Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Chili]

The original assertions that solipsism wins out in the championing of Occam's Razor are not addressed or denied with appeals "our" vast knowledge or "whence other minds". Vast historical knowledge, like "many other creatures" are both implied in the solipsistic absolutist vision, and anyone who wishes to argue using appeals to these seems not to "get it".

[Spectrum]

You say that God is only a thought, but that's the whole point of this thread...there need not be anything beyond thought. That in no way means the world is any "smaller" than the materialist view...in fact it's actually boundless in potential.

God is only a thought, i.e. a thought arising from an illusion like a mirage as driven by psychological factors.
There is a difference between a thought arising from empirical+rational reality and a thought arising from an illusion.

Btw, I am not into materialism rather my view is empirical realism in contrast to empirical idealism aka Philosophical Realism.

[Namelesss]

(Nested quote removed.)

From scientific/philosophical Perspective, I tend to agree with where you are going here; is NOT a 'cause' of them, actually, because 'causality/creation' is not possible. Correlates abound, though, metaphors all! *__-

I don't know why materialists need to believe in something other than that which they directly experience (thoughts) in order to explain reality... could it be that materialism simply underpins their preference for atheism whereas idealism inevitably leads to the God concept? Also , the idealist , Godly worldview in no way undermines science and its usefulness...science does not require the concept causation (for example) because correlation is adequate.

To whom are you referring/speaking?

[Count Lucanor]

It's not an analogy it's a metaphor...therefore not a perfect comparison. I used it to explain how we can all be dependent on one thought process, arise from it , but have a degree of independence. In this theory the "program" is not dependent upon a motherboard, the program is everything.

What you're advocating for is the objective reality of the entities in your subjective world. You take your own thougths and say to yourself: "I'm a thinking being and there are these other thinking beings". You reach that conclusion from your pure subjective experience, disregarding your own solipsistic claim that all you really have access to is your own subjectivity. Here you are now claiming that other subjectivities exist independent of yours. From where I come from, this is called a blatant contradiction.

I don't understand why materialists believe there must be mind independent "motherboards"...they even construct the theory of mind independence through their minds and can't see the irony ...they come up with wacko magic theories like emergence to hide their embarrassment.

The funny thing is that you confidently release your monistic idealism, unaware that it comes back to bite you. Can't you see the irony of having mind independent gods and subjectivities? Given your confidence, I'm sure you'll have no problem explaining, using your own metaphor, how does Internet Explorer account for the existence of Chrome and Windows 10? How do they "arise" (or emerge) from it? I mean, nothing like a wacko magic theory. I'm all ears.

[Chester]

It's not an analogy it's a metaphor...therefore not a perfect comparison. I used it to explain how we can all be dependent on one thought process, arise from it , but have a degree of independence. In this theory the "program" is not dependent upon a motherboard, the program is everything.

What you're advocating for is the objective reality of the entities in your subjective world. You take your own thougths and say to yourself: "I'm a thinking being and there are these other thinking beings". You reach that conclusion from your pure subjective experience, disregarding your own solipsistic claim that all you really have access to is your own subjectivity. Here you are now claiming that other subjectivities exist independent of yours. From where I come from, this is called a blatant contradiction.

I don't understand why materialists believe there must be mind independent "motherboards"...they even construct the theory of mind independence through their minds and can't see the irony ...they come up with wacko magic theories like emergence to hide their embarrassment.

The funny thing is that you confidently release your monistic idealism, unaware that it comes back to bite you. Can't you see the irony of having mind independent gods and subjectivities? Given your confidence, I'm sure you'll have no problem explaining, using your own metaphor, how does Internet Explorer account for the existence of Chrome and Windows 10? How do they "arise" (or emerge) from it? I mean, nothing like a wacko magic theory. I'm all ears.

I don't think that our experiences are purely subjective, it is clear that often our opinions correlate to external facts... that would imply that our opinions can be objectively true . So I do not take my thoughts and assume that they embrace the whole of reality (solipsism) , but I am obviously able to assert with confidence that thoughts really do exist (because I experience them directly). If we view thoughts as a material, then it is natural extrapolate from that , through the concept of reality made from thought material, toward the all encompassing God idea.

With regard to how things like programs arise...there is only one way , through will. Experience tells us that complex , balanced ,systems require will in order to come into being ( unless you think that an F-35 fighter can possibly come into being , slowly over time, by chance alone..."slowly" must be the magical element lol.)

[Chester]

You say that God is only a thought, but that's the whole point of this thread...there need not be anything beyond thought. That in no way means the world is any "smaller" than the materialist view...in fact it's actually boundless in potential.

God is only a thought, i.e. a thought arising from an illusion like a mirage as driven by psychological factors.
There is a difference between a thought arising from empirical+rational reality and a thought arising from an illusion.

Btw, I am not into materialism rather my view is empirical realism in contrast to empirical idealism aka Philosophical Realism.

I don't believe that , assuming reality is encompassed by the mind of God, that that would mean reality is illusory...it would simply mean that the rules of nature are willed, but still observable and predictable. Science would still have validity in such circumstances.

[Chester]

(Nested quote removed.)


I don't know why materialists need to believe in something other than that which they directly experience (thoughts) in order to explain reality... could it be that materialism simply underpins their preference for atheism whereas idealism inevitably leads to the God concept? Also , the idealist , Godly worldview in no way undermines science and its usefulness...science does not require the concept causation (for example) because correlation is adequate.

To whom are you referring/speaking?

To you but maybe I got hold of the wrong end of the stick lol.

[Chester]

The original assertions that solipsism wins out in the championing of Occam's Razor are not addressed or denied with appeals "our" vast knowledge or "whence other minds". Vast historical knowledge, like "many other creatures" are both implied in the solipsistic absolutist vision, and anyone who wishes to argue using appeals to these seems not to "get it".

One of the problems with solipsism is that it suggests that the world is a figment of your imagination (whereas subjects like mathematics can exist theoretically without your mind), such a misleading mind can not be trusted to give you the truth with regard to the solipsism theory either.

To come to any sane concept of reality I think it is necessary to indulge in a little acceptance that you probably ain't the centre of the Universe.

Another downside to solipsism is that it serves no purpose, unlike useful philosophies...why indulge in pointlessness?

[Atreyu]

I agree with the OP that thought seems a better candidate for the "fundamental substance" of the Universe, over things like 'matter', 'energy', 'force', etc, and also with his reasoning behind it. Those other concepts (matter, energy, etc) are themselves products of thought! Indeed, mind/thought, at first glance, would seem to be more fundamental than the things which it itself cognizes. After all, 'matter', 'energy', 'force', etc are actually thoughts themselves, in and of themselves!

Does 'matter' really exist? Possible, but the idea/thought/concept of matter definitely exists.

Does 'energy/force' really exist? Probably, but the idea/thought/conception of 'energy/force' definitely exists.

Do 'spirits' exist? Maybe, but the idea/thought/concept of a 'spirit' definitely exists.

Does 'God' exist? Maybe, but the idea/thought/concept of 'God' definitely exists.

And so on, and so on.

And thinking of thought/mind/psyche as being the fundamental substance of the Universe over the things which are really just conceived to exist by the mind itself (matter, energy, etc), gives one a different view on the question of what a "God" might be, and whether or not such an entity could actually exist.

I still assert that the best explanation of God is simply to posit that the Universe is actually a gigantic conscious living Being. For that "God" has the most concrete existence, since it cannot be denied that the Universe exists. The only question is whether or not it is really conscious, or if in fact it is really just a "bunch of stuff"....

[Spectrum]

I agree with the OP that thought seems a better candidate for the "fundamental substance" of the Universe, over things like 'matter', 'energy', 'force', etc, and also with his reasoning behind it. Those other concepts (matter, energy, etc) are themselves products of thought! Indeed, mind/thought, at first glance, would seem to be more fundamental than the things which it itself cognizes. After all, 'matter', 'energy', 'force', etc are actually thoughts themselves, in and of themselves!

Does 'matter' really exist? Possible, but the idea/thought/concept of matter definitely exists.

Does 'energy/force' really exist? Probably, but the idea/thought/conception of 'energy/force' definitely exists.

Do 'spirits' exist? Maybe, but the idea/thought/concept of a 'spirit' definitely exists.

Does 'God' exist? Maybe, but the idea/thought/concept of 'God' definitely exists.

And so on, and so on.

And thinking of thought/mind/psyche as being the fundamental substance of the Universe over the things which are really just conceived to exist by the mind itself (matter, energy, etc), gives one a different view on the question of what a "God" might be, and whether or not such an entity could actually exist.

I can agree that the idea of 'God' is reduced to thoughts, not just thoughts but rationalized thoughts. However such a thought is based on primal [kindergarten] reason rather than higher cortical reasoning [PhD.].

One point is all things can be reduced to the basis of thoughts but you must realize all thoughts are reduced to the brain/mind, and looping, the brain/mind is reduced to thoughts which is reduced to brain/mind, and thus trapped in a circular loop.

If you analyze the above dilemma regarding 'thoughts' one common thing that stands out is the brain/mind which we know little of relatively.
Since God is merely a thought from the brain/mind, we should at least know the mechanics and processes of the brain/mind as much as possible before we made any conclusion on 'God'.

I still assert that the best explanation of God is simply to posit that the Universe is actually a gigantic conscious living Being. For that "God" has the most concrete existence, since it cannot be denied that the Universe exists. The only question is whether or not it is really conscious, or if in fact it is really just a "bunch of stuff"....

The elements of your above statements are very loaded which need extra-ordinary proofs and explanations.

"the Universe is actually a gigantic conscious living Being."
When you posit 'actually' you meant real, but as I have proven God cannot be real within the empirical-rational reality.
It is not possible for your 'God' to be real in terms of thoughts which is caught in a loop that is circular and goes nowhere.

"it cannot be denied that the Universe exists"
I deny an absolute Whole Universe exists.
All the elements [empirically verifiable] of a so-called Universe exist but there cannot be an absolutely real Whole-Universe within empirical-rationality.
Kant had proven the idea of a Whole-Universe together with God and a soul that survive physical death are impossibilities within an empirical-rational reality.

The idea of God, the Whole-Universe [created by a God] are impossible to be real within empirical-rational reality.
The idea of God, the Whole-Universe [created by a God] are only apparently real as driven by internal psychological reasons [angst] arising from an existential crisis.

[Sy Borg]

I don't think that our experiences are purely subjective, it is clear that often our opinions correlate to external facts... that would imply that our opinions can be objectively true . So I do not take my thoughts and assume that they embrace the whole of reality (solipsism) , but I am obviously able to assert with confidence that thoughts really do exist (because I experience them directly). If we view thoughts as a material, then it is natural extrapolate from that , through the concept of reality made from thought material, toward the all encompassing God idea.

With regard to how things like programs arise...there is only one way , through will. Experience tells us that complex , balanced ,systems require will in order to come into being ( unless you think that an F-35 fighter can possibly come into being , slowly over time, by chance alone..."slowly" must be the magical element lol.)

Your post reminds me of the Awake! magazines that my sister used to send me in the hope that I would cease my secular ways (believing in the "magic" of emergence rather than the magic of God - it's a shallow argument either way). At the first sign of mystery, the attribution goes to God. Methinks the gentleman is in too much of a hurry to reach a destination.

It is not a natural stop of logic to extrapolate from the concept of thoughts being physical to the existence of an omnipotent God. Thoughts are physical anyway, with proven effects upon one's body. It certainly doesn't extrapolate to an omnipresent creator God.

Meanwhile, I shall continue being the adult that "magically" emerged from the child, which "magically" emerged from the infant, that "magically emerged from the foetus" that magically emerged from the embryo. Seems like there's enough magic going around to evoke David Copperfield!

[Chester]

I agree with the OP that thought seems a better candidate for the "fundamental substance" of the Universe, over things like 'matter', 'energy', 'force', etc, and also with his reasoning behind it. Those other concepts (matter, energy, etc) are themselves products of thought! Indeed, mind/thought, at first glance, would seem to be more fundamental than the things which it itself cognizes. After all, 'matter', 'energy', 'force', etc are actually thoughts themselves, in and of themselves!

Does 'matter' really exist? Possible, but the idea/thought/concept of matter definitely exists.

Does 'energy/force' really exist? Probably, but the idea/thought/conception of 'energy/force' definitely exists.

Do 'spirits' exist? Maybe, but the idea/thought/concept of a 'spirit' definitely exists.

Does 'God' exist? Maybe, but the idea/thought/concept of 'God' definitely exists.

And so on, and so on.

And thinking of thought/mind/psyche as being the fundamental substance of the Universe over the things which are really just conceived to exist by the mind itself (matter, energy, etc), gives one a different view on the question of what a "God" might be, and whether or not such an entity could actually exist.

I still assert that the best explanation of God is simply to posit that the Universe is actually a gigantic conscious living Being. For that "God" has the most concrete existence, since it cannot be denied that the Universe exists. The only question is whether or not it is really conscious, or if in fact it is really just a "bunch of stuff"....

It's always nice to know that other people have come to similar philosophical conclusions (well at least theories) as me...it makes me think that I probably ain't completely **** up .

[Chester]

I don't think that our experiences are purely subjective, it is clear that often our opinions correlate to external facts... that would imply that our opinions can be objectively true . So I do not take my thoughts and assume that they embrace the whole of reality (solipsism) , but I am obviously able to assert with confidence that thoughts really do exist (because I experience them directly). If we view thoughts as a material, then it is natural extrapolate from that , through the concept of reality made from thought material, toward the all encompassing God idea.

With regard to how things like programs arise...there is only one way , through will. Experience tells us that complex , balanced ,systems require will in order to come into being ( unless you think that an F-35 fighter can possibly come into being , slowly over time, by chance alone..."slowly" must be the magical element lol.)

Your post reminds me of the Awake! magazines that my sister used to send me in the hope that I would cease my secular ways (believing in the "magic" of emergence rather than the magic of God - it's a shallow argument either way). At the first sign of mystery, the attribution goes to God. Methinks the gentleman is in too much of a hurry to reach a destination.

It is not a natural stop of logic to extrapolate from the concept of thoughts being physical to the existence of an omnipotent God. Thoughts are physical anyway, with proven effects upon one's body. It certainly doesn't extrapolate to an omnipresent creator God.

Meanwhile, I shall continue being the adult that "magically" emerged from the child, which "magically" emerged from the infant, that "magically emerged from the foetus" that magically emerged from the embryo. Seems like there's enough magic going around to evoke David Copperfield!

Lol, I ain't trying to push religion mate, this is just a pet theory of mine and I like to test its validity with philosophically minded people...who are usually very bright or complete wack jobs...either way their input is usually interesting.

As for emergence I don't see it as relating to natural development, things changing because of the worlds effect upon them is not emergence, emergence is when, for instance, a bunch of atoms decide to get together to form life forms with consciousness...atoms certainly don't get any survival benefit from it . The only time I've ever witnessed anything new emerging into the world that hasn't been witnessed before is when man consciously wills it...like the F-35 fighter jet that I referred to earlier.

[Sy Borg]

(Nested quote removed.)

Your post reminds me of the Awake! magazines that my sister used to send me in the hope that I would cease my secular ways (believing in the "magic" of emergence rather than the magic of God - it's a shallow argument either way). At the first sign of mystery, the attribution goes to God. Methinks the gentleman is in too much of a hurry to reach a destination.

It is not a natural stop of logic to extrapolate from the concept of thoughts being physical to the existence of an omnipotent God. Thoughts are physical anyway, with proven effects upon one's body. It certainly doesn't extrapolate to an omnipresent creator God.

Meanwhile, I shall continue being the adult that "magically" emerged from the child, which "magically" emerged from the infant, that "magically emerged from the foetus" that magically emerged from the embryo. Seems like there's enough magic going around to evoke David Copperfield!

Lol, I ain't trying to push religion mate, this is just a pet theory of mine and I like to test its validity with philosophically minded people...who are usually very bright or complete wack jobs...either way their input is usually interesting.

As for emergence I don't see it as relating to natural development, things changing because of the worlds effect upon them is not emergence, emergence is when, for instance, a bunch of atoms decide to get together to form life forms with consciousness...atoms certainly don't get any survival benefit from it . :D The only time I've ever witnessed anything new emerging into the world that hasn't been witnessed before is when man consciously wills it...like the F-35 fighter jet that I referred to earlier.

Really, mate? So everything that exists has always existed? If nothing emerges (since that is magic) how did the stars, planets, galaxies, animals and people survive the hot ultradense plasma of the early universe?

Emergence is the opposite of magic; it highlights the physical limits of reality. For instance, objects cannot become ever bigger or ever smaller. There are physical thresholds, and when those thresholds are reached, emergence occurs, eg. star ignition.

[Dark Matter]

Emergence is the opposite of magic; it highlights the physical limits of reality. For instance, objects cannot become ever bigger or ever smaller. There are physical thresholds, and when those thresholds are reached, emergence occurs, eg. star ignition.

It depends. Something of another kind "emerging" from something in which it is entirely absent is magic.