RJG wrote:The perception-of-X is not the same as X. The experiencing-of-something is not the same as the something itself, ...wouldn't you agree???
Experiences (of-objects) are 'experiences'.
And objects are 'objects'.
Experiences are NOT objects.
'Experiences' and 'objects' are TWO different things.
Conflating them as the SAME thing is the error…
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Here you are saying they are making an error. I think it makes more sense to say they have a different metaphysics than you do. They state theirs, you state yours.
Since "experiencing" DOES NOT mean "object" in
anybody's dictionary(!), then wouldn't it be an "ERROR" (and not a "metaphysical difference") to conflate these two words as having the same meaning, when they are obviously different??? ...even Tamminen's metaphysics (idealistic viewpoint) distinguishes the difference between these two words. --- So why not call an "error" an "error"?
Tamminen wrote:There are many kinds of idealism. Let us say that the world consists of two material objects A and B. Then there is the subject. I can see at least these versions of idealism here:
1. The subject perceives A, and reality consists of the subject's perception of A.
2. The subject perceives A, and reality consists of A + the subject's perception of A.
3. The subject perceives A, and reality consists of A and B + the subject's perception of A.
In each of these cases, if there is no subject, there is no reality either.
This does not logically follow. If you start with 3 things; an object "A", and an object "B", and the "subject", and then take away the "subject", then aren't objects "A" and "B" still there? --- What makes the reality of A and B disappear when the subject disappears??
Karpel Tunnel wrote:What can we say about such a reality? or the things in it? The ding an sich.
I'm not sure I understand your point, but if it is what I think it is, then I'm in agreement with Tamminen on this one, ...but to put it here in my own simplistic words:
Without 'something' to be conscious of, then there is 'nothing' to be conscious of. And if there is nothing to be conscious of, then there is no consciousness.
--- Simple Translation:
without 'objects', there can be no 'subjects' --- and please note that this does NOT mean the inverse - "without subjects, there can be no objects"!
***********
So getting back to the Topic Question "Materialism is Absurd", is false. Materialism is 'not' absurd, it is very rational. For without materialism, there would be no consciousness. So "thank you" materialism, for my consciousness (and Tamminen's "
subjectiveness"). ...and when I cease to exist, materialism will still be here to produce others consciousness/subjectiveness.