Mental reality

[David Bailey]

I know there has been a lot of scattered discussion here about a purely mental basis for reality - one where physical matter is just another mental abstraction. Maybe it would be productive to debate this idea without so much distraction from other subjects.

To me, a purely physical reality seems hard to believe in, because you end up believing in conscious computers (possibly made of clockwork), and all values are basically illusions. This leaves theories in which mental and physical 'stuff' interact, and purely mental constructs in which the physical world and the laws of physics are ultimately mental constructs analogous to Shakespeare's plays.

BTW, please lets avoid the question of whether trees exist when we aren't looking at them!

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't think it matters. If you sat down and carefully formulated a physicalist theory and an idealist theory that account for the world as we see it, they would be equivalent. It would end up being a question of which one felt more like it made sense to you. This is why the problem hasn't been solved in thousands of years.

As an example, David said "you end up believing in conscious computers." So what? Are you sure this doesn't bother you merely because you want to have a special place in the world? If that's not it, then all I see is an argument from incredulity.

Now, I'm willing to listen to an idealist or dualist theory, just in case it presents a major breakthrough in the possibility of understanding the world.

Originally Posted by David

BTW, please lets avoid the question of whether trees exist when we aren't looking at them!

Then let's agree that solipsism is not an obviously coherent metaphysic, as so many people insist. And let's also agree that you don't get to claim any variant of "all there is is what I experience with my senses." Idealists are obliged to explain what keeps the world intact and consistent.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Then let's agree that solipsism is not an obviously coherent metaphysic, as so many people insist. And let's also agree that you don't get to claim any variant of "all there is is what I experience with my senses." Idealists are obliged to explain what keeps the world intact and consistent.

~~ Paul

We couldn't really agree solipsism was the answer - because then one of us would not exist!

I am not a great fan of the "all there is is what I experience with my senses." approach either!

I once posted the following at Brian Josephson's Mind-Matter Unification forum (which seems barely alive) - and BJ seemed to agree with me!

[QOUTE]


Here is a rather nightmarish theory that I would rather was not true!

I sometimes wonder if the truth is that reality is highly fluid and morphs itself around whatever is the dominant theory of the time. From this point of view, the myths and magic of former eras were as real in their time as the computers that we are using now. According to this point of view, the real reason that people fight like mad over matters of belief (including the radical skeptics of today) is that they know at some subconscious level that once enough people stop believing, reality will also move on.

As the myth of physics developed, reality morphed again to fit this new myth. However, this myth was grafted on to something real - mathematics. This made the new myth a lot more believable, so it had more power. Also, because mathematics can deal effortlessly with very large and very small numbers, this myth could conjure up much more powerful gods and demons than before.

Perhaps there are still little corners of reality that are morphed round other older myths. However when these are pitted against the more powerful physics myth, reality tends to morph towards the physics myth and the anomalous phenomena fade away.

The physics myth started out very crude - only describing simple motion and gravity. Reality morphed to conform with it, but the match could never be exact. Also, unlike previous non-mathematical myths, the physics myths were always somehow inconsistent if they were pushed too hard - so the myth kept on being embellished, with reality trying to morph to keep up.

If enough people pick away at the physics myth, it will just stop being true.

I am sure someone has prior claim to that, and I don't like it anyway,

[/QOUTE]

OK, that theory is pretty outlandish, but there is, I think, a fair body of evidence that points in that direction.

Believing in conscious computers is conceptually the same as believing in conscious thermostats - which seems strangely close to a form of animism in which every rock has some awareness!

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

I sometimes wonder if the truth is that reality is highly fluid and morphs itself around whatever is the dominant theory of the time. From this point of view, the myths and magic of former eras were as real in their time as the computers that we are using now. According to this point of view, the real reason that people fight like mad over matters of belief (including the radical skeptics of today) is that they know at some subconscious level that once enough people stop believing, reality will also move on.

I don't think reality morphs, assuming there is any "reality" at all, but rather our interpretation of reality morphs. I'm fairly confident that the Earth has been round all along, and that it has orbited the Sun.

If enough people pick away at the physics myth, it will just stop being true.

But I bet it will be replaced by an empirically derived theory that is even better at explaining what we see.

Believing in conscious computers is conceptually the same as believing in conscious thermostats - which seems strangely close to a form of animism in which every rock has some awareness!

I don't think "conceptually the same" carries much meaning. If it turns out that a very sophisticated computer is conscious, it still won't be the case that your thermostat is. If you insist on drawing that parallel, then you have to say that believing in conscious humans is conceptually the same as believing in conscious amoebas. It's a question of degree of sophistication, unless you believe that consciousness is separate and magical and figures out how to inhabit only humans created by sexual reproduction. Then it becomes a question of arbitrary selection.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

It was Minsky who famously declared that a thermostat was a bit conscious because it knew the difference between hot and cold! I think a computer is conceptually similar to the thermostat - only more switches!

Why might one ever come to a crazy suggestion like mine? Well, one reason might be that ψ seems to violate physics with gay abandon. It also implies a special role for living things, whereas conventional ideas just consider us to be different from other matter because of our complexity.

We also have to ask ourselves why just about all previous generations believed in ideas that were wholly untrue. Why it is that Amazonian shamans seem to have a belief system that is completely fallacious - and yet, they can lead people to just the right plants that contain pharmacologically useful compounds. (The more you think about that, the more amazing it becomes. Did they at some point do double-blind trials of zillions of plants so as to eliminate the placebo effect? They claim to learn about those plants in sacred dreams - how did they really do it?)

Just as most people baulk at any theory which puts the earth, or the solar system, or even our galaxy in a special place, I have to wonder if we are really living in the only part of history (at least so far) which has achieved enlightenment!

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Why might one ever come to a crazy suggestion like mine? Well, one reason might be that ? seems to violate physics with gay abandon. It also implies a special role for living things, whereas conventional ideas just consider us to be different from other matter because of our complexity.

Actually, I think you'd be hard pressed to present an example of psi that obviously violates physical laws. And whatever psi turns out to be, we certainly don't know that it's restricted to living things.

We also have to ask ourselves why just about all previous generations believed in ideas that were wholly untrue. Why it is that Amazonian shamans seem to have a belief system that is completely fallacious - and yet, they can lead people to just the right plants that contain pharmacologically useful compounds. (The more you think about that, the more amazing it becomes. Did they at some point do double-blind trials of zillions of plants so as to eliminate the placebo effect? They claim to learn about those plants in sacred dreams - how did they really do it?)

So let's assume all the stories of leading people to just the right plants are true. All you need to do is eat a bunch of plants at random, note that some of them help with certain ailments, and pass that down as oral history. If you're the sort of person who eats poisonous plants frequently, well, then you're not around to cause trouble.

Just as most people baulk at any theory which puts the earth, or the solar system, or even our galaxy in a special place, I have to wonder if we are really living in the only part of history (at least so far) which has achieved enlightenment!

Enlightenment? What's that? It doesn't seem too strange that we should learn more and more as time passes. Although, I think you may be giving some people too much credit for what they actually know:

YouTube - The View on evolution and a flat Earth

Sherri Shepherd is either an idiot or a liar.

~~ Paul

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I don't think it matters. If you sat down and carefully formulated a physicalist theory and an idealist theory that account for the world as we see it, they would be equivalent.

How do you figure that? I mean, under idealism we would formulate mathematical descriptions that would be used to explain how the illusion of physical consistency, coherence and the thrid person perspective "emerge" from some set of fundamental consciousness axioms. Physicalist theory assumes this consciousness-independent consitency and coherence and carries on from there doesn't it? Surely that means each will be quite different theories and they may even predict different things.

So what might differentiate an idealist framework from physicalism? Perhaps idealism predicts that the consistency, coherence and third person perspective characteristic of observations that identify physical things is actually a spectrum with a range of values. In others words, idealism might predict that some observations could actually identify things that are partially physical (physical in the idealist sense) which happen when the illusion of physical reality does not quite manifest "properly". The problem would be how to know which observations identify partially physical things and what this actually means!

Perhaps psi fits into this picture...

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Actually, I think you'd be hard pressed to present an example of psi that obviously violates physical laws. And whatever psi turns out to be, we certainly don't know that it's restricted to living things.

You have got to be kidding - that is practically built in to the definition of ψ! If someone can gain knowledge of the future by precognition - say in the presentiment experiment, that breaks causality. Maybe you are trying to say that you don't believe genuine ψ exists.

Getting a useful knowledge of medicinal plants in primitive conditions would be very, very daunting if you think about it. You would have to battle the placebo effect, uncertain diagnoses, unknown dose levels (plus natural variations in concentration from plant to plant), the fact that some medicines don't work immediately,... and all by a non-systematised process of trial and error - remember, what they say is that they get their knowledge in other ways!

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by davidsmith

How do you figure that? I mean, under idealism we would formulate mathematical descriptions that would be used to explain how the illusion of physical consistency, coherence and the thrid person perspective "emerge" from some set of fundamental consciousness axioms. Physicalist theory assumes this consciousness-independent consitency and coherence and carries on from there doesn't it? Surely that means each will be quite different theories and they may even predict different things.

I think the resulting theories will be equivalent, not identical. I don't think they will make different predictions. It would be fun to turn out to be wrong, though.

So what might differentiate an idealist framework from physicalism? Perhaps idealism predicts that the consistency, coherence and third person perspective characteristic of observations that identify physical things is actually a spectrum with a range of values. In others words, idealism might predict that some observations could actually identify things that are partially physical (physical in the idealist sense) which happen when the illusion of physical reality does not quite manifest "properly". The problem would be how to know which observations identify partially physical things and what this actually means!

Kind of like building a CGI representation of the world, but forgetting to render a back on the TV set?

Here's the thing. Let's say idealism predicts something like this. We then have to look behind the TV and see if it has a back. Do you think that physicalism would suddenly fall apart, or would further investigation reveal an explanation for why there is no back? And even if the explanation required new physical laws, would they somehow be impossible to formulate? Would they appear to be supernatural?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

You have got to be kidding - that is practically built in to the definition of ?! If someone can gain knowledge of the future by precognition - say in the presentiment experiment, that breaks causality. Maybe you are trying to say that you don't believe genuine ? exists.

What's an example of a good experiment that shows precognition without also involving remote viewing? But sure, if it breaks causality, then physics needs to be updated.

Getting a useful knowledge of medicinal plants in primitive conditions would be very, very daunting if you think about it. You would have to battle the placebo effect, uncertain diagnoses, unknown dose levels (plus natural variations in concentration from plant to plant), the fact that some medicines don't work immediately,... and all by a non-systematised process of trial and error - remember, what they say is that they get their knowledge in other ways!

Who said it had to be nonsystematic? Maybe ancient people did it systematically. And it doesn't have to work perfectly. Grabbing a handful of leaves and eating them is somewhat of a crapshoot. That's why pharmaceutical companies purify products and establish dosage levels.

I don't care what they say. What did they actually do?

~~ Paul