Integral Emergentism

[flyingguitarist]

 

Hey guys , what are your thoughts on this? He is challenging idealism.. 

[Bernardo Carleial]

3 hours ago, flyingguitarist said:

 

Hey guys , what are your thoughts on this? He is challenging idealism.. 

I would counter-argue with this playlist:

 

Why would logic, rationality, materialism and reductionism (a.k.a Scientism) be the foundation of reality?

After all.. all of that comes from our human biases and projections and from the way we perceive the world: if we were blind, we would do science in a completely different way, if we could see a different color spectrum, we would do science in a completely different way, if we were the size of atoms, and so on....you got the idea, that our "Human Configuration " pre-determines the range of what is possible to be categorized.

The point is: the way we gather information, or "data", is very tied to the way we humans apprehend reality,  with our own very idiosyncratic manner, and, with that said, we must also include our subjectivity, our culture, our psychology,  our phisiological structure etc...

It's not just a given that we experience the world this way... 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Bernardo Carleial

[Carl-Richard]

So his argument is that because there is regularity to how experience unfolds ("the scientific method works"), therefore experience is produced by a separate substance called matter? *sigh* 

[undeather]

1 hour ago, flyingguitarist said:

 

Hey guys , what are your thoughts on this? He is challenging idealism.. 

This is so full of assumptions, misunderstandings and strawmanning - I dont even know where to begin.....
I am in contact with Bernardo and I will invite him for a debate - lets see how he reacts! 

[integral]

This is not me, relatively speaking lol

Edited January 27, 2022 by integral

[DocWatts]

While it would have been interesting to see a novel argument against Idealism, his argument falls prey to a common assumption that a shared, objective reality has to have a material ontological basis.

I'd be genuinely curious as to whether he's aware that objective idealism is something that exists, as the main thrust of his argument seems to be directed towards solipsistic subjective Idealism. I won't go so far as to call this a strawman as a lot of people aren't aware that there's even a distinction to be made between different types of idealism.

If I were to try and make the strongest case possible against Idealism, I might have focused on the entropic heat death of the universe. I would have asked why an ontologically mental universe should present itself to us as a metaphorical clock winding down towards eventual thermodynamic equilibrium. And if time's arrow is an extrinsic appearance of an excitation of a transpersonal mental field, what is it an extrinsic appearance of exactly?

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by DocWatts

[Reciprocality]

We distribute our own cohesion over the objects of mind, that will never tell us whether it is cohesive on its own. To assume so is to avoid your own physicalism and claim that it must be independently of your mind dependent on your mind.

Whether there is a perfect correlation between the representations of your own mind and another person or a whole society or minimal correlation it will not change how that cohesion is dependent on your mind.

If there is much correlation in both your and another's triangulation of what we call the physical both before and after you close your eyes that tells you something about mind, to say that it implies an independent existence outside your mind assumes something beyond the epistemic framework of your representations. It does not matter if it is two people or 8 billion scientists.
To claim otherwise is to be epistemologically illiterate, but not to be metaphysically wrong. 

It is not an assumption to say that our experience occur in mind, for we call such things mind, as by definition. A material independent world is a necessary construct of mind from birth, it is possible to deconstruct it as an object of knowledge while remaining faithful of its independence. 
That is not possible however, when you realise that the object of the faith itself could never be IF REAL something that your mind could create. For it could only be itself.
(this is the reason why there are no actual physicalists, only people who thinks that conclusions of reason are more true or real than negation to that reason.)

There is no more reason to be a materialist if the contents of the world can be agreed upon or not, if we can find the smallest particle and a unified field theory or not.
If you think so then your comprehension of modern philosophy is almost at zero, I would not blame you.

In fact when it comes to physicalism you are so fucked that even if you believe in it you don't.

To use causality as an object of mind trough means of induction of the mind to prove reemerging phenomena of the mind trough cohesive reason of the mind as proof for a concept of a material world that is ALSO independently existent of its own predicate as a concept as in the referenced video above has shown its age.

At the same time, there are plenty of idealists who would do far better as physicalists, those indeed who thought that a symmetrical and cohesive closed universe would negate idealism in the slightest. Mostly these people defend their worldview by pointing towards evidence of an incomplete world in various ways.

Incompleteness is derived from reason, completeness is reason at rest.
 

[The Lucid Dreamer]

I’m actually kind of disappointed.  I was hoping for a better argument.  

[Reciprocality]

@The Lucid Dreamer You could only hope for such a thing trough doubt of your own, can I ask you then what is less than necessary (as not merely affirmative) in your metaphysics?

Edited January 27, 2022 by Reciprocality