To you it clearly doesn't, but it is just vanilla Dummettian anti-realism
. But then again, Idealism is also illogical to you. This is not sarcasm: logic can be subjective. There are many different versions of logic in philosophy, with different axioms, proving this statement. My favorite logic (Intuitionism) would probably drive you nutts. Yet it is academically recognized.
We can sufficiently approximate
the true facts of the matter in a description, given our cognitive circumstances. That approximation is always metaphorical, given that the true facts of the matter are more likely to escape our cognitive abilities than not. After all, there is no reason to believe that our cognitive apparatus would have evolved to completely understand itself (recursion, which is at the root of Idealism).
Human understanding requires analogies, comparisons, and metaphors with objects and phenomena that are understood, i.e. phenomena in space-time. The human cognitive apparatus has evolved under those circumstances, after all. Therefore, it is entirely valid, and even necessary, to use metaphors within that context, even if the facts of the matter are suspected to completely transcend them.
To the extent that language descriptions of anything beyond empirical observation are always a metaphor, this sounds challenging...
You see, language is symbol; symbol is metaphor.
Mathematics is also a metaphor when applied as a description. The numbers and symbols are not the thing they are supposed to represent; they just represent
I sense that you, like the vast majority of people today, sometimes mix up symbols (concepts, metaphors) with the thing they represent. I posted about it a couple of days ago here. So when you get someone like me who is explicit in stating all his descriptions are 'as if' descriptions (anti-realist metaphors), that makes you jerk.
All we can intellectually articulate are concepts, symbols, which represent more or less accurately the facts of the matter, given our cognitive limitations. All facts of the matter that escape the limits of human direct experience can only be approximated through these metaphors.
That's intended as a more-or-less accurate metaphor
. And it's not realist at all, in the sense that I am talking about MINDS, not anything OUTSIDE OF MIND. There are no 'folds out there;' they are the topology of mind.
This is an illogical statement. "MY collective field of human experience"? It is either mine or it is collective. I meant the collective
Sure. I am not a solipsist. I am an Idealist: There is nothing outside mind, even though what I experience as MY mind is just a topological subset of a broader mental field. So there are realities my egoic self does not have access to; but they are all experiences in mind; the very same mind I am a part of.
I don't understand what you mean here. What exactly is the contradiction you are seeing?
Oh gosh.... IT IS A METAPHOR!
I was originally consistent when I stated that there is no objective canvas of space-time. Then you started firing left-and-right on everything I said because any description in language assumes space-time by construction, so you thought everything I said was incoherent. I thought it was a pity that you couldn't give yourself permission to look at my argument because you couldn't go past this perceived incoherence, so I suggested you assume, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, that space-time did exist objectively. But now you come back and say "Ahh! You're inconsistent! An Idealist should not grant objective space-time!"
YES! That's where I started from.
You see, you believe all final truths about nature, mind, and the human condition can be captured precisely, completely, and literary
in a mathematical model that fits within human brains
I don't make that assumption because I see absolutely ZERO reasons why our cognitive apparatus should have evolved to be able to do that. Here is a little video you may like: Consciousness and the limits of Science - Boundaries of the Knowable (1/10) - YouTube
So I am just being consistent with my position that the best we can do is to approximate
the facts of the matter with more-or-less accurate metaphors; even highly complex mathematical metaphors, whose usefulness I will never deny. Because I am open and explicit about this, and because it falls short of what you believe is possible, everything I say comes across to you as dis-satisfactory.
Did you see the new thread I started? I link to a better description of what I meant here, which may help. But to answer: Yes, you are right in a way. The collective unconscious, being oscillations taking place in unfolded regions of mind, does 'happen' outside of the folds.
Oh, I accept space-time as a fact of experience
! My only point is: space-time is not a fundamental, objective canvas outside of mind
, and wherein mind 'lives.' It's just part-and-parcel of subjective experience, like material objects and energy flows. But as experience, SPACE-TIME IS REAL. Since my entire ontology is an ontology of experience, I grant space-time the same reality I grant the computer I am typing on right now. Similarly, I granted the OBSERVED non-locality that same ontological substance too: the substance of experience.
Not at all. Idealism here means one very specific thing, so let's spell it out through a comparison, to be precise:
REALISM: The world each one of us experiences is a brain-constructed 'hallucination' modulated by signals coming from an abstract world outside of minds. The objects you actually see are all inside your head; the real objects are in an inaccessible abstract space. Your real skull is beyond the stars you see when you look up the sky, because the stars are also brain-reconstructions inside your head (there is actually a materialist paper saying exactly this). If there were no minds, that abstract objective world would still exist, outside of mental experience. Mind is inside a structure of that abstract, objective world that we call a brain
. (this definition of materialism is not polemic)
BERNARDO'S IDEALISM: There is no world outside of mind modulating a brain-constructed hallucination. Subjective experience itself is all there is. The objects you see are the actual objects, insofar as 'actual' means that they are felt experiences. Your body is inside your mind, not your mind in your body
Now let's come back to the point: By acknowledging that other egos have experiences that do not overlap with the experiences of my ego I am, in no way whatsoever, departing from the position that there is no objective world outside of mind; or that bodies are inside the mind. I am simply acknowledging that my ego does not have access to the entire field of mind.
Oh, please don't then, because I am also entertaining you out of respect and goodwill. I am disappointed by what I perceive as an impossibility to help you break out from very naive-realist assumptions about nature and the role of science, and the fact that you seem to have more difficulty with simple philosophical arguments than I initially thought. It costs me time to write these answers to you; time I don't really have. Philosophy is a hobby for me, for I hold a full-time job as a company executive. Had I read this comment of yours before I started replying, I wouldn't have.
Let's wrap it up here.