BothAndBlog Forum

A Case for Analytic Idealism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/814385

Now, sometimes I do hear physicalists rightly point out that an analytical idealist is not actually providing an explanation to consciousness at all but, rather, simply positing it as fundamental without a detailed account of mind (i.e., of how it works) which, to them, is more epistemically costly than obscurely explaining mind in terms of emergence from the brain. — Bob Ross

That criticism may also accurately describe Panpsychism, which is a philosophical generalization, not a detailed scientific account of mind. It simply assumes that "mind stuff" is more fundamental than "matter stuff". In which case, the emergence of Mind from Matter needs no further explanation, other than perhaps adding the holistic notion of "Emergence".

I'm not familiar with the "details" of Kastrup's theory of Analytical Idealism, but it sounds like a modern version of the ancient notion of Panpsychism. If so, it seems to be generally compatible with my own thesis of Enformationism. But the devil is in the details. And philosophical theories tend to be skimpy in the kind of empirical & mathematical details that "physicalists" prefer. The "analytical" preface seems to imply that Idealism can be boiled-down to fundamentals or details of some kind. Does Kastrup make any attempt to mathematize his non-empirical theory? Is his "fundamentally unitary phenomenal field" defined in mathematical terms, similar to a quantum field?


What is analytical idealism?
Analytic Idealism is a theory of the nature of reality that maintains that the universe is experiential in essence. That does not mean that reality is in your or our individual minds alone, but instead in a spatially unbound, transpersonal field of subjectivity of which we are segments.
https://www.essentiafoundation.org/anal ... sm-course/

↪Bob Ross
Out of interest - let's assume we do accept analytic idealism as our ontological situation - what practical changes would this initiate in terms of human behavior? How much changes in terms of morality, human rights, climate change, political discourse, in short, how we live? — Tom Storm

In my experience, most people act like Materialists in all practical phases of life. Only a few brain-washed nuts actually attempt to walk through walls, which, according to subatomic physics, are 99% empty space (image below).

AFAIK, It's only in the impractical hypothetical aspects of human existence that such literal "non-sense" arises. That's why Materialism is un-controversial : it is what it seems to be. But Idealism is inherently contentious, for the same reason that Art & Politics are questionable non-matters of taste --- along with "morality, human rights, climate change". Ideals exist in private minds, not in public space, where your freedom is restricted by hard objective physical laws, instead of soft subjective laws of propriety & decency.

Fortunately, on TPF, we have an unreal ideal impractical Forum, existing in the notional emptiness of cyber-space, where we can dispute our personal ideas & beliefs without physically coming to blows. Snarky remarks are meta-physical, and won't give you a physical black eye.

MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS and walk through walls
hqdefault.jpg

A cryptic answer to my question. I'm not sure I follow you. — Tom Storm

Do you agree that, for pragmatic reasons, most humans act as-if Matter is Reality? If so, how do you explain the behavior of a few feckless philosophers, or romantics, who act as-if there is a realm of Ideality, apart from the tangible substances they know from hard experience?

For example, even an officially idealistic philosopher knows better than to try to walk through a brick wall with no door. And yet, he can imagine such an unreal event. The Marvel movie heroes have been performing such unrealistic tricks on the silver screen, and in rag mags, for decades. So, apparently a lot of people like to imagine that magical powers could be employed to battle the hidden forces of personified Evil. Some people are motivated by Ideals, that go far beyond immediate Pragmatic concerns : e.g. why make long-range plans to go to Mars?

What "practical changes" do you think such unfettered imagination would initiate in their behavior? Do you see young people, at a Cosplay meeting, imitating the magical powers of their heroes*1, in addition to modeling their heroic costumes & postures? Maybe a psychotic few will try to fly from tall buildings. In the movies, downtrodden outcasts suddenly discover the power to project energy/chi from their fingertips. Why don't the Cosplayers do likewise? Perhaps, because they know the difference between romantic Fiction and realistic Facts? Maybe a few of them even understand the difference between Science & Religion, Physics & Faith, but choose the latter because it offers something that Science cannot. "Man cannot live by bread alone".

Apparently, unlike animals, humans can imagine "things that never were", but could be in an ideal world. So, they are not as concerned with boring Pragmatism as you think they should be. Would you expunge that mental creativity from human nature? Personally, I am basically a humdrum Pragmatist & Realist. So I have to depend on others to let their imaginations run free from the bonds of physical laws. Except, that is, on a Philosophy Forum, where I can tentatively, and impractically, imagine where freedom from physical bondage might lead.

PS__For a direct answer to your question --- "Out of interest - let's assume we do accept analytic idealism as our ontological situation - what practical changes would this initiate in terms of human behavior?" --- None : analytic Idealism is not practical, it's philosophical.

*1. Real light saber : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTRjkAWz-M4

51SFBISVZjL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg