Philosophy Discussion Forums

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑October 7th, 2024, 6:26 am The only thing that can be said for Idealism is that, like religion and mysticism, it cannot be entirely disproved. But that is not saying much. Yes, the universe might be just one great thought, all mind-stuff, but there is not a scrap of empirical evidence to support such a notion.

But I could just as easily reverse your assertion.

What's your argument/evidence that you have it the right way round?

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑Today, 2:47 am Yes, and that's a shame because subjective experience is a very real, natural phenomenon which, like everything else, can be studied to further our understanding of it. And, after all, what is life for us without subjective experience? Maybe there is till as much for us to learn about it as there is about the universe out there.

Religions sparked people's creative imaginations. Now we dare not have an original thought lest it be contradicted by the new gods of the ivory tower - who are increasingly biased due to post-modernism, politics, ideology, commercial interests and, well, letting themselves be typical humans.

Science (like philosophy) was supposed to be an attempt at being completely honest, in defiance of our human frailties. The well has now been poisoned - universities are no longer trustworthy organisations - and my own faith in those particular "gods" is gone. I will still be aware of what they say but I'll also check all manner of alternative views, including those that are reviled by academia.

The problem with the interaction of science and mysticism is exemplified in James Randi's million dollar offer for evidence of psi, which was never successfully taken on in 50 years.

Thing is, intuitive things are not well suited to laboratory/test settings. Can an artist produce inspired work while in a sterile laboratory, attached to various measuring instruments, and aware that their every move was being analysed? Could a couple to have transcendent intercourse under lab conditions?

The most amazing feelings, sensations and ideas of life seem to happen "in the field", and they are not replicable in studies.

When the church ruled the roost, most art and music was produced strictly in accordance with its vision of the universe, and mostly to augment its power and glory. In terms of subject matter, the church was stultifying for artists, and the church and the aristocracy were the only ones with the resources to commission grand art works. And yet, great art came out of it. I think art will always out, whatever the circumstances. The creative urge is part of what it means to be human. A scientific worldview will be no more capable of stifling art than the church was. My scientistic worldview does not stop me working as an artist. Despite ideology, postmodernism, commercial interests, standardization, technology, and the corporatization of everything, art finds a way.

Could you produce art that you would be satisfied with in a sterile laboratory, wearing a brain-imaging cap covered in sensors, and knowing that your every thought was being closely monitored?

Gertie wrote: ↑Today, 3:52 am

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑October 7th, 2024, 6:26 am The only thing that can be said for Idealism is that, like religion and mysticism, it cannot be entirely disproved. But that is not saying much. Yes, the universe might be just one great thought, all mind-stuff, but there is not a scrap of empirical evidence to support such a notion.

But I could just as easily reverse your assertion.

What's your argument/evidence that you have it the right way round?

My argument is that science works. But what can Idealism and Phenomenology tell me about the workings of the universe?

On my reading of it, it's mostly navel gazing and word weaving. It's proponents might say that is because I have not understood it. But I don't find a lot in it to understand. It's just metaphysical flights of fancy.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑Today, 4:52 am Could you produce art that you would be satisfied with in a sterile laboratory, wearing a brain-imaging cap covered in sensors, and knowing that your every thought was being closely monitored?

Probably not. It's a good thing that no one expects me to.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑Today, 5:16 am

Gertie wrote: ↑Today, 3:52 am

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑October 7th, 2024, 6:26 am The only thing that can be said for Idealism is that, like religion and mysticism, it cannot be entirely disproved. But that is not saying much. Yes, the universe might be just one great thought, all mind-stuff, but there is not a scrap of empirical evidence to support such a notion.

But I could just as easily reverse your assertion.

What's your argument/evidence that you have it the right way round?

My argument is that science works.

OK, so if we put aside all our everyday assumptions, and If we limit our options  to either Materialism or Idealism here -

Then  science either describes how material stuff is and behaves, or it describes how mental stuff is and behaves.

Right? 

But science can't tell us if what we observe is configurations of material stuff, or of mental stuff can it?