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

[RJG]

It is impossible for an "Idealist" to deny the realness of himself.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

It is impossible for an "Idealist" to deny the realness of himself.

Please, define both :

1. realness,
2. realness of oneself.

Thank you.

[RJG]

It is impossible for an "Idealist" to deny the realness of himself.

Please, define both :

1. realness,
2. realness of oneself.

Realness – is the state of being real; existing with certainty.
Realness of oneself – is the undeniable certain existence of oneself.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

It is impossible for an "Idealist" to deny the realness of himself.

Please, define both :

1. realness,
2. realness of oneself.

Realness – is the state of being real; existing with certainty.
Realness of oneself – is the undeniable certain existence of oneself.

OK, thank you.

Why would any real Idealist want to deny
the realness of himself, of others, or of anything else that exists ?

Me, being a philosophical Idealist, I have never had any doubt
that I undeniably certainly exist, including our entire Universe
and everybody and everything in it.

I think this makes me a realistic Idealist ?

[RJG]

Me, being a philosophical Idealist, I have never had any doubt that I undeniably certainly exist, including our entire Universe and everybody and everything in it.

If it is only “ideas” that are real to you, then how can other things/objects be real to you?

I think this makes me a realistic Idealist ?

“Realistic idealist” sounds like an oxymoron. For example, for realists, reality exists independent of the mind (of the subjective viewer), whereas for idealists, reality is dependent upon the mind.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

For realists, reality exists independent of the mind (of the subjective viewer),
whereas for idealists, reality is dependent upon the mind.

Dr. William P. Byers PhD, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics and Statistics, wrote:

“ It is certainly conceivable that the clarity we perceive in the external world is something we bring to the world, not something that is there independent of us. The clarity of the natural world is a metaphysical belief that we unconsciously impose on the situation. We consider it to be obvious that the natural world is something exterior of us and independent of our thoughts and sense impressions; we believe in a mind-independent reality. Paradoxically, we do not recognize that the belief in a mind-independent reality is itself mind-dependent. Logically, we cannot work our way free of the bubble we live in, which consists of all of our sense impression and thoughts. The pristine world of clarity, the natural external world independent of the observer, is merely a hypothesis that cannot, even in principle, ever be verified. To say that the natural world is ambiguous is to highlight this assumption. It is to emphasize that the feeling that there is a natural world ‘out there’ that is the same for all people at all times, is an assumption that is not self-evident. This is not to embrace a kind of solipsism and to deny the reality of the world. It is to emphasize that the natural external world is intimately intertwined with the internal world of the mind.”


Dr. David Chalmers PhD wrote:

” When I was in graduate school, I recall hearing: “One starts as a materialist, then one becomes a dualist, then a panpsychist, and one ends up as an Idealist”. I don’t know where this comes from, but I think the idea was something like this. First, one is impressed by the successes of science, endorsing materialism about everything and so about the mind. Second, one is moved by problem of consciousness to see a gap between physics and consciousness, thereby endorsing dualism, where both matter and consciousness are fundamental. Third, one is moved by the inscrutability of matter to realize that science reveals at most the structure of matter and not its underlying nature, and to speculate that this nature may involve consciousness, thereby endorsing panpsychism. Fourth, one comes to think that there is little reason to believe in anything beyond consciousness and that the physical world is wholly constituted by consciousness, thereby endorsing Idealism.”

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

For example, for realists, reality exists independent of the mind (of the subjective viewer).

Does the mind-independent reality exist OUT THERE,
outside the brain of the subjective viewer ?

THE PHYSICAL MATERIALISTIC EXPLANATION OF OUR EXPERIENCE OF SEEING:

Please, correct me if I am wrong, the long story short, photons hit the bottom of our eyes, as a result of it electric signals are being sent from eyes along the optic nerve to the visual cortex. The visual cortex, somehow, manages to do a very complex processing of these electric signals, and the end result of this processing is us seeing the external physical reality, OUT THERE.

The external physical reality OUT THERE, as opposed to the internal physical reality IN HERE, meaning inside the visual cortex, where our seeing happens, and our internal experience of this seeing (a produced image of reality), according to the scientific materialism, can’t be happening anywhere else than inside our visual cortex, similar to us being able to see our night dreams inside our sleeping brain.

So, how does it all work in scientific detail ?

How exactly does it happen, according to mainstream physics, that we can see OUTSIDE of our brains also, and not exclusively INSIDE our brains?

Because the scientific fact is that we all see the external physical reality where it really is, OUT THERE, outside of our visual cortex exclusively, and never inside of it, like when we are sleeping?

[RJG]

Logically, we cannot work our way free of the bubble we live in, which consists of all of our sense impression and thoughts.

This is not true. Logically, we can subjectively (inside-our-bubble) know objective (outside-our-bubble) truths. I agree that if we rely solely on experiential means (our “sense impression and thoughts”) to determine truths, then we will never knowingly find real (objective) truths. Experientially derived truths are never trustworthy enough to yield true knowledge (objective truths).

For example, although it is logically impossible to sense or experience ourselves, (i.e., since true “self-awareness” is logically impossible), we can though, know with objective certainty that we (the self; the experiencer called “I”) undeniably exist in reality.


**********
Truth Hierarchy:
1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
2. Objective truth -- logically derived - via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
3. Subjective truth – experientially derived - via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
4. Religious truth -- via blind faiths

An Absolute Truth (#1) is the highest level of ‘certainty’ (real-ness); it is the singular premise/conclusion statement (that Descartes was searching for) that does not require supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness. It is not 'derived'. It is the beginning, the ‘seed’, upon which to build and grow all ‘true’ knowledge.

Objective Truths (#2) are the next highest level of ‘certainties’; these are “logically derived” via deduction. These truths are known and qualified as “logical truths”.

Subjective Truths (#3), and Religious Truths (#4) are not trustworthy to yield ‘true’ (real; certain) knowledge. Those truths reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects, or from blind faiths, can never be certain, or known as truthful.
**********


Also note: David Chalmers "scientific" approach to finding the truths of reality (and consciousness) is futile. Since Science relies upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects (i.e., empirical evidences), it is therefore unable to ascertain objective truths of reality.

[RJG]

For example, for realists, reality exists independent of the mind (of the subjective viewer).

Does the mind-independent reality exist OUT THERE, outside the brain of the subjective viewer ?

Yes. Through the use of deductive logic, we can (subjectively) know that real (objective) things/objects exist out there.

So, how does it all work in scientific detail ?

Scientific details can’t tell us one way or the other. We can only know through logic.

How exactly does it happen, according to mainstream physics, that we can see OUTSIDE of our brains also, and not exclusively INSIDE our brains? Because the scientific fact is that we all see the external physical reality where it really is, OUT THERE, outside of our visual cortex exclusively, and never inside of it, like when we are sleeping?

Firstly, and most importantly, we can NEVER rely on science (or physics, or any other experiential means) to tell us if our inner experiences represent something truly real out there.

Secondly, we can only know objective truths by using objective means (i.e., through logic and math).

[RJG]

Dr. Jonathon..., I am still curious how an idealist (such as yourself) believes that 'real' things exist out-there (outside of "ideas")? Doesn't this contradict the meaning of idealism?

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

how an idealist (such as yourself) believes that 'real' things exist out-there (outside of "ideas")?

Where exactly did I write that real things exist OUT THERE ?

All I wrote was that real things certainly exist. Nothing more than that.

[RJG]

I have never had any doubt that I undeniably certainly exist, including our entire Universe and everybody and everything in it.

Doesn't this contradict the meaning of "idealism"? (...i.e., which states that only "ideas" are real)

[RJG]

You see, my little friend...

? Isn't this a bit condescending? My question was a serious question. I realize you are new here, but your response violates the rules of this forum.

[The Beast]

You see, my little friend...

Isn't this a bit condescending?

No, not at all.

It is very condescending!

I realize you are new to the philosophy of Idealism,
but your responses violate my standard of engaging
in smalltalk only with people whose IQ is higher than 8.

What a fluency riot! Everyone has a TOE. Whether it is God or quantum gravity (IMO), the model is judged by its form and dimensions. In some pedestrian logic, the starting point of both is infinity and therefore impossible to prove hence the virtual dimensions. A ring spectrum (human) with a multiplication map is just as valid as a stable homotopy theory. Moreover, I see a path to a higher homotopy (mind or God) in the thinking of some TOE with an integrating spectrum of valid functions and correlating definitions. But, I don’t recognize humility and I have an evolving IQ.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

In some pedestrian logic, the starting point of both is infinity
and therefore impossible to prove hence the virtual dimensions.

I am interested to know what has already been proven.