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

[Belindi]

I quite fervently aim to believe so.

Do you believe your Mind is the only real Mind, or are there 7.5 billion Minds on this planet, not counting Animals? If there are 7.5 billion, how can all 7.5 billion Minds create the same Universe? Or is your Mind Special, and is the only Mind that can create the Universe?

You first and last sentences regard solipsism. I dismiss solipsism because no individual exists unless that individual is also its environment.

The reason all "7.5 million " individual minds create the same universe is that the universe is essentially an orderly place where events follow laws such as causality. Humans for instance have evolved to be vertebrates that adapt quickly and this in itself limits the ways in which the universe can possibly be conceived by humans. I don't doubt that any man and any woman are more alike in their worldviews than are any man and any spider. True, we now admit that some invertebrates are fast learners, so adaptation by learning plus physical environment is the criterion for sameness of worldview.

In the first line are you saying that no individual exists unless that individual is the Universe?
I don't see why Universes being Causal means Universes being the same.
Why does the law of Causality mean that 7.5 billion different Minds create the same Causal Universe?

I mean each individual is an individual because each individual is a separate perspective. Some separate perspectives are similar intellectual, evaluative, and affective views of who, what, where, and when they are their being in a relative temporal world. Arts, history, anthropology, honest reportage, and philosophy, are aids to a degree of cognitive and conative understanding of alternative perspectives.

"The Universe" is a mixture of an enormous number of perspectives. If "the Universe" is more than the sum of that enormous number of perspectives that's a matter of surmise and is also often a religious belief.

If "the Universe" is indeed an integrated thing then it must be an orderly, patterned thing which all hangs together. Causality is how we fancy "the Universe" is a relational system, and not a collection of random events.

Why does the law of Causality mean that 7.5 billion different Minds create the same Causal Universe?

They don't all create the same universe, but if anything is a candidate for a so-called 'law of nature' then causality is that law. Kant named such 'laws' as causality synthetic a priori because they are not simply inductive but neither can we say with complete certainty they are eternal truths.

[SteveKlinko]

Do you believe your Mind is the only real Mind, or are there 7.5 billion Minds on this planet, not counting Animals? If there are 7.5 billion, how can all 7.5 billion Minds create the same Universe? Or is your Mind Special, and is the only Mind that can create the Universe?

You first and last sentences regard solipsism. I dismiss solipsism because no individual exists unless that individual is also its environment.

The reason all "7.5 million " individual minds create the same universe is that the universe is essentially an orderly place where events follow laws such as causality. Humans for instance have evolved to be vertebrates that adapt quickly and this in itself limits the ways in which the universe can possibly be conceived by humans. I don't doubt that any man and any woman are more alike in their worldviews than are any man and any spider. True, we now admit that some invertebrates are fast learners, so adaptation by learning plus physical environment is the criterion for sameness of worldview.

In the first line are you saying that no individual exists unless that individual is the Universe?
I don't see why Universes being Causal means Universes being the same.
Why does the law of Causality mean that 7.5 billion different Minds create the same Causal Universe?

I mean each individual is an individual because each individual is a separate perspective. Some separate perspectives are similar intellectual, evaluative, and affective views of who, what, where, and when they are their being in a relative temporal world. Arts, history, anthropology, honest reportage, and philosophy, are aids to a degree of cognitive and conative understanding of alternative perspectives.

"The Universe" is a mixture of an enormous number of perspectives. If "the Universe" is more than the sum of that enormous number of perspectives that's a matter of surmise and is also often a religious belief.

If "the Universe" is indeed an integrated thing then it must be an orderly, patterned thing which all hangs together. Causality is how we fancy "the Universe" is a relational system, and not a collection of random events.

Why does the law of Causality mean that 7.5 billion different Minds create the same Causal Universe?

They don't all create the same universe, but if anything is a candidate for a so-called 'law of nature' then causality is that law. Kant named such 'laws' as causality synthetic a priori because they are not simply inductive but neither can we say with complete certainty they are eternal truths.

If they all don't create the same Universe then why is there only one Universe? There is only one Universe, right?

[Belindi]

You first and last sentences regard solipsism. I dismiss solipsism because no individual exists unless that individual is also its environment.

The reason all "7.5 million " individual minds create the same universe is that the universe is essentially an orderly place where events follow laws such as causality. Humans for instance have evolved to be vertebrates that adapt quickly and this in itself limits the ways in which the universe can possibly be conceived by humans. I don't doubt that any man and any woman are more alike in their worldviews than are any man and any spider. True, we now admit that some invertebrates are fast learners, so adaptation by learning plus physical environment is the criterion for sameness of worldview.

In the first line are you saying that no individual exists unless that individual is the Universe?
I don't see why Universes being Causal means Universes being the same.
Why does the law of Causality mean that 7.5 billion different Minds create the same Causal Universe?

I mean each individual is an individual because each individual is a separate perspective. Some separate perspectives are similar intellectual, evaluative, and affective views of who, what, where, and when they are their being in a relative temporal world. Arts, history, anthropology, honest reportage, and philosophy, are aids to a degree of cognitive and conative understanding of alternative perspectives.

"The Universe" is a mixture of an enormous number of perspectives. If "the Universe" is more than the sum of that enormous number of perspectives that's a matter of surmise and is also often a religious belief.

If "the Universe" is indeed an integrated thing then it must be an orderly, patterned thing which all hangs together. Causality is how we fancy "the Universe" is a relational system, and not a collection of random events.

Why does the law of Causality mean that 7.5 billion different Minds create the same Causal Universe?

They don't all create the same universe, but if anything is a candidate for a so-called 'law of nature' then causality is that law. Kant named such 'laws' as causality synthetic a priori because they are not simply inductive but neither can we say with complete certainty they are eternal truths.

If they all don't create the same Universe then why is there only one Universe? There is only one Universe, right?

Nobody knows for sure whether or not there is only one universe. For only one universe to be experienced the experience must be absolute.I choose to believe in only one universe i.e. absolute experience.

[Tegularius]

There is only one Universe, right?

As far as we know, which isn't anywhere near enough to know for sure. There is nothing in physics which renounces the prospect of there being many more universes with its own laws.

[SteveKlinko]

There is only one Universe, right?

As far as we know, which isn't anywhere near enough to know for sure. There is nothing in physics which renounces the prospect of there being many more universes with its own laws.

Yes, but you were not following the conversation. The question was proposed as to what it would mean for Reality if each of the 7.5 billion people on the Planet create different actual Physical Universes. This conversation was about what implications Idealism would present for a Reality of the Universe.

[SteveKlinko]

In the first line are you saying that no individual exists unless that individual is the Universe?
I don't see why Universes being Causal means Universes being the same.
Why does the law of Causality mean that 7.5 billion different Minds create the same Causal Universe?

I mean each individual is an individual because each individual is a separate perspective. Some separate perspectives are similar intellectual, evaluative, and affective views of who, what, where, and when they are their being in a relative temporal world. Arts, history, anthropology, honest reportage, and philosophy, are aids to a degree of cognitive and conative understanding of alternative perspectives.

"The Universe" is a mixture of an enormous number of perspectives. If "the Universe" is more than the sum of that enormous number of perspectives that's a matter of surmise and is also often a religious belief.

If "the Universe" is indeed an integrated thing then it must be an orderly, patterned thing which all hangs together. Causality is how we fancy "the Universe" is a relational system, and not a collection of random events.

Why does the law of Causality mean that 7.5 billion different Minds create the same Causal Universe?

They don't all create the same universe, but if anything is a candidate for a so-called 'law of nature' then causality is that law. Kant named such 'laws' as causality synthetic a priori because they are not simply inductive but neither can we say with complete certainty they are eternal truths.

If they all don't create the same Universe then why is there only one Universe? There is only one Universe, right?

Nobody knows for sure whether or not there is only one universe. For only one universe to be experienced the experience must be absolute.I choose to believe in only one universe i.e. absolute experience.

But then that still leaves the question open as to why there is only one Universe if 7.5 billion people are creating their own individual Universes. How does Idealism explain how all these creations intersect to form a coherent single Universe?

[Belindi]

I mean each individual is an individual because each individual is a separate perspective. Some separate perspectives are similar intellectual, evaluative, and affective views of who, what, where, and when they are their being in a relative temporal world. Arts, history, anthropology, honest reportage, and philosophy, are aids to a degree of cognitive and conative understanding of alternative perspectives.

"The Universe" is a mixture of an enormous number of perspectives. If "the Universe" is more than the sum of that enormous number of perspectives that's a matter of surmise and is also often a religious belief.

If "the Universe" is indeed an integrated thing then it must be an orderly, patterned thing which all hangs together. Causality is how we fancy "the Universe" is a relational system, and not a collection of random events.



They don't all create the same universe, but if anything is a candidate for a so-called 'law of nature' then causality is that law. Kant named such 'laws' as causality synthetic a priori because they are not simply inductive but neither can we say with complete certainty they are eternal truths.

If they all don't create the same Universe then why is there only one Universe? There is only one Universe, right?

Nobody knows for sure whether or not there is only one universe. For only one universe to be experienced the experience must be absolute.I choose to believe in only one universe i.e. absolute experience.

But then that still leaves the question open as to why there is only one Universe if 7.5 billion people are creating their own individual Universes. How does Idealism explain how all these creations intersect to form a coherent single Universe?

I don't know if all idealists believe there is one absolute, coherent and integrated universe; I choose to believe there is. The reason for my choice is everyday experience of individuals does not only enlighten as to bits and pieces of universe, it also filters out other bits and pieces of universe. If from this state of awareness is subtracted dimensions of time, space, and causality what remains is experience. In the absence of the dimensions as listed, experience is experience of one absolute, coherent, and integrated universe.

[SteveKlinko]

If they all don't create the same Universe then why is there only one Universe? There is only one Universe, right?

Nobody knows for sure whether or not there is only one universe. For only one universe to be experienced the experience must be absolute.I choose to believe in only one universe i.e. absolute experience.

But then that still leaves the question open as to why there is only one Universe if 7.5 billion people are creating their own individual Universes. How does Idealism explain how all these creations intersect to form a coherent single Universe?

I don't know if all idealists believe there is one absolute, coherent and integrated universe; I choose to believe there is. The reason for my choice is everyday experience of individuals does not only enlighten as to bits and pieces of universe, it also filters out other bits and pieces of universe. If from this state of awareness is subtracted dimensions of time, space, and causality what remains is experience. In the absence of the dimensions as listed, experience is experience of one absolute, coherent, and integrated universe.

Getting rid of dimensions of things doesn't help. The question remains: Why does everybody Experience the same Universe when each of the 7.8 billion people are creating their own Universes? The only way out of this for Idealism, as I see it, is that there really are not 7.5 billion Minds creating the Universe but only one Mind creating the Universe. You would have to adopt the "We are all one Mind" ideology to make Idealism work.

[Belindi]

Nobody knows for sure whether or not there is only one universe. For only one universe to be experienced the experience must be absolute.I choose to believe in only one universe i.e. absolute experience.

But then that still leaves the question open as to why there is only one Universe if 7.5 billion people are creating their own individual Universes. How does Idealism explain how all these creations intersect to form a coherent single Universe?

I don't know if all idealists believe there is one absolute, coherent and integrated universe; I choose to believe there is. The reason for my choice is everyday experience of individuals does not only enlighten as to bits and pieces of universe, it also filters out other bits and pieces of universe. If from this state of awareness is subtracted dimensions of time, space, and causality what remains is experience. In the absence of the dimensions as listed, experience is experience of one absolute, coherent, and integrated universe.

Getting rid of dimensions of things doesn't help. The question remains: Why does everybody Experience the same Universe when each of the 7.8 billion people are creating their own Universes? The only way out of this for Idealism, as I see it, is that there really are not 7.5 billion Minds creating the Universe but only one Mind creating the Universe. You would have to adopt the "We are all one Mind" ideology to make Idealism work.

Mind is thing, an ontic substance .The absolute idealist claims there is no ontic substance whatsoever and there is nothing but experience.

So I'll take the liberty of slightly altering what you wrote so that I agree with your claim if you accept the alteration.

-----there really are not 7.5 billion experiences creating the Universe but only one Experience creating the Universe. You would have to adopt the "We are all one Experience" ideology to make Idealism work.

And I agree.

This is not all that can be said, however. It's an important truth but it's not all the truth. There is not only absolute Experience(which there is) there is also the relative world of relatively subjective experiences. Depends on which perspective on reality you happen to be choosing.

[SteveKlinko]

But then that still leaves the question open as to why there is only one Universe if 7.5 billion people are creating their own individual Universes. How does Idealism explain how all these creations intersect to form a coherent single Universe?

I don't know if all idealists believe there is one absolute, coherent and integrated universe; I choose to believe there is. The reason for my choice is everyday experience of individuals does not only enlighten as to bits and pieces of universe, it also filters out other bits and pieces of universe. If from this state of awareness is subtracted dimensions of time, space, and causality what remains is experience. In the absence of the dimensions as listed, experience is experience of one absolute, coherent, and integrated universe.

Getting rid of dimensions of things doesn't help. The question remains: Why does everybody Experience the same Universe when each of the 7.8 billion people are creating their own Universes? The only way out of this for Idealism, as I see it, is that there really are not 7.5 billion Minds creating the Universe but only one Mind creating the Universe. You would have to adopt the "We are all one Mind" ideology to make Idealism work.

Mind is thing, an ontic substance .The absolute idealist claims there is no ontic substance whatsoever and there is nothing but experience.

So I'll take the liberty of slightly altering what you wrote so that I agree with your claim if you accept the alteration.

-----there really are not 7.5 billion experiences creating the Universe but only one Experience creating the Universe. You would have to adopt the "We are all one Experience" ideology to make Idealism work.

And I agree.

This is not all that can be said, however. It's an important truth but it's not all the truth. There is not only absolute Experience(which there is) there is also the relative world of relatively subjective experiences. Depends on which perspective on reality you happen to be choosing.

One Mind seems more understandable, but if you want to say One Experience, and if that seems to make Idealism work, then ok. I don't understand how you come to such Beliefs, but there are many people like you that do. I will never understand what you are talking about so I guess we are at an Impasse.

[Belindi]

A usual way to come to understand idealism is to start with Bishop George Berkeley' s version of idealism. "To be is to be perceived".

Anyway, thanks for all your questions which made me think.

[SteveKlinko]

A usual way to come to understand idealism is to start with Bishop George Berkeley' s version of idealism. "To be is to be perceived".

Anyway, thanks for all your questions which made me think.

And thank you for the answers. I have struggled to understand Idealism for decades, but can never make sense out of it. I suppose Berkeley was the first to talk about it. Never understood him. Don't get how Physical/Material reality does not exist.

But when it comes to Consciousness, everything is still on the table. In the end Science will understand Conscious Experience. Will it be Idealism, or Connectism, or something else? Only time will tell.

[stevie]

Next, I would like to talk about Eliminativism and Illusionism with respect to Conscious Experience. Eliminativism is another Physicalist proposition. Eliminativism proposes that Conscious Experience does not even exist. Illusionism is a sub category of Eliminativism that proposes that Conscious Experience exists only as an Illusion. This is pure Denialism. How on Earth can someone think that the Redness or Salty Taste that they Experience is only an Illusion and does not Exist? They cannot have the same kind of Conscious Experience about these things that I have. They must also believe that the CM itself does not Exist. So for them the IM will not exist since the CM does not exist. There is not much more that can be said about this proposition. Please, someone show me how Conscious Experience does not Exist?

What the **** is "Eliminativism and Illusionism"? I never came across these terms but I know "eliminative materialism" which appear to be the most persuasive theory.

[SteveKlinko]

Next, I would like to talk about Eliminativism and Illusionism with respect to Conscious Experience. Eliminativism is another Physicalist proposition. Eliminativism proposes that Conscious Experience does not even exist. Illusionism is a sub category of Eliminativism that proposes that Conscious Experience exists only as an Illusion. This is pure Denialism. How on Earth can someone think that the Redness or Salty Taste that they Experience is only an Illusion and does not Exist? They cannot have the same kind of Conscious Experience about these things that I have. They must also believe that the CM itself does not Exist. So for them the IM will not exist since the CM does not exist. There is not much more that can be said about this proposition. Please, someone show me how Conscious Experience does not Exist?

What the **** is "Eliminativism and Illusionism"? I never came across these terms but I know "eliminative materialism" which appear to be the most persuasive theory.

Eliminativism is just another name for Eliminative Materialism. So what Conscious Experiences can Eliminativism Explain? What is the Explanation for the Experience of Redness, or the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste, or etc.?

[stevie]

Next, I would like to talk about Eliminativism and Illusionism with respect to Conscious Experience. Eliminativism is another Physicalist proposition. Eliminativism proposes that Conscious Experience does not even exist. Illusionism is a sub category of Eliminativism that proposes that Conscious Experience exists only as an Illusion. This is pure Denialism. How on Earth can someone think that the Redness or Salty Taste that they Experience is only an Illusion and does not Exist? They cannot have the same kind of Conscious Experience about these things that I have. They must also believe that the CM itself does not Exist. So for them the IM will not exist since the CM does not exist. There is not much more that can be said about this proposition. Please, someone show me how Conscious Experience does not Exist?

What the **** is "Eliminativism and Illusionism"? I never came across these terms but I know "eliminative materialism" which appear to be the most persuasive theory.

Eliminativism is just another name for Eliminative Materialism. So what Conscious Experiences can Eliminativism Explain? What is the Explanation for the Experience of Redness, or the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste, or etc.?

It seems you have not understood the theory of "eliminative materialism". It is a speculative philosophical theory, not a scientific theory. It deals with conceptual theories of psychological or mental phenomena as such and it is a kind of meta theory about theories.