The true nature of 'I'

  • Thread starter Lifegazer
  • Start date
  • #51
1,648
0
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Via your narrative of solipsist opinion (in that thread about solipsism), I was able to show why my views are not solipsist. In fact, I remember deviating from your very first narrative.
My philosophy leads to no preconceived doctrine. And I have never discussed the full implications of my philosophy (and neither have you); so you're not in a position to comment.
I have explained to the readers on this forum that Idealism can be split in two main forms: objective idealism and subjetive idealism.

The later, subjective idealism, indeed leads to nothing else but solipsism. Objective idealism as such does not, but this goes on the cost of having to invent a "Deity" of some sorts.

But both directions in Idealism have a common viewpoint. They refuse to accept that there is an objective material reality, outside of our senses and perceptions and thoughts.

Idealism seeks for truth and understanding outside of the material world we actually perceive. Instead of adopting the idea that the source for our sensations, when observing a chair for instance, must be based on the reality of that chair as something that does not exist within our mind, but outside of it, and cause our sensations of that chair, as materialists claims, idealism deals with this as follows:
In first instance they claim they only 'see' things in their mind, and that outside of that nothing exists. This can be argued to lead to solipsism, which contradicts the fact that not only you but also someone else has the same sensory percecptions about the chair. In order to 'escape' the conclusion that the cause for the sensations about the chair, is the real existing chair itself, objective idealism then comes up with a Deity, which causes the sensations in the mind.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
RuroumiKenshin
Idealism seeks for truth and understanding outside of the material world we actually perceive.
From a psychological prespective, is idealism a form of, quite simply, an excuse for a sanctuary where one belongs, or believes in?

In first instance they claim they only 'see' things in their mind, and that outside of that nothing exists. This can be argued to lead to solipsism, which contradicts the fact that not only you but also someone else has the same sensory percecptions about the chair. In order to 'escape' the conclusion that the cause for the sensations about the chair, is the real existing chair itself, objective idealism then comes up with a Deity, which causes the sensations in the mind.
How do you know that a chair looks the same for everyone?
True, you can all agree the chair is purple, but take this into consideration: the purple that person1 (P1) sees is your brown(by your definition) but since P1 has been taught that the color he/she sees is the color purple, (although for you it is brown) are you to say the person's perception of the chair is not consistent with the facts?
 
  • #53
1,648
0
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
From a psychological prespective, is idealism a form of, quite simply, an excuse for a sanctuary where one belongs, or believes in?
I think that can be said, indeed.


How do you know that a chair looks the same for everyone?
True, you can all agree the chair is purple, but take this into consideration: the purple that person1 (P1) sees is your brown(by your definition) but since P1 has been taught that the color he/she sees is the color purple, (although for you it is brown) are you to say the person's perception of the chair is not consistent with the facts?
That is of course also an assumption. What I call brown maybe the colour another person has in mind which he/she percerieves as yellow.

We have however the fact that the way our brains work, from their genetic origin, are more or less equal to everyone. So we don't expect that our mental perceptions of colours would be in any way different.

The question is intriguing though, as how we can be certain that "my yellow" equals "your yellow". We can only know from outside, by using a standard calibrated source for the perception, that our perceptions are alike. What is reflected inside, should cause the same sensation as both the input and equipment are equal. We should not expect differently in any way.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
1,648
0
Originally posted by FZ+
In creating either materialism or idealism, assumptions are made. For example you made the assumption that a Mind can exist without supporting reality, that sensations were rooted in the mind, that matter cannot explain mind, that genetic information cannot account for the abilities of logic, that intelligence cannot be evolved, that mind can create action without external influence, that the mind is original, that human reason is universally correct etc etc. Each one of these consititutes a belief. Similar assumptions are made in Materialism. Hence, by this statement, neither can be proven.
But this is too much of a non sequitter, cause it would merit the thought we should treat materialism equal as idealism, since both can not be proven.
Materialism is not based on belief. Materialism is developing by means of science, that is ordered observations of the world, and forming a consistent model of reality. This model of reality is never finished though. But what we already have is immense, and upon that, upon the method used by science we can put some trust that is also able to understand all the other parts of reality we do not yet understand. Materialism is not claiming it has absolute knowledge.
Idealism on the other hand, claims it can deal all of reality as an absolute, by the invention of a Deity.

Idealism defends their case by claiming that Materialism is not able of disproving this concept of a Deity. Materialism on the other hand is claiming that it is not even engaged in disproving a Deity, but claims that all things can be understood, and have thus far been understood with science, and without the help of a Deity.
 
  • #55
greg
Originally posted by heusdens
But this is too much of a non sequitter, cause it would merit the thought we should treat materialism equal as idealism, since both can not be proven.
Materialism is not based on belief. Materialism is developing by means of science, that is ordered observations of the world, and forming a consistent model of reality. This model of reality is never finished though. But what we already have is immense, and upon that, upon the method used by science we can put some trust that is also able to understand all the other parts of reality we do not yet understand. Materialism is not claiming it has absolute knowledge.
Idealism on the other hand, claims it can deal all of reality as an absolute, by the invention of a Deity.

Idealism defends their case by claiming that Materialism is not able of disproving this concept of a Deity. Materialism on the other hand is claiming that it is not even engaged in disproving a Deity, but claims that all things can be understood, and have thus far been understood with science, and without the help of a Deity.
prove materialy that there is love if you can't it doesn't exist
 
  • #56
1,648
0
Originally posted by greg
prove materialy that there is love if you can't it doesn't exist
Why do you think that "love" would not be a physical phenomena in the first place? All the behaviour that comes with love, are based on physical phenomena, like the heartbeat and blood pressure, the content of your blood (hormones!) etc. Even when we would not be able to "witness" the internal phenomena, we would still be able to determine from the "outside" based on the psychologial behaviour a person shows, that he/she is in love.

But I am not an expert in this field, so I am not able of telling you what precise changes occurs in one's body, due to a person "falling in love", but I am sure the "feeling" goes with physical changes within the body that can be measured.

Would you expect otherwise?
 
Last edited:
  • #57
greg
Originally posted by heusdens
Why do you think that "love" would not be a physical phenomena in the first place? All the behaviour that comes with love, are based on physical phenomena, like the heartbeat and blood pressure, the content of your blood (hormones!) etc. Even when we would not be able to "witness" the internal phenomena, we would still be able to determine from the "outside" based on the psychologial behaviour a person shows, that he/she is in love.

But I am not an expert in this field, so I am not able of telling you what precise changes occurs in one's body, due to a person "falling in love", but I am sure the "feeling" goes with physical changes within the body that can be measured.

Would you expect otherwise?
Greg says: thank you for the perfect difinition of GOD
 
  • #58
FZ+
1,561
3
Greg says: thank you for the perfect difinition of GOD
You mean physical changes = God?
I wonder though if deities can in fact be consistent with an materialistic view...

But this is too much of a non sequitter, cause it would merit the thought we should treat materialism equal as idealism, since both can not be proven.
I didn't mean that. I meant that any declaration of proof, when assumptions are still made is premature. But relative to our experiences, you can say that one theory or the other is more consistent.

This model of reality is never finished though. But what we already have is immense, and upon that, upon the method used by science we can put some trust that is also able to understand all the other parts of reality we do not yet understand.
You see, here is the trust. You trust that the data you have received so far gives an adequate extrapolation. You trust that you can understand the non-understood, the non-sensed. This is an assumption. This assumption may or may not be reasonable to you, but in the context of my post, that is insignificant.
Just to be fair, I'll list some of the assumptions of materialism...

  • We can understand all things without the intervention of logical loopholes.
  • Logic applies to all existence.
  • Physical laws are universal.
  • Reality is not abolute (ok, kinda doesn't make sense, but...)
  • Existence is objective and separate from perception.
  • Observations are meaningful in respect to truth.
    [/list=a]
 
  • #59
greg
Originally posted by FZ+
You mean physical changes = God?
I wonder though if deities can in fact be consistent with an materialistic view...


I didn't mean that. I meant that any declaration of proof, when assumptions are still made is premature. But relative to our experiences, you can say that one theory or the other is more consistent.
greg says: God is everthing even you. the self in you is the self in all. all you think is the material universe is just a very small part of God

You see, here is the trust. You trust that the data you have received so far gives an adequate extrapolation. You trust that you can understand the non-understood, the non-sensed. This is an assumption. This assumption may or may not be reasonable to you, but in the context of my post, that is insignificant.
Just to be fair, I'll list some of the assumptions of materialism...

  • We can understand all things without the intervention of logical loopholes.
  • Logic applies to all existence.
  • Physical laws are universal.
  • Reality is not abolute (ok, kinda doesn't make sense, but...)
  • Existence is objective and separate from perception.
  • Observations are meaningful in respect to truth.
    [/list=a]
 
  • #60
1,648
0
Originally posted by greg
Greg says: thank you for the perfect difinition of GOD
I don't know what a perfect definition of God is, the only conclusion I make is that anything that is existing, can be explained in material terms, and therefore can do without defining a God.

The phenomena of "love" can be explained in such a way also, absolutely. The most important part is of course the explenation why human behaviour includes something like love. The kind of explenation that could fit in here, is to explain this in terms of evolution.
"Love" is then a "chemical" bond between partners, which is functional in the sense of reproduction and raising children.
 
  • #61
1,648
0
Originally posted by FZ+
You mean physical changes = God?
I wonder though if deities can in fact be consistent with an materialistic view...
Materialism did not include deities, cause materialism tries to explain the world without the help of deities. Consistent materialism therefore goes without any reference to a deity.


Just to be fair, I'll list some of the assumptions of materialism...

  • We can understand all things without the intervention of logical loopholes.
  • Logic applies to all existence.
  • Physical laws are universal.
  • Reality is not abolute (ok, kinda doesn't make sense, but...)
  • Existence is objective and separate from perception.
  • Observations are meaningful in respect to truth.
    [/list=a]


  • Some critique on this list of "assumptions" hold by materialism...

    You refer to "logical loopholes" and the "application of logic" in the context of materialism. It can be shown however that the aristotelian logic does not apply to matter. So it seems to me, you made the wrong list of assumptions, since clearly they do not fit materialism.

    To mention one item of logic, that does not fit the material world:
    the most fundamantal law of logic is the law of identity (A=A).
    This law of identity works well for abstract categories of the mind, like numbers. For the material world however, the law of identity has no application. Nowhere in nature you will find something that is exactly equal to something else, not even something that equals itself, cause everything is changing and moving, and is never the same. The only way of introducing the law of identity in the real world, would be to consider things without their inherent motion, thus by removing time. But this is just an absurdity, because things don't exist outside of time. Even a proton is never equal to itself, cause it is constantly interchanging the gluon force particles (mesons) with other nuclear particles, and changes from proton to neutron and then back to a neutron. And there is no way in which you can stop a proton from being in motion.
 
  • #62
greg
Originally posted by heusdens
I don't know what a perfect definition of God is, the only conclusion I make is that anything that is existing, can be explained in material terms, and therefore can do without defining a God.

The phenomena of "love" can be explained in such a way also, absolutely. The most important part is of course the explenation why human behaviour includes something like love. The kind of explenation that could fit in here, is to explain this in terms of evolution.
"Love" is then a "chemical" bond between partners, which is functional in the sense of reproduction and raising children.
greg says: if I have a partner and am raising chidren that is love?
 
  • #63
RuroumiKenshin
Majin says: No. Raising children isn't neccasiraly love. Some people raise children, but treat them brutally. Love is the result of a series of chemical reactions in the brain.
 
  • #64
greg
Originally posted by heusdens
I don't know what a perfect definition of God is, the only conclusion I make is that anything that is existing, can be explained in material terms, and therefore can do without defining a God.

The phenomena of "love" can be explained in such a way also, absolutely. The most important part is of course the explenation why human behaviour includes something like love. The kind of explenation that could fit in here, is to explain this in terms of evolution.
"Love" is then a "chemical" bond between partners, which is functional in the sense of reproduction and raising children.
greg says: I see you know there is a God so you don't have to define him. sounds good to me
 
  • #65
1,648
0
Originally posted by greg
greg says: if I have a partner and am raising chidren that is love?
Human practices in the field of having partners and raising children, do not always include "love" I'm affraid.
 
  • #66
1,648
0
Originally posted by greg
greg says: I see you know there is a God so you don't have to define him. sounds good to me
You say so, all I do is look at the totality of things in a materialistisc way, and proceed from there.
As I said, nowhere in my reasoning I need to explain things by including God into the explenation. If I would need that, then it would be that I find myself being unable to explain things.
 

Related Threads on The true nature of 'I'

Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
Top