The Problems With Idealism/Solipsism

[r0ckyreed]

I have been going over George Berkeley's work on idealism, specifically The Principles of Human Knowledge.

One of my main critiques of his work is that idealism thinks that it is being parsimonious by reducing the external world down to ideas in the mind.

The issue is that idealism becomes unparisimonious in a counterintuitive way.

For instance, Berkeley says that everything is an idea in the mind. But when objections come up such as what happens to objects when they are not perceived such as the tree in the quad? Berkeley states that the tree still exists because it is God who is always there to observe it. But this seems to imply that there is an external world to our minds which is held inside of the mind of God. It is external to our individual minds and is internal inside of God's mind. 

Rather than go through all of these different hoops and mental gymnastics of saying that God is observing the world and that is why it exists, do you see how it would be more parsimonious to just state that there is an external world?

This has been my main criticism of idealism is that it thinks it is being parsimonious but it isn't because of the problem of other minds and things still existing outside of one's perceptions. It seems like Berkeley moves the goal posts by first claiming that everything is an idea and that nothing exists outside of one's perception, but other minds and much of the world exists outside of one's ideas and perceptions of it. Berkeley says that God observes all, which is why it continues to exist, which contradicts his previous statements that everything is in the mind. If everything is an idea in the mind, then God must also be an idea in the mind. How could God exist externally from your mind if we take idealism to its full conclusion? How could any other mind possibly exist?

 

 

[Leo Gura]

God is the mind. And there's nothing else.

God does not need to observe objects when you don't. Those objects simply melt into Infinity, and then arise out Infinity when you see them again. When objects melt into Infinity they are not observed. They are part of an undifferentiated soup of emptiness.

To be observed requires differentiation of an object from all other possisble objects. This differentiation does not occur inside pure Infinity.

Berkeley is not a good source for understanding such nuances. So I wouldn't waste my time on that. Berkeley had some good ideas in general, but not in the details.

There is no external world because really the external world is just pure Infinity -- an undifferentiated soup of all that could be.

You could say there is an external world, and the external world is Infinity. But that's very different from what the materialist means.

Edited June 15 by Leo Gura

[enchanted]

29 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

God is the mind. And there's nothing else.

God does not need to observe objects when you don't. Those objects simply melt into Infinity, and then arise out Infinity when you see them again. When objects melt into Infinity they are not observed. They are part of an undifferentiated soup of emptiness.

To be observed requires differentiation of an object from all other possisble objects. This differentiation does not occur inside pure Infinity.

Berkeley is not a good source for understanding such nuances. So I wouldn't waste my time on that. Berkeley had some good ideas in general, but not in the details.

There is no external world because really the external world is just pure Infinity -- an undifferentiated soup of all that could be.

You could say there is an external world, and the external world is Infinity. But that's very different from what the materialist means.

Super interesting Leo.

So is our reality just one possibility of infinite possibilities? Although it's a beautiful reality doesn't it make it completely arbitrary? Not that being arbitrary is a bad thing, I just want to know if that's an accurate conclusion? Thanks!

Edited June 15 by enchanted

[theleelajoker]

Quote

God is the mind. And there's nothing else.

God does not need to observe objects when you don't. Those objects simply melt into Infinity, and then arise out Infinity when you see them again. When objects melt into Infinity they are not observed. They are part of an undifferentiated soup of emptiness.

(...)

There is no external world because really the external world is just pure Infinity -- an undifferentiated soup of all that could be.

Quote

So is our reality just one possibility of infinite possibilities? Although it's a beautiful reality doesn't it make it completely arbitrary? Not that being arbitrary is a bad thing, I just want to know if that's an accurate conclusion? Thanks!

I thought about this as well - our reality as just one out of infinite realities.

Thinking this trough - could we create ANY kind of reality as long as we all believe in it? What would it take to change fundamental stuff in this world?

Infinity includes everything I can think of (+ infinitely more than that of course). So there should be a reality where for instance the sky is no longer blue but red? Where e.g. some natural laws change - for instance, gravity changes etc etc.

[Rafael Thundercat]

My God the Talking is Infinite here 

Lilly's maxim: "In the province of the mind what one believes to be true, either is true or becomes true within certain limits. These limits are to be found experimentally and experientially. When so found these limits turn out to be further beliefs to be transcended. In the province of the mind there are no limits. However, in the province of the body there are definite limits not to be transcended."

This guy is crazy but have some truths inside his insanity:

 

Edited June 15 by Rafael Thundercat

[Rafael Thundercat]

22 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

Infinity includes everything I can think of (+ infinitely more than that of course). So there should be a reality where for instance the sky is no longer blue but red? Where e.g. some natural laws change - for instance, gravity changes etc etc.

In the province of the mind there are no limits. However, in the province of the body there are definite limits not to be transcended."

[Rafael Thundercat]

@r0ckyreed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly

Lilly showed an interest in science at an early age. At thirteen years old, he was an avid chemistry hobbyist, supplementing his makeshift basement laboratory with chemicals given to him by a pharmacist friend. Students at his parochial Catholic grade school called him "Einstein Jr." At age 14 he enrolled at St. Paul Academy (SPA), a college preparatory academy for boys, where his teachers encouraged him to pursue science further and conduct his experiments in the school laboratory after hours.

While at SPA, Lilly also further developed his interest in philosophy. He studied the works of many of the great philosophers, finding himself especially attracted to the subjective idealism of Irish theologian and philosopher George Berkeley.

But as Jonh Lilly did and many other.. one must let go of old tentatives of Understanding Reality and Go full Solo on Self-Exploration

And later on his life He got more interested on Yoga epecially the Yoga of Patanjali 

 

Edited June 15 by Rafael Thundercat

[theleelajoker]

7 minutes ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

In the province of the mind there are no limits. However, in the province of the body there are definite limits not to be transcended."

Thanks. Makes some sense.

Re the body, we still die, need food, water etc. I guess

Certainly the limits can be pushed. I remember stories about yogis who reduced the amount of sleep needed and some shaolin stuff also seems to be extending the border of what is possible. But those persons still breath, bleed and die like the rest of us.

[Rafael Thundercat]

7 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

Certainly the limits can be pushed

Yes, But Remember that Body Health is a Must if you want to go Deep. There is a need to do more than force the Mind to Understand deep topics or Go Insane testing with 5Meo like it had no consequences. A good Nervous System, Gut microbiome, and all related with Health is Fundamental to do work. I know people that goes to one Ayahusca Circle to the Other but his physical aspect shows that he will not live to much. So, if you wish to be a Consciousness Explorer for more time better take care of the Basics. Study the Story of Jonh Lilly for example. Yes the man lived long but his Body had some problems due to the overconsumption of ketamine. Body is the Car to the Trips. With a shity car your trips will go far as the Body allow.

[theleelajoker]

Yes, what you are saying totally resonates.

I had big breakthroughs after fasting for some days and I learn more and more how important my nervous system regulation is. I came to the conclusion that it's necessary (for me) to have a system in place - food, sleep, contemplating, sports, social activity, alone-time etc, etc. .

I believe that's also why Yoga is a system (8 limbs). Many people only see and do the asanas, mediation and breath but neglect other parts.  It's easy to focus on one thing, but systemic thinking has proven very useful for me.

BTW, watching the video now and I find it very interesting. Thx for sharing.

[r0ckyreed]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

There is no external world because really the external world is just pure Infinity -- an undifferentiated soup of all that could be.

You could say there is an external world, and the external world is Infinity. But that's very different from what the materialist means.

@Leo Gura Okay. That’s what I thought. It sounds like there is an external world but it is nothingness/infinity. I am still not sure what this means but it helps to explain how there are other minds and things outside of my perception. Even though my perception is limited, it is still absolute. I could go blind and deaf, but that does not mean that the visual/auditory worlds have stopped existing. It just means that my access to the visual and auditory worlds consciousness are impaired/limited. It is the classic tree in the forest question. I would say that the sound is occurring and not occurring because infinity holds all possibilities, it is just that there is nobody to perceive sound. But if there are no perceivers of sound, it seems like the whole meaning of the existence of sound changes because our brains create sound qualia out of sound vibrations/waves.

Edited June 15 by r0ckyreed

[Rafael Thundercat]

26 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

@Leo Gura Okay. That’s what I thought. It sounds like there is an external world but it is nothingness/infinity. I am still not sure what this means but it helps to explain how there are other minds and things outside of my perception. Even though my perception is limited, it is still absolute. I could go blind and deaf, but that does not mean that the visual/auditory worlds have stopped existing. It just means that my access to the visual and auditory worlds consciousness are impaired/limited. It is the classic tree in the forest question. I would say that the sound is occurring and not occurring because infinity holds all possibilities, it is just that there is nobody to perceive sound. But if there are no perceivers of sound, it seems like the whole meaning of the existence of sound changes because our brains create sound qualia out of sound vibrations/waves.

Whenever I feel I am going to far in Wandering Mind I find usefull coming back to the Science of things. But not the Regular Science. More like this : 

The incoherence of our ordinary intuitions (Part 1) | Analytic Idealism with Bernardo Kastrup (youtube.com)

 

[Davino]

2 hours ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

 

 

@Rafael Thundercat Wow! Thanks for sharing. Such a particular individual

I liked this quote:

Quote

I call that in-sanity, and when we're talking together we're in out-sanity
And you should never try to express all of your in-sanity in the out-sanity or they'll lock you up

 

[theleelajoker]

1 hour ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Whenever I feel I am going to far in Wandering Mind I find usefull coming back to the Science of things. But not the Regular Science. More like this : 

The incoherence of our ordinary intuitions (Part 1) | Analytic Idealism with Bernardo Kastrup (youtube.com)

 

Nice one. He has good analogies and metaphors I'll use in the future, e.g. the cockpit in a plane

Edited June 15 by theleelajoker

[Rafael Thundercat]

@Davino I used to hear about Lilly in Psycadelic Circles and knew about his Water Tanks but had no ideia he was working with ketamine and that he was such a Crazy Scientist. I think he went to far with Dolphin Communication, trying to force a Dophin to learn english is not really a Loving thing to do, but still the guy is a sort of Genius, and of course In-sane.

[Hojo]

Go outside look at a tree. Close your eyes does the tree still exist? Yes I can hear its rattling of leaves. Plug the ears I can smell its bark and leaves . Plug the nose I can feel the tree a rough circlular surface. When we seperate these senses and individualize them we see that the tree isnt just one thing. Its all of them and each one individually at the same time. If I had no eyes to see a tree  and no nose to smell or ears to hear it a tree would be defined to me as a rough circular surface and exist in my minds eye as a rough circular surface going up and down. The idea we have of things arent what they are. The idea of a tree is all these separate perceptions put into a spot in the mind labelled tree, but the label tree is not real. A tree with no perceptions is nothing but its still there as a possibility.

If I sit under a tree and lean against it the tree exists as a feeling in my back and thats what it is at the moment literally.

Edited June 15 by Hojo

[LastThursday]

5 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

Berkeley states that the tree still exists because it is God who is always there to observe it.

I'd say there are different forms of "exist". If you're looking at the tree then that's one form of existence. If you look away, then the tree enters a different form of existence. The second form is a kind of existence built up from previous experience and knowledge: you know that if you look back again, the tree will re-appear. In everyday speak the two types of existence are conflated.

Note that in both cases the idea of a tree is just that, an idea or a thought form. That is to say that the experience you are having may invoke "a tree", for example a picture of a tree on a computer monitor. So "a tree" exists only as long as the thought form is being triggered. I agree with Berkeley that everything is an idea, but you don't need to invoke God for object persistence. What continues to exist is the idea of "a tree".

 

[GLORY]

God is infinite potent Emptyness, which includes infinite possibilities to exist 
And when it becomes something specific, it becomes a solipsistic experience  
The Emptiness is existence and non-existence at once, its potential existence 
existence/being/somethingness = experience 
experience is being itself, not an experience of being -> experience is all there is  

(if Solipsism is true) 

Edited June 16 by GLORY

[Oppositionless]

The video game anaology would be appropriate here.