Critique of Idealism

[electroBeam]

As part of my spiritual routine, 2 months ago I set out to understand and contemplate what the 5 senses are. I spent 20 minutes a day on average contemplating about what the 5 senses are, and where they come from. 

The main gist or insight I got out of those 2 months was, the materialistic paradigm is distinctly different to just mere thought, and calling it all unreal is just unfair. 

Idealism states that: "reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial."  While I agree that the world is immaterial, I disagree that the world is mentally constructed. 

My main question to people who adhere to idealism is this:

If the world is mentally constructed, it should adhere to the properties of thought. Thoughts can be shaped off our own volition. We can visualise whatever we want, when we want. If the world as we know it is just a mental construct, then why can't we change the world off our own volition? Why can't we just dream up an ice cream in front of us right now? 

Yes you might say the world has the potential to be infinitely anything, as the world is nothingness, which is of course correct, but there is still something collapsing it to a particular state for right now! And that thing isn't just us dreaming stuff up, if it were, we would be able to control the world through imagination.  

And who or what even is doing the doing of mentally constructing stuff? If the world is mentally constructed, what is doing the mental construction? Or a better way to say it is, what tool or way are you using to figure out that the world is mentally constructed? 

The 5 senses aren't mentally constructed. The exist as real things or real phenomena. If they were mentally constructed, or if they were not real, they wouldn't exist directly in consciousness. 

 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, electroBeam said:

that thing isn't just us dreaming stuff up, if it were, we would be able to control the world through imagination.

That's your mistake right there.

Stop assuming that.

You are imagining a "physical" world where you cannot walk through walls. That's what you're imagining!

You ain't controlling anything anyways. That's just the ego talking.

You dream stuff up at night all the time, and you don't control any of it.

Why are you doing spiritual practices if you believe in a material world? You may as well stop. What is the use of spirituality if it is subject to physical laws?

Spirituality requires that you give up EVERYTHING. Your notion of a world must go. It is just a fantasy. Which, BTW, is why you're clinging to it so desperately.

Just let it go. Don't philosophize. Just let it go.

Infinity is NOT a potential. It's right here! It's the whole world you see. Potential and actual are identical.

[Truth Addict]

@electroBeam

I've been stuck in your paradigm quite a bit of time. I never broke out until I realised that 'wait a minute, why am I concerning myself with things out of my perceptions field?' There's no proof of existence for anything outside of your perception in the moment. It's just mere memories and beliefs. The Truth is right here, it's right now. 

Here is the clue: you need to make a distinction between your thoughts and what's there, and after you do that, all distinctions collapse. Thoughts and beliefs become reality when you lock within and limit yourself to them. You just don't realize that, this is how it works, you imagine stuff and dream them up and therefore they become reality in your consciousness. There's nothing outside of your perception.

I hope you see it. There is true happiness.

[abrakamowse]

Without the five senses and the mind, the world does not exist for us.

[electroBeam]

17 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

 

39 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are imagining a "physical" world where you cannot walk through walls. That's what you're imagining!

 

Yes the dimensions of a wall is made up, along with the idea that collisions cannot happen.

But the universe has to be of a certain way in order for the material paradigm to make sense(notice here I'm not saying 'for it to be real', I'm saying for it to make sense). 

In order for super mario world to exist, someone has to program it that way. 

I don't see in my spiritual practices that this shape that allows the material world to make sense, is a mental construct. 

If it were, everything would be possible right now! I mean every single belief would make sense.

It would make sense that an ipad is a triangle, and a square, and a circle, and everything else. 

It would make sense that the sky is blue, green, purple, red, etc.

But it would be silly to say the sky is purple. Its not true to say that. 

Like an ipad is square. Forget word games for a second, there is a physical difference between a circle and a square, and that's because reality has collapsed in a certain way right now. But what makes it collapse in that specific way? Why isn't an ipad a circle right now. 

[electroBeam]

30 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

@electroBeam

I've been stuck in your paradigm quite a bit of time. I never broke out until I realised that 'wait a minute, why am I concerning myself with things out of my perceptions field?' There's no proof of existence for anything outside of your perception in the moment. It's just mere memories and beliefs. The Truth is right here, it's right now. 

Here is the clue: you need to make a distinction between your thoughts and what's there, and after you do that, all distinctions collapse.

I can't specifically figure out what the difference between the colour blue and green is, but I know there's a difference. How can this be a false distinction? Are you saying all colours are the same thing?

[Joseph Maynor]

Idealism is conceptual.  Non-duality is not conceptual.  Non-duality is best pointed to as follows: BE-ing unchanging Awareness.

Edited March 14, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[dorg]

17 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

I don't see in my spiritual practices that this shape that allows the material world to make sense, is a mental construct. 

You don't see that belief built upon belief is the way we make sense?

Edited March 14, 2018 by dorg

[electroBeam]

9 minutes ago, dorg said:

You don't see that belief built upon belief is the way we make sense?

I don't see that the difference between blue and green is a belief.

Why is there a difference between blue and green, and not red and red? Is that mental construct too? How in any way does it make sense to say that the difference between blue and green is a made up belief? On the same level as a unicorn and a horse.

 

Edited March 14, 2018 by electroBeam

[dorg]

Just now, electroBeam said:

I don't see that the difference between blue and green is a belief.

 

I did not ask you that.

[electroBeam]

2 minutes ago, dorg said:

I did not ask you that.

For the material paradigm to make sense, the world has to be made in a certain way.

If the entire world was just blue qualia, the material paradigm wouldn't make sense. Another paradigm, maybe, but not the material.

I'm not saying materialism is correct, what I'm confused/disagree with, is that the entire world is maya/illusion.

If the entire world was maya, the difference between blue and green would be just a belief.

Edited March 14, 2018 by electroBeam

[abrakamowse]

2 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

For the material paradigm to make sense, the world has to be made in a certain way.

To make sense to whom?

[dorg]

4 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

For the material paradigm to make sense, the world has to be made in a certain way.

If the entire world was just blue qualia, the material paradigm wouldn't make sense. Another paradigm, maybe, but not the material.

I'm not saying materialism is correct, what I'm confused/disagree with, is that the entire world is maya/illusion.

If the entire world was maya, the difference between blue and green would be just a belief.

All I am looking for is a yes or a no, not some more of your belief.

[electroBeam]

@dorg Belief upon belief does create consistency. 

[dorg]

Just now, electroBeam said:

@dorg Belief upon belief does create consistency. 

If the additional belief does not violate the original one of course it is consistent.

[dorg]

You start with an assumption (belief) and build from there stacking belief on belief, all consistent, into a giant web of belief.

Edited March 14, 2018 by dorg

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, electroBeam said:

If it were, everything would be possible right now! I mean every single belief would make sense.

No!

What you're failing to understand is this:

If everything were possible right now, that would entail the possibilty that you are sitting in a specific room, reading this specific sentence, only holding your specific beliefs, on the planet Earth, in your specific city, in this specific universe, with these specific physical laws, where you cannot read people's minds, nor jump through walls, nor are you Stephen Hawking, and your iPad is square rather than triangular, and the sky is blue but not red or any other color.

Infinity does NOT mean that the sky will be rainbow colored! Infinity means it will be blue for you right now.

Unlimited means: every limit possible!

Infinity includes every single individual number: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Infinity is not a blurring together of all the numbers into a muddled mess, as you imagine.

Infinity even includes the case of you sitting here and misunderstanding infinity and arguing nonsense.

[tsuki]

4 hours ago, electroBeam said:

If the world is mentally constructed, it should adhere to the properties of thought. Thoughts can be shaped off our own volition. We can visualise whatever we want, when we want. If the world as we know it is just a mental construct, then why can't we change the world off our own volition? Why can't we just dream up an ice cream in front of us right now? 

@electroBeam I will tackle your statement in three steps:

4 hours ago, electroBeam said:

Thoughts can be shaped off our own volition. We can visualise whatever we want, when we want.

You always have one thought at a time and each thought is a continuation of the former thought with relation to the rest of the senses.
You think thoughts in response to what happens around you, specifically as you are reading this text right now.
You are now being primed to show me that you can randomly think things unrelated to what is happening.

What I do right now is not argue that there is no free will, but I am showing you a perspective that can be acquired which can coherently explain what is happening. This is important.

4 hours ago, electroBeam said:

If the world as we know it is just a mental construct, then why can't we change the world off our own volition?

We can. Whatever coherent explanation of reality you have physically shapes the possibility space of your actions. You will not even attempt to do things that you think that are impossible. Will you try to walk through the closed door to prove me wrong? What is the difference between physical impossibility of walking through walls and your unwillingness to even try? Science tells us that in fact it is possible to go through a wall using principles of QM!

4 hours ago, electroBeam said:

Why can't we just dream up an ice cream in front of us right now? 

Have you ever tried to dream up an ice cream? Did it work?
I guess that you didn't succeed, as you wouldn't have asked this question. 

What is the difference between physical impossibility of dreaming up an ice cream and you not trying hard enough?
If you did try: what is the difference between physical impossibility and you not knowing the way to do it?
You don't have an ice cream in both cases! There is no difference!

The point is that it is both that thoughts shape reality and reality shapes thought. They are a single process that has no causality.
It is not that reality -> thoughts, or thoughts->reality.
It is not even thoughts <-> reality.
It's thoughtsreality. Or tRhEoAuLgIhTtYs.

Edited March 14, 2018 by tsuki

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

Why can't we just dream up an ice cream in front of us right now? 

You were free to dream up ice cream in your dreams last night. Why didn't you?

[Truth Addict]

4 hours ago, electroBeam said:

I can't specifically figure out what the difference between the colour blue and green is, but I know there's a difference. How can this be a false distinction? Are you saying all colours are the same thing?

Notice you're saying they're all colours. ?

I'm not going to debate over first person experiences. You have to see it for yourself.

Avoid debating and mental masturbation, then try to view the world from your own perception.