if a material reality is not to be accepted, nor, presumably, should time. Past impressions then simply become present impressions of things only apparently in the past. Establishing causality becomes an impossibility, or so it seems to me.



And second, while one may argue for primacy of one's own perceptions, it seems a reach to imagine that one's perceptions are felt by others, or indeed that others exist. Given this, I don't see how one can posit that one's perceptions must have their source in another's (nor Another's, with a capital A). I sense a circularity here, a going around in circles as far as the logic. (Quite apart from the evidence thing, I mean, the evidence thing that makes all of this moot anyway.)
Idealism was and is a philosophical idea of how to prove god exists. Idealism didn't come about and then someone thought "oh I can use this to prove god exists". It was created by folk who were certain god existed and wanted to create a philosophy they could claim proves god exists.

So today when you read folks saying idealism has nothing to do with proving a god, it is them that are doing the shoehorning. And as you can see in this thread it is simply not true as the proponents of idealism are using it so they can say magic exists, or the immaterial, in other words they are trying to find a "gap" for their magic/god/supreme consciousness to occupy.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 06:18 AM   #747
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,416
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
In other words, since you cannot give a logical answer to the anti-realist, you send him off with a string of insults. I don't think this method is very rational.



I take this opportunity to repeat once again that the world of the idealist is quite similar to ours: it is full of furniture, houses, and so on. The difference lies in the interpretation we give to these things. We believe that they are external things, the subjective idealist don't believes so.





Your comment will not become more persuasive because you repeat over and over again the firmness of your belief in the outside world. It's not about convincing anyone, but demonstrating that your beliefs are more rational. You are failing in that, unfortunately, as your insults and your continual proclamations of faith show.



Besides, you are starting to repeat yourself. I had already commented above about giving water to the thirsty. It is not a serious objection for a subjectivist. See my two answers in comment #677:

"If we are talking about a moderate idealist or a phenomenalist he could make a Pascalian bet... [etc.]".

And

"But blaming him for being a moral monster does not imply any true proposition... [etc.]".



We can discuss them if you want. But without insults and proclamations of faith.
No the difference is that there is a immaterial/supreme consciousness in idealism. When Myriad mentioned the time bomb planted by the terrorist who commits suicide before it is due to explode that is the actual proof of god for the idealist. From Berkeley onwards folk realised that idealism cant make sense of the world unless there is something that holds all of reality in "its mind" . It is why the timed bomb still explodes even though no one perceived it or knows of it before it explodes. Idealism logically fails, as all its proponents (who understand it) knew and know without the god/immaterial call it what you want. You've got idealism pretty much entirely the wrong way around!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 3rd December 2019 at 06:21 AM. Reason: That would be telling
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 06:20 AM   #748
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,416
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
How do you know that each new scientific paradigm is a more exact description of what reality is and not a different interpretation of what reality is?

What if science has a relativistic concept of reality?
Because the predictions from those theories more accurately predict the world around us.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 07:46 AM   #749
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,641
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No the difference is that there is a immaterial/supreme consciousness in idealism. When Myriad mentioned the time bomb planted by the terrorist who commits suicide before it is due to explode that is the actual proof of god for the idealist. From Berkeley onwards folk realised that idealism cant make sense of the world unless there is something that holds all of reality in "its mind" . It is why the timed bomb still explodes even though no one perceived it or knows of it before it explodes. Idealism logically fails, as all its proponents (who understand it) knew and know without the god/immaterial call it what you want. You've got idealism pretty much entirely the wrong way around!

Yes, but apparently, new improved idealism does away with the necessity of god. By instead proposing that the explosion happens mysteriously for no reason.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 08:31 AM   #750
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,494
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
How do you know that each new scientific paradigm is a more exact description of what reality is and not a different interpretation of what reality is?
What if science has a relativistic concept of reality?
demonstrable evidence, experiments.

Fact is science works, evidence of that fact is all around us.

We find that the world around us operates consistently within laws the models are built on, and that is all we can really trust. We must proceed with the best methods of understanding the natural world that we have and that is science. It doesn't matter if we live in a real reality or the matrix or something else since the world behaves in such a way that we couldn't tell the difference anyway.

Science isn't some deep philosophical position, or idea, from what I can tell. It's just a simple process where by we take steps to ensure all/any conclusions we draw are valid.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here

Last edited by BadBoy; 3rd December 2019 at 08:36 AM.
BadBoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 08:34 AM   #751
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,776
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Idealism was and is a philosophical idea of how to prove god exists.
I have refuted that in several previous comments. I asked you for proof of what you say. I am waiting for. You don't pay the slightest attention and continue with your false assertion. I'm tired of talking to people who don't listen.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 08:36 AM   #752
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,776
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No the difference is that there is a immaterial/supreme consciousness in idealism. When Myriad mentioned the time bomb planted by the terrorist who commits suicide before it is due to explode that is the actual proof of god for the idealist. From Berkeley onwards folk realised that idealism cant make sense of the world unless there is something that holds all of reality in "its mind" . It is why the timed bomb still explodes even though no one perceived it or knows of it before it explodes. Idealism logically fails, as all its proponents (who understand it) knew and know without the god/immaterial call it what you want. You've got idealism pretty much entirely the wrong way around!
Neither you nor a subjective idealist has the experience of a bomb exploding at a metre. So what they both know about pumps are ideas. First you will have to prove that outside things exist. Then which of your ideas correspond to things and which do not.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 08:41 AM   #753
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,776
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Because the predictions from those theories more accurately predict the world around us.
So all you know is that ideas based on sensations serve to better predict the appearance of other sensations. That doesn't get you very far. Many anti-realists think that scientific theories are mere tools for making predictions, but this doesn't mean that their concepts are accurate descriptions of what is reality.

Last edited by David Mo; 3rd December 2019 at 10:12 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 09:47 AM   #754
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,626
Originally Posted by BadBoy
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
How do you know that each new scientific paradigm is a more exact description of what reality is and not a different interpretation of what reality is?
What if science has a relativistic concept of reality?
demonstrable evidence, experiments.

Fact is science works, evidence of that fact is all around us.

We find that the world around us operates consistently within laws the models are built on, and that is all we can really trust. We must proceed with the best methods of understanding the natural world that we have and that is science. It doesn't matter if we live in a real reality or the matrix or something else since the world behaves in such a way that we couldn't tell the difference anyway.

Science isn't some deep philosophical position, or idea, from what I can tell. It's just a simple process where by we take steps to ensure all/any conclusions we draw are valid.

Quantum mechanics may be the most successful theory in the history of science. Here is a quote from one of its founders:

Quote:
Werner Heisenberg [6, page 129,] claimed that ``the idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them ... is impossible ...'' and that [7, page 15,] ``We can no longer speak of the behavior of the particle independently of the process of observation. As a final consequence, the natural laws formulated mathematically in quantum theory no longer deal with the elementary particles themselves but with our knowledge of them. Nor is it any longer possible to ask whether or not these particles exist in space and time objectively.''

https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~olds...qts/node1.html
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski
Frank Newgent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 10:11 AM   #755
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,776
Originally Posted by BadBoy View Post
demonstrable evidence, experiments.

Fact is science works, evidence of that fact is all around us.

We find that the world around us operates consistently within laws the models are built on, and that is all we can really trust. We must proceed with the best methods of understanding the natural world that we have and that is science. It doesn't matter if we live in a real reality or the matrix or something else since the world behaves in such a way that we couldn't tell the difference anyway.
What is in question is not the predictive power of science, but that the phenomena predicted by science are purely objective, describing a reality independent of the observer and his instruments. You don't need to be a subjective idealist to realize this. I am tired of quoting eminent scientists who have said this. Up there Frank Newgent has placed a pertinent quotation. I have put many others.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 12:23 PM   #756
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,082
"Okay but you can't prove that our senses aren't all lying to us and the universe isn't operating on random dream-logic without rules, patterns or even cause and effect" is meaningless nonsense that the people who argue it can't even be bothered to actually think is true.

The stupid "Hard problem of Consciousness" / "Air gap between our sense and reality" arguments are just the "God put a soul in us" argument again.

We're basically on the "Prove to me using an argument that has evidence that arguments and evidence exist" level.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 3rd December 2019 at 12:25 PM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 01:44 PM   #757
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,416
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I have refuted that in several previous comments. I asked you for proof of what you say. I am waiting for. You don't pay the slightest attention and continue with your false assertion. I'm tired of talking to people who don't listen.
And I've already explained how you could educate yourself about idealism.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 3rd December 2019 at 01:45 PM. Reason: A sled seld
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 02:20 PM   #758
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,628
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Idealism was and is a philosophical idea of how to prove god exists. Idealism didn't come about and then someone thought "oh I can use this to prove god exists". It was created by folk who were certain god existed and wanted to create a philosophy they could claim proves god exists.

So today when you read folks saying idealism has nothing to do with proving a god, it is them that are doing the shoehorning. And as you can see in this thread it is simply not true as the proponents of idealism are using it so they can say magic exists, or the immaterial, in other words they are trying to find a "gap" for their magic/god/supreme consciousness to occupy.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I have refuted that in several previous comments. I asked you for proof of what you say. I am waiting for. You don't pay the slightest attention and continue with your false assertion. I'm tired of talking to people who don't listen.

This much at least, this particular disagreement, can probably be settled objectively and pretty much unambiguously.

David, you're pretty well read on things philosophical. So if you can present one or two examples of actual idealist philosophers who predate Berkeley and other idealist God apologists, and who don't themselves use their idealism to plug for some kind of a God idea, you'll have made your point, I guess. And if you can't, then it's Darat who's probably right. Easily settled, right?
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 03:25 PM   #759
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,027
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
This much at least, this particular disagreement, can probably be settled objectively and pretty much unambiguously.

David, you're pretty well read on things philosophical. So if you can present one or two examples of actual idealist philosophers who predate Berkeley and other idealist God apologists, and who don't themselves use their idealism to plug for some kind of a God idea, you'll have made your point, I guess. And if you can't, then it's Darat who's probably right. Easily settled, right?
Not really my 'fight' but wouldn't Plato, Arisotle and modern philosophers like Schopenhauer count as Idealists not inserting God. There are also several examples from Buddhist tradition.
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 04:01 PM   #760
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,416
If it wasn't clear I am talking about the philosophy of subjective idealism that Berkely came up with.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.