TPF : Arguments For Idealism

[Gnomon]

Ontological arguments for idealism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... b]idealism[/b]/p1

What are some good ontological/logical arguments for ontological idealism? — Ø implies everything

If, by "Idealism" you mean the rejection of Realism, all Either/Or logical arguments will go round in circles. You can't have overhead mental Ideality without its substrate of material Reality. And a Reality without sentient beings will have no Ideas. Reality knows itself via Ideality : the ability to abstract Concepts from Percepts ; to generalize Universals from Particulars ; to synthesize personal Meanings from impersonal Things. Reality & Ideality go together like matter & aether.

That's why I have resorted to an Intuitive argument that I call BothAnd. For example, Cogito Ergo Sum implies that I am both Mind and Body; both Knower and Known. We can have isolated abstractions only in imagination.

PS__Your appellation of "zero implies everything" sounds like a BothAnd concept. "Nothing" is meaningless without Something to relate it to. Computer logic is based on the fundamental relationship between All (1) and Nothing (0). Likewise, the concept of "Zero" is merely the opposite end of the statistical spectrum of all possibilities (100%). All things are relative : nothing exists in isolation.

"Nothing exists in isolation. In fact, all beings and phenomena exist only because of their relationship with other beings or phenomena.” ― Jeff Ourvan, Quora

BothAnd :
One sense of “non-dual” is the opposite of Cartesian dualism, in which body & soul are completely different kinds of stuff. But if everything is made of Mind, or Consciousness, or Information — as assumed in Panpsychism — then Mind is simply the natural-but-immaterial function of the material Brain. Quantum theory is a materialistic version of non-duality. It views the world as made of continuous mathematical Fields of potential. Within their defining field, pairs of quantum particles may become entangled, and act as one, or vice-versa, fluid waves may also be discrete particles . Unfortunately, such BothAnd (wave/particle) constructs are difficult for our macro-sensing brains to imagine.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page62.html

[Gnomon]

Ontological objective idealism has less weaknesses and unlikely to be undermined rather than subjective idealism which again leads to solipsism — invicta

Arguments for or against Idealism are complicated by the several definitions of the term, and variations within those definitions*1 *2. Since I have no formal training in philosophy, I'll have to stick to naive Idealism (the map is not the territory) and naive Realism (there is something out there that our senses are reporting). The objective aspect of both is our shared myths of reality : a> religious stories about an extrasensory spirit realm, and b> scientific reports about the invisible structure of the material world. From Kant to Quant we have been admonished that "Reality is not what you think it is"*3

So I have to be cautious about taking a firm stand on the mushy foundations of reality, especially as revealed by subatomic science. When I take a step on the ground, I expect that it will support my weight. But Quantum physics tells me -- and I only have this knowledge second hand -- that the atoms below are 99% empty space. So the "support" comes from counteracting weak forces between my feel-real shoes and the supposedly real ground. My intuitive model of the ground is solid, even though intellectually I "know" that it is porous. But my mental map of reality "works" most of the time. It's only quantum theorists who must work with an un-real mathematical model of reality, dominated by invisible forces instead of solid matter, and undermined by the interventions of observers .

The Objectivist Creed of modern science aspired to replace divine revelation for perfect knowledge of Reality with a collective consensus on what's what*4. And I am grateful for the harvest of practical insights, due to that divorce from religion. But the Objectivist Myth*5 was watered-down by the new statistical models (mathematical instead of material) of subatomic physics. What used to be fundamental to reality is now known to be a mere possibility prior to our measurement of its realness. Faced with such perversions of Classical Reality, what's a naive boy to do?

So, my personal position on Reality is like a wave/particle : BothAnd*6. The world is not Either Real or Ideal, but a blend of both mental & material aspects. Its wave-nature is continuous & statistical, while its particle-nature is discrete & physical. Reality is whatever works for me at the moment. Ideality is a possible state that exists only as a concept. Like the dream of seeing a man walking on the moon, ideas can become real.


*1. Objective idealism is a form of metaphysical idealism that accepts Naïve realism but rejects epiphenomenalist materialism, as opposed to subjective idealism denies that material objects exist independently of human perception and thus stands opposed to both realism and naturalism. ___Wikipedia

*2. What are the two types of idealism? :
Thus, the two basic forms of idealism are metaphysical idealism, which asserts the ideality of reality, and epistemological idealism, which holds that in the knowledge process the mind can grasp only the psychic or that its objects are conditioned by their perceptibility.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/idealism
Note -- My interpretation of Hoffman's theory is neither subjective nor objective idealism, but merely that there are practical evolved limits on perception; so he advises : know thy limits.

*3. Reality is not what it seems :
Physicist Carlo Rovelli's book on quantum gravity
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/ ... we-can-see

*4. Copenhagen Interpretation :
An interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to explain how the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics might correspond to experienced reality. Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and extremely precise tests in an extraordinarily broad range of experiments, there exist a number of contending schools of thought over their interpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... _mechanics

*5, Objectivist Myth :
Scientific Objectivism replaces the prayerful Priest with an empirical Expert
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The ... _254734289

*6. Both/And Principle :
*** My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
*** This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

IS THE MOON REAL WHEN I'M NOT WALKING ON IT?
62043main_Footprint_on_moon.jpg

[Gnomon]

The contents of human minds are Ideal (in the sense of subjective concepts), and everything else is more or less Real. From that perspective Universals are merely memes in human minds. Whether they exist elsewhere is debatable. But we like to think that mathematical Principles and physical Laws are somehow Real, since evidence for them is found consistently in Nature. — Gnomon

To me, that is the major subject of philosophy. It is the domain of the a priori, but it's not as if there's evidence for them, so much as that we rely on them to decide what constitutes evidence. — Wayfarer

Yes. Aristotle studied both Physics and Metaphysics as different aspects of comprehensive "Nature". Today, empirical scientists claim the royal realm of Reality, and leave the plebeian domain of Ideality to feckless philosophers & "soft" scientists. IMHO though, theoretical scientists, like Einstein, are actually philosophers, who serve the needs of noble empiricists by converting their sensory swine into savory pork for the plate. (Please pardon the tongue-in-cheek metaphors)

In physical Reality, everything is Particular, except that rational minds somehow "see" General (holistic) patterns, known as "Universals" & "Principles". And the most innovative philosopher/scientists refer to those Ideal (unreal) Universals in order to "decide what constitutes evidence". Physical evidence -- to be meaningful -- must fit the metaphysical pattern of Laws & Principles & Universals.

Ontology, as the study of Being, could divide Existence into a> Real things and b> Ideal concepts about things. Knowledge of reality is necessarily a posteriori sense experience, but where does a priori (non-sense) knowledge come from? Aristotle seemed to assume that humans are born with an innate sense of Reason*1, that fills-in the gaps between instances, to imagine the invisible logical structural patterns of reality (wholes & holons).

The theory of a posteriori knowledge presumes a "blank slate" to write upon, while the hypothesis of a priori information assumes that Reason is the (god-given or Darwin-bestowed?) innate writing instrument in the human mind. Reason perceives Logical patterns and conceives abstract representations on the immaterial chalkboard of the mind.

Imperial empirical Science daintily uses its forks & knives to slice & dice Ontology into easily digested chunks of physical information. Yet, Philosophy greedily gulps down un-pre-masticated lumps (holons) of metaphysical information, leaving it to innate intuitive Reason to digest into relevant meanings. Scientists assume, without hard evidence, that there are a priori innate Laws that the instances of evidence are supposed to add-up to. But where did those rules-for-Reason come from? And why do philosophers also assume the existence of such Ideal Forms, to serve as axioms by which to reason?


*1. a priori :
I'm not sure exactly where Aristotle thought the pre-existence (or from the beginning) of universals & principles might originate. Since he seemed skeptical of a literal Ideal realm, could a priori be the Mind of God? Or is it just an innate skill, that today we might say was an evolutionary adaptation?

[Gnomon]

Empiricism and naturalism have an innate bias against the idea of innate knowledge (irony alert!) Whereas, I believe that the a priori reflects innate structures within the mind that are operative in the exercise of reason. — Wayfarer

Yes. It seems likely that functional brain structure may establish the basic categories into which we catalog our sensory experience. But a quick Google search didn't find much corroboration. However, Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate argued against the then-prevailing cultural bias of the Nature vs Nurture and Gene vs Environment politics. He provided evidence to support the notion that much of characteristic human behavior (perhaps including reasoning facility) is built-in at birth. Even Intuition may indicate that, prior to conscious thought, we instinctively recognize the logic behind sensory inputs : categories plus experience. Maybe Idealism is related to those innate epistemological categories (what ought to be true), and Realism is more influenced by our direct personal experience of the world (e.g. poverty or wealth). Surely some scientist or philosopher has investigated the roots of a priori and a posteriori knowledge.


In epistemology, Innatism is the doctrine that the mind is born with ideas, knowledge, and beliefs. The opposing doctrine, that the mind is a tabula rasa (blank slate) at birth and all knowledge is gained from experience and the senses, is called Empiricism. ___Wiki

[Gnomon]

I suggest that we drop the ocular metaphor and talk about dancing. In other words, we perform 'universals' in the way we trade marks and noises. This 'seeing' of 'form' (this metaphorical interpretation of our situation) has its pros and cons. It's helped us trick ourselves into believing in ghosts. — plaque flag

Since humans are primarily visual creatures, our metaphors tend to emphasize imagination. But we also have some limited sense of "natural rhythm". So, maybe we "dance" to the tune that harmonizes with our innate rhythmic patterns. However, it may also be possible that we "hear" a tempo that we are predisposed to rock to. Dancing with ghost music?

If one insists that X installed such concepts in us, without being able to provide details, where X is more mysterious than we are ourselves, then this allusion to X is a sentimental antiexplanation, a hiding-from rather than an addressing-of our lack of clarity about of our nature. Or so I claim. — plaque flag

Unfortunately, the mysterious "installer", Mr. X, could be either Nature or God or some other First Cause. As ↪Wayfarer noted above, "functional brain structure may establish the basic categories into which we catalog our sensory experience." {my interpretation} But, the details to support that natural explanation are scarce.

Even the notion of "Nature" as an "installer" agent is an imaginary humanoid rationalization of a trial & error process. So, it seems that the ultimate source of human conceptual ability remains a mystery*1, missing in the a priori gap of Big Bang theory, which doesn't actually begin at the beginning. Therefore, any "Installer" we might posit might be a "sentimental antiexplanation". Nevertheless, I have developed a non-empirical, and un-sentimental theory of my own : X = Enformer.


*1, How could random chance produce rational thought, and unreal Ideals?

[Gnomon]

it seems that the ultimate source of human conceptual ability remains a mystery — Gnomon
As far as I can tell, the only 'mystery' (and I think 180 Proof agrees ?) is that of any postulated origin, because we can always ask but why ? Why this and not something else ? — plaque flag

Since the Big Bang Theory didn't begin at the ultimate beginning, I'd call that missing "ultimate source" the Big Mystery. Are you aware of any inherent limits on empirical Science? Such as the explanatory gap called "The Singularity" (defined by lack of definition). Despite the lack of data from the Great Beyond, many scientists have continued to probe into the darkness before the postulated Big Bang --- Inflation, Many Worlds, Multiverse --- with no grounds other than speculation on "what if?" based on limited knowledge of "what is".

Philosophy is built upon conjectures into the unknown, with no "grounds" except the human talent for inference : Reason. If you want to know "what is?", post on a Science site. But if you want to know "what if?", post on a Philosophy forum. Pragmatic Science doesn't ask "why?" questions. Why ask "why?" if you don't want to hear conjectures? "Why" questions tend to put devout Materialists on the defensive. Give ↪180 Proof
a high five for me.

PS___I wasn't using the term "mystery" as a black box into which you can postulate any possibility. Instead, it was simply a pragmatic admission of limitation, and an aspirational challenge to go beyond physical limits with imagination and rational speculation. If you don't like a conjecture about a "mystery", refute it with "observations", not sarcasm .

The Big Bang: Solid Theory, But Mysteries Remain
https://www.space.com/8066-big-bang-sol ... emain.html

Mystery behind the Big Bang theory revealed!
https://tech.hindustantimes.com/tech/ne ... 50229.html

Conjecture :
In scientific philosophy, Karl Popper pioneered the use of the term "conjecture" to indicate a statement which is presumed to be real, true, or genuine, mostly based on inconclusive grounds, in contrast with a hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a testable statement based on accepted grounds.[/]
https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Conjecture

What does Popper mean when he says science cycles through conjectures and refutations?
He claimed that all testing in science has the form of attempting to refute theories by means of observation. And crucially, for Popper it is never possible to confirm or establish a theory by showing its agreement with observations.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/ ... 10-006/pdf

[Gnomon]

1, How could random chance produce rational thought, and unreal Ideals? — Gnomon
Respectfully (and I hope helpfully), I suggest (1) you study the theory of evolution [to understand complexity emerging from simplicity and (2) read more philosophy [ to question Everyman prejudices about 'unreal' or 'immaterial' ideas] . — plaque flag

It would be more helpful if, rather than point fingers, you would try to answer the "how" question above. Did you really think I was unaware of evolutionary theory, and the prevalence of "everyman prejudices" about immaterial ideas? Are you aware of any Material Ideas? What kind of atoms are Concepts made of? Did Darwin propose a theory to explain the origin of Reason?

FWIW, My non-academic thesis & blog are built upon 18th century evolution theory, plus 21st century Systems Biology, and other cutting-edge ideas about ideas. I even have my own hypothesis (conjecture?) about how "random Chance", plus non-random Selection, could work together (like a computer program's Data + Criteria) to evolve rational thinking beings. For years, I've been following the Santa Fe Institute's research into Complexity (in general), and Complex Adaptive Systems (in particular). So I'm better informed on such questions than the average layman. And, like the Institute scientists, I like to think outside the conventional box.



Santa Fe Institute
the scientists sought a forum to conduct theoretical research outside the traditional disciplinary boundaries of academic departments and government agency science budgets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Institute

Systems Biology
Denis Noble, Oxford University & Santa Fe Institute
https://irp.nih.gov/catalyst/19/6/syste ... ned-by-nih
A Holistic approach to living organisms that goes beyond the self-imposed limitations of traditional Reductive scientific methods. A Systems View of the world only became doable since computers accelerated & expanded the pace & reach of human inference. Reductive methods are an old-fashioned hang-over from the times when scientists used pencils & chalk to record their thought processes.

[Gnomon]

Did you really think I was unaware of evolutionary theory, and the prevalence of "everyman prejudices" about immaterial ideas? Are you aware of any Material Ideas? What kind of atoms are Concepts made of? Did Darwin propose a theory to explain the origin of Reason? — Gnomon
You are just proving my point. — plaque flag

What point are you pointing at? That I think outside the box of conventional science? Well, duh! What else do you expect on a freaking Philosophy Forum? Goose-stepping ideologues?

FYI, I'm merely reflecting your challenge back at you. Are you afraid of philosophical mysteries? Is Idealism too scary to think about? Are you trying to prove that you are a doctrinaire disciple of Scientism, as the final authority on all things? Try to think for yourself once in a while. Step outside the creed, and sample the infinite varieties of reality and ideality.

From previous post : If you don't like a conjecture about a "mystery", refute it with "observations", not sarcasm

What does Popper mean when he says science cycles through conjectures and refutations?
He claimed that all testing in science has the form of attempting to refute theories by means of observation. And crucially, for Popper it is never possible to confirm or establish a theory by showing its agreement with observations.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/ ... 10-006/pdf

The Myth of Objectivity :
What we know is generally considered to be the result of our exploration of the real world, of the way things really are. . . . How we know is a far more vexing problem. To solve it, the mind needs to step outside itself, so to speak for at this point we are no longer with facts that apparently exist independently of us in the outside world ...
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 3-0115-8_2

it seems that the ultimate source of human conceptual ability remains a mystery — plaque flag

Are you a Materialist or Mysterian or both? Are such ultimate questions off-limits on a Philosophy Forum? Of course such topics are beyond the scope of physical Science, but we're talking about non-physical Mind here, on a Philosophy forum. AFAIK, the only thing blocking the human mind from contemplating its own genesis is a Physicalist prejudice. I can respect the Mysterian position on scientific topics. But in this thread, we're discussing abstract subjective general Principles, not concrete objective specific Objects. Aren't we?


Philosophy's explanations are grounded in arguments of principles, while science tries to explain based on experiment results, observable facts, and objective evidence.
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscel ... hilosophy/

Mysterian :
…of thinkers, known as “mysterians,” who claim that, although we know that the conscious mind is nothing more than the brain, it is simply beyond the conceptual apparatus of human beings to understand how this can be the case.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/mysterian
Noe -- How do "we know" that Consciousness is nothing more than a Brain function. That's a tautology, not a scientific fact.

“The term physical is just kinda like an honorific word, kinda like the word 'real' when we say 'the real truth'. It doesn't add anything, it just says 'this is serious truth'. So to say that something is 'physical' today just means 'you gotta take this seriously'.”
― Noam Chomsky
Note -- From a Physicalist perspective, if it ain't physical you shouldn't take it seriously. But, on this forum, non-physical topics are de rigueur. And some of us take Subjective ideas very seriously.

Ontology
To me, that is the major subject of philosophy. It is the domain of the a priori, but it's not as if there's evidence for them, so much as that we rely on them to decide what constitutes evidence. — Wayfarer

↪Wayfarer

[Gnomon]

Respectfully (and I hope helpfully), I suggest (1) you study the theory of evolution [to understand complexity emerging from simplicity] and (2) read more philosophy [ to question Everyman prejudices about 'unreal' or 'immaterial' ideas] . — plaque flag

I apologize for the defensive response above. But ↪180 Proof
used to begin his sarcastic put-downs with a disrespectful "respectfully". Instead of responding to my itemized conjectures with specific refutations, he would dismissively recommend that I submissively "educate" my ignorant self -- "study", "understand", "read" -- on The Truth (whatever "settled" Science says). Presumably, anything that fits his scientific paradigm is respectable, and anything else is not suitable for philosophical discussions.

With no formal training in academic philosophy, I used to be uncertain, unassertive, and easily pushed around by sophist bullies. Now, after years of retirement leisure, and forum philosophizing, I tend to respond to derogation with a flood of information. Not expecting to change his shuttered mind, but merely to show that I've done my homework . . . even though not on the required reading list. I no longer waste my time trying to dialog with him. So, you can tell him how you detected bullshit and bashed baloney.

PS__Yes, I am familiar with Carl Sagan's "baloney detector" for pseudoscience. But the topic of this thread is, by your own admission, beyond current scientific proof or disproof. So, why not let philosophy have a go at it?


PPS__Typically [reply="180 Proof;801811"] superciliously refers to self-defense posts like this as "whining". Yet it's merely intended to reopen the dialog without the disrespect. Do you think that sarcasm & arrogance are appropriate philosophical forum etiquette? How would you respond to a put-down post?

Supercilious : behaving or looking as though one thinks one is superior to others.