Materialism vs Idealism

a reply to: gosseyn

I think the problem is you don't understand what's been said.
In general....

a reply to: Peeple

No, you want to think about idealism but you can't think outside of materialism.

And apparently you're not aware that materialism already admits that all the qualities of matter happen inside your skull.

It's ok, thanks for the discussion.

a reply to: gosseyn
"Only Perceptions Are Perceived"
"Objects Don't Have Existence; Existence Has Objects"

a reply to: gosseyn

I'm not a materialist per se.

I don't think it's an either/or situation, humans are a matter & consciousness system

I am not saying that there isn't a realm of possibilities where everything is just potential waiting to be realised as matter, that's exactly my point actually: ...
almost an infinite number of complex systems interacting in myriads of ways from micro to macro and between and beyond.

It won't help us figure out how it all works, if we just call it 'mind' where we don't know how it works and sacrifice what we know, about physics, chemistry, biology because maybe there might be a true universal intelligence managing the realm of possibilities. Which we can't access.
At least yet.

So if that's what consciousness does: giving stuff mass to make it matter, why do we need the universal mind at all If it can't even do that?
Plus there is already something that does that: the Higgs Field.

All in this thread and it could give you a clue to what I think, but you're like a parrot arguing with his mirror.

Instead of talking with me you bs me that I have to prove # I never said and don't think. While conveniently ignoring all questions I kept asking you like:

Also where is the line of 'equations' becoming matter? Mass? So if that's what consciousness does: giving stuff mass to make it matter, why do we need the universal mind at all If it can't even do that?

If we assume consciousness is not matter but creating matter there still needs to be a process how it does it, consciousness still needs to be something to have any effect on anything else.
I'm super surprised you criticize many worlds it's the product of consciousness I thought that was all there is? So where do we draw the line? Are there 'good' or 'more real' products of consciousness and 'bad' ones? How would we know the difference?

You keep using consciousness, mind and perception as if they were synonyms, they're not.

Also 'the qualities of matter' don't happen in my 'skull'. If that were true Marie Curie wouldn't have been so surprised by what her new discovery was doing and would have known it's killing her.
As just one example.



Do you even have the faintest idea how much interactions, processes and occurences are going on everyday which don't register in your or anybody's perception, or any form of measurement and we still feel the effects afterwards?
Idealism as you try to sell it is just dumb. Maybe right after the dark ages it had some appeal, but now it's just silly.

You keep making false assumptions and conceptual mistakes, on top of asking silly questions that prove that 1) you don't really know what materialism entails and 2) you understand nothing about idealism because you can't think outside of the materialist paradigm. I posted some videos and you should take your time to watch them and understand the arguments but you won't because you're on a useless little crusade.

originally posted by: gosseyn
You keep making false assumptions and conceptual mistakes, on top of asking silly questions that prove that 1) you don't really know what materialism entails and 2) you understand nothing about idealism because you can't think outside of the materialist paradigm. I posted some videos and you should take your time to watch them and understand the arguments but you won't because you're on a useless little crusade.

It's not our fault that you keep explaining it badly. Or maybe it's just a badly conceived notion that plays to your confirmation bias.

a reply to: gosseyn

Sure. Sapere aude, you parrot.
My thoughts are mine and mine alone.
I don't need YouTube to feel like I have thoughts.
I don't need a few hundred years old *ism to know mind, consciousness and perception are not synonyms and not the same as matter.
...talking about conceptional mistakes...lol

Insulting me won't make you understand what idealism is about. You say you are not materialist but it's obvious that you can't think outside of the materialist paradigm. But like I said it's ok, it happens to everyone, it is not easy to grasp because idealism is counter intuitive, and you won't understand it the first time. You're just too proud to admit it. And the way you react as if I was attacking your very identity shows that maybe you're not ready to have these discussions.

But tell me, what is your own view on these things, do you have even one ?

a reply to: gosseyn

I already did. 4 posts above. Throughout this thread. But okay, again:
There might be a realm where information exists as possibilities and the constant interaction and development through time determines what 'materialises'. What gives matter life is consciousness and the purpose of consciousness is to process information. But consciousness is not the only quality of life.
The point where possibility becomes matter is when it gets mass, we have the Higgs Field to do that. But that's not 'consciousness' because it doesn't fullfil the other requirements of 'life' even though it is an abstract form of intelligence, but more like an algorithm is intelligent, managing data and then it 'happens as it needs to be to fit in with the other possibilities pushing through to materialise'.
Our perception of that is very limited, because our mind is a story teller, its superpower is interpretation, it's not a computer and it couldn't do that would it constantly overload with tracking every single photon and atom etc.
Since you like metaphors so much : matter is RAM, Higgs Field the processor, consciousness the software, perception the graphic card, the mind the game we play... and it's an inseparable complex gigantic system.


It's very frustrating to talk with you. In a discussion people answer what has been asked and said, you don't do that. You apparently don't even read what I write, you seem to just assume what you want me to say.


Like I also kept asking you what's consciousness and you bs me with superficial nothings like experience, perception, thoughts, the mind, but you can't fill it with meaning, because you are just a #ing parrot, you didn't really think about it, you just repeat what you think sounded smart when someone else said it.

I don't need to tell you what consciousness is, because you already know what the thing is in itself. You are it. Any word or any description I would give you would just make things worse.

I don't answer many of your questions because they are either silly or totally beside the point. Like for example you asked me this :

I'm super surprised you criticize many worlds it's the product of consciousness I thought that was all there is? So where do we draw the line? Are there 'good' or 'more real' products of consciousness and 'bad' ones? How would we know the difference?

That's so silly it doesn't deserve a response. It just proves you understand nothing about the things I am talking about and visibly you don't care about understanding any of it.

Could you simplify your view on things in one sentence ?

a reply to: gosseyn

Could you simplify your view on things in one sentence ?

lol
No.
That sums up and explains why you love your interpretation of idealism and think everything is just one thing,

"Explain what a tree is"
gosseyn: "a thing"

Cool bro, groovy

If you can't summarize it in one sentence it means you don't really know what your view is, or it's just a mix and match of things you feel comfortable with.

Good talk.

a reply to: gosseyn

Problem is I already did plus in a metaphor for your convenience

Since you like metaphors so much : matter is RAM, Higgs Field the processor, consciousness the software, perception the graphic card, the mind the game we play... and it's an inseparable complex gigantic system.

Since it's already so overwhelming to you to actually read my posts maybe you should start with easier subjects to discuss?
Like: Why is 1+1 always 2?

a reply to: gosseyn

It's not a "view" it's just fact. Matter is not dependent on perception to be what it is.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: gosseyn

It's not a "view" it's just fact. Matter is not dependent on perception to be what it is.

Well no. The double slit experiment showed that observation/measurement is an effector of physical systems. It is capable of changing light from behaving like a particle to behaving like a wave.. its an empirical fact.

Follow up experiments reinforce this notion

"Our result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way."
source

a reply to: cooperton

What is an observer? From the same source

Before we describe our experiment in which we test and indeed violate inequality (2), let us first clarify our notion of an observer. Formally, an observation is the act of extracting and storing information about an observed system. Accordingly, we define an observer as any physical system that can extract information from another system by means of some interaction and store that information in a physical memory.

Such an observer can establish facts, to which we assign the value recorded in their memory. Notably, the formalism of quantum mechanics does not make a distinction between large (even conscious) and small physical systems, which is sometimes referred to as universality. Hence, our definition covers human observers, as well as more commonly used nonconscious observers such as (classical or quantum) computers and other measurement devices—even the simplest possible ones, as long as they satisfy the above requirements. We note that the no-go theorem formulated in (5) requires observers to be “agents,” who “use” quantum theory to make predictions based on the measurement outcomes. In contrast, for the no-go theorem we tested here (4), it is sufficient that they perform a measurement and record the outcome. The enhanced capabilities required of agents were recently discussed in (13).

To emphasize: Accordingly, we define an observer as any physical system that can extract information from another system by means of some interaction and store that information in a physical memory.
physical

There is no perception, no awareness, no consciousness, no mind required.
Just measurement and storing the information.
Completely in accordance to Heisenberg
it states that if we know everything about where a particle is located (the uncertainty of position is small), we know nothing about its momentum (the uncertainty of momentum is large), and vice versa.
If I pin it down in a 'snapshot', as example the point where it hits the detector, the time intervall is zero, from that follows the momentum/velocity is zero and the location can be known.

Also the full sentence of your quote is

If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way.

Which means basically if the universe is not deterministic, ie no creator, no plan or such things.
...and I'd be very surprised if that's now the side you're arguing for...

originally posted by: Peeple


There is no perception, no awareness, no consciousness, no mind required.

Considering these experiments have never been conducted without a conscious experimenter, there's no way you can make that claim.

"If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way."

Which means basically if the universe is not deterministic, ie no creator, no plan or such things.
...and I'd be very surprised if that's now the side you're arguing for...

Non-determinism doesn't disallow a creator, it simply means we have free will. Theologically, there are omniscient higher dimensional beings that know what the outcome of your choices are going to be. Yet we still have the choice of what we do.

a reply to: Peeple

You don't understand the bigger picture, and you ask silly questions like "what is the difference between consciousness, perception, mind, experience" etc..

Idealism postulates a universal mind because the one thing we can be 100% sure about, is the existence of mind. Therefore a universal mind is just the extrapolation of a fundamental category we already know. We don't need to postulate the existence of a second fundamental category called matter which would also lead to what is called the interaction problem.

a reply to: gosseyn

lol no, I never asked that. I told you they're not synonyms.

a reply to: cooperton

Well yes they're often run by computers.
Free choice and locality in qm means not superdeterministic.

But you're the expert who knows

It is capable of changing light from behaving like a particle to behaving like a wave..

So lol, yeah you and gosseyn are obviously too smart for me