Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of Ryan

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Ryan

1
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: On Immaterialism / Idealism
« on: March 01, 2013, 01:54:33 pm »
Quote from: Crash Test
Excellent OP.  I like Berkeley, and agree with his reasoning, if you assume God exists.  If theism is true, then idealism sidesteps a LOT of problems with dualism.  It also negates the need to an ontological realm that we have no access to and, given God's existence, is not required to explain sense data.

On an atheistic account idealism becomes somewhat less plausible.
Thanks CT.   ;D

I completely agree.
Though I feel there might actually be hidden gems in idealistic philosophy, that actually argue for the belief in an ultimate mind.


2
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: On Immaterialism / Idealism
« on: March 01, 2013, 01:46:26 pm »
Quote from: ReasonableRuben

The reason I use the word "defeater," is that, as far as I remember, unless one has a defeater for a properly basic belief that one holds, one cannot be reasonably expected to give it up. If one does come across a defeater, one either needs to produce a "defeater defeater," or else give up the belief.

So if idealism cannot provide a defeater, then I need not give up my belief in the existence of the external world.

Speaking of that: the belief I find pressed so heavily upon me is the belief that the world that I experience is real. That the sense data that I receive comes from what it seems so obviously to come from. Not sure if I need to word that in a more philosophically sophisticated way, but it's a start. I don't see how Occam's Razor would cause me to give up this belief. For example, take my belief that there are, in fact, many different keys on my keyboard. It would be much simpler to suppose that there was only one key, or perhaps that there were none. Not even a keyboard. But I don't see how this would cause me to disbelieve that there are, in fact, many different keys on my keyboard, seeing as how they are right here in front of me. In the absence of an overwhelming defeater of this belief, I'm perfectly justified in holding it.

I would take Occam's Razor as compelling me not to suppose, without sufficient reason, that there are more keys on the keyboard than what I actually see and feel that there are. Say there are 30 keys. Occam's Razor would prevent me from supposing that there are actually 50 keys, 20 of which are invisible.

Sorry if I fell into the hole that you tried to save me from. :P

Right right, I'm not saying that you need to abandon your properly basic belief to be rational...
That was not the point.
I'm saying that, those who don't find themselves with strong properly basic feelings about the physical world should adopt idealism in an effort to be more rational.

Also, I wanted clarification because I doubt that anyone really has properly basic feelings about the existence of the physical world.
See, you described our properly basic feelings the same way I feel anyone would. That things actually do exist, independent of us. 
But what exactly do we feel exists?
We label it "the physical world"
But is that really what we're referring to?
I believe that what we really mean is "sense data really exists independent of us"
For a tree, as we know is, is nothing more than sense data.
If you say I believe trees exist independent of us. What you're really saying is "the sense data persists"
But what about the physical?
What can you say about it? It something completely foreign to us.
How can you define the physical? Aside from the obvious definition of "That which sends sense data."
But if that's how you define the physical then this becomes an issue of semantics because I'd simply ask, "can't God be the sense data sender?".

TL;DR = I'm not convinced that people genuinely have properly basic feelings about the existence of the physical world. I believe what they're experiencing is that there exists something that persists, that the sense data is real beyond our existence. But then, why can't that role be met by God? Why apply some other realm of existence, which we can't even define properly.

3
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: On Immaterialism / Idealism
« on: February 28, 2013, 11:26:27 pm »
Quote from: ReasonableRuben

So is the idea that the idealist would consider the following argument to be a defeater for their formerly held properly basic belief:(?) (I just simplified it because I'm assuming here that each premise is justified)

1. There exists an ultimate mind/God.
2. It is more rational to assume our sense data comes from God rather than from the physical world.

It doesn't follow for a minute, from those two premises, that therefore the physical world does not exist.(granted, this is your version of what an idealist "might" argue) If this is supposed to be an argument against the existence of the physical world, I think it fails. All that follows is that our sense data of the physical world comes from God, rather than from the physical world itself. So I don't see the argument as a defeater. We should still believe in the existence of the physical world.

No that's not what I'm saying at all.
In fact, I even tried to prevent such an interpretation of my words with when I said "Apparent Argument for belief in Idealism. (NOT an argument for its validity.)

1) Occam's Razor:"

It's goal isn't to defeat anything, it's to persuader the reader to drop superfluous entities from explanations.

Also, to expand on this whole properly basic belief issue. Let me ask you guys a question.

When you say "I believe in the physical world properly basically"
What exactly do you mean?

I'm not wondering what properly basic beliefs are, I know quite a bit about them, I'm more curious as to what belief you're actually finding being pressed so heavily upon you.

4
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: On Immaterialism / Idealism
« on: February 28, 2013, 12:39:27 pm »
The only famillarity I have with this would be Plantinga's properly basic beliefs. It seems if one were committed to the idea that every belief needs a justification then I could ee someone holding to Idealism. But isn't there the problem of such an approach needing an infinte amount of explanation? I believe this because of this, because of this, because of this...

But if this is the case, why hold that all beliefs need such justification?

*thus ends my attempt at adding some substance to the thread*
Well, I don't think that all idealists would argue that every belief needs "justification".
I don't think that Idealists are well known for forcing their belief system on others.
They, I think, would think it's perfectly rational to hold belief in the physical world via a properly basic belief.
BUT, I think that idealists simply don't/no longer have the same experience, that those believing in the physical world properly basically do.
Without that proper basicality, they see no reason not to drop it.

5
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: On Immaterial / Idealism
« on: February 27, 2013, 10:17:42 pm »
This is a great post, Ryan. :) Well presented, and with a picture! :P This is more of an irenic bump than a substantive comment. I haven't really thought much at all about this subject.
Thanks Ruben.
Hopefully we can get an exchange of thought started and all learn something about the subject.

6
Choose Your Own Topic / On Immaterialism / Idealism
« on: February 27, 2013, 04:49:35 pm »
Definitions

Immaterialism: a philosophical theory that material things have no reality except as mental perceptions.

Idealism: A group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.

Sense Data:
i. Sense data are the kind of thing we are directly aware of in perception,
ii. Sense data are dependent on the mind, and
iii. Sense data have the properties that perceptually appear to us.

Sense Data Theory: The theory that there are at least 2 realms of reality, the experienced/sense data & the physical(that which creates/sends sense data).


(George Berkeley)

Some time ago, that guy^ pondered the question "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?".
Considering the ever popular sense data theory Locke had been famous for defending, Berkeley questioned. "Why must there be a gap between experience and the world?"
He asked "Why must there be physical entities for us to experience the world? Why the need? Is it not as rational for there to simply be experience?"
He was questioned "If there is merely experience, what are we experiencing? The physical is needed because something must be sending the sense data."
I imagine Berkeley smirked and replied
"Why can't that sense data sender be an ultimate mind (AKA God)?"

Apparent Argument for belief in Idealism. (NOT an argument for its validity.)

1) Occam's Razor:
  • Assume the existence of an ultimate mind/God.
  • it is more rational to assume our sense data comes from God(Idealism) rather than from some unnecessary entity( the physical)

One can also apply this to specific subjects.
Miracles
Eternal soul
The self

These issues become unbelievably more complicated to rationalize when one factors in physical reality. (not to suggest that they can't be rationalized because I believe that they can.)
BUT
Why subject one's self to such complication to support the notion that entities, that seem superfluous, exist?

Now let me ask a few questions:

1) What are your thoughts on immaterialism / Idealism?

2) Do you believe it, deny it, or claim ignorance and why?

3) Do you believe immaterialism/Idealism is rational to hold? Why?

4) Consider occam's razor. Why is it necessary that we add the physical world?
    Is it not more rational to leave the physical out and take the idealist view of reality?


BEFORE YOU POST
Please treat each other with respect.
These questions were raised to stimulate conversation and intellectual thought, NOT to force this subject matter down your throat or call anyone against it irrational/idiotic in any way.
I'm looking forward to hearing your response, thank you for reading.

7
Choose Your Own Topic / What point are you trying to make?
« on: February 25, 2013, 12:28:18 pm »
Firstly, a few things are off.

What would be detected would be "morality/moral truth"
As for the sense definition. It's currently undefined "sight" "touch" are just words we invent to express types of experience to one another.

So it would look something like this

Sense                                                         Input Channel      Detects
(Currently Undefined but unimportant)                ?                     Morality/moral truth                                                       

The only thing that seems to be "unanswered" is the "Input channel"

Now let me ask a question.

If no one here can put a name to what the "Input channel" is.
What does that say about morality being something that can be sensed/experienced?

I honestly don't see the point that's trying to be made here.
If we can't name a "Input channel", so what?

For thousands of years we knew we experienced other senses with no clue as to what the "input channel is".

8
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Immortality and such
« on: September 27, 2012, 12:07:20 am »
The universe will eventually meet a heat death.... How could we possibly live forever?

9
Choose Your Own Topic / A vs. B theory of Time
« on: November 14, 2011, 10:32:48 pm »

So I've yet to see a thread on this.


Please Vote and explain why you voted the way you did.
I hope we can avoid flaming and have a great discussion.

THE POLL

10
Choose Your Own Topic / Here's why there's something rather than nothing...
« on: November 10, 2011, 01:02:43 pm »
fredonly wrote:
Quote from: Ryan
Quote from: fredonly
Quote from: Ryan
I've yet to see a reason why it's not possible that nothing exist necessarily.


If "nothing exists" is a necessary truth, then you don't exist.  (so there's no point in my responding to you )


I think you misinterpreted what I said.  I'm not asking why we can't think of a world in which, necessarily nothing exists.

I'm asking. Why can't we imagine a possible world in which No necessity exists. one In which No one thing exists by necessity and therefore nothing exists at all.


Because neccessity means that it is true in all possible worlds.  If there is a possible world that has no necessities, then there are no necessities at all.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in necessary existence.... I'm just asking Isn't the question. Why does things exists necessarily rather than no necessity at all? I don't see how this thread lowers the impact(?) of that argument....

11
Choose Your Own Topic / Here's why there's something rather than nothing...
« on: November 10, 2011, 12:50:02 pm »
fredonly wrote:
Quote from: Ryan
I've yet to see a reason why it's not possible that nothing exist necessarily.


If "nothing exists" is a necessary truth, then you don't exist.  (so there's no point in my responding to you )


I think you misinterpreted what I said.  I'm not asking why we can't think of a world in which, necessarily nothing exists.

I'm asking. Why can't we imagine a possible world in which No necessity exists. one In which No one thing exists by necessity and therefore nothing exists at all.


12
Choose Your Own Topic / Here's why there's something rather than nothing...
« on: November 10, 2011, 12:46:52 pm »
dadalus wrote:
Quote from: Ryan
Quote from: dadalus
Quote from: Ryan
I've yet to see a reason why it's not possible that nothing exist necessarily.


I think the fact that the evidence disputes that is an indication.  We might not know why, but we know that something exists.

Brute fact: something exists.

I'm aware that In this world something exists... I thought we were talking about possible worlds...

I feel I can imagine a possible universe were nothing exists. Simply because Possible worlds uses the word "world" does not mean that a world or something has to exist in it.


Can you really imagine a possible universe (something) that doesn't exist (nothing)?

Sure I can. The Idea of a possible world exists but that doesn't mean the property of existence has to apply to the world in which the Idea is defining does it?
I imagine a Possible world (the idea exists) in which Nothing exists (No existence)





13
Choose Your Own Topic / Frank Turek Interviews William Lane Craig
« on: November 10, 2011, 12:39:25 pm »
Lightfoot wrote:
Quote from: Ryan
I felt that Frank was extremely cocky and taunted Dawkins far too much. I wonder how Craig, someone who I think believes we should be humble and polite when discussing such things, felt about Franks attitude.

Even Craig though was a little cock when he said something to the effect of "Peter had no good arguments"

Lol, I actually agree and I didn't expect Craig to Lie but he seemed unusually blunt about it..
=/
Do we really let if fly when atheists do the same things for the sake of "fun"? just saying.


They are just having some fun with the whole thing. Nothing wrong with that.

14
Choose Your Own Topic / Here's why there's something rather than nothing...
« on: November 10, 2011, 12:30:11 pm »
dadalus wrote:
Quote from: Ryan
I've yet to see a reason why it's not possible that nothing exist necessarily.


I think the fact that the evidence disputes that is an indication.  We might not know why, but we know that something exists.

Brute fact: something exists.

I'm aware that In this world something exists... I thought we were talking about possible worlds...

I feel I can imagine a possible universe were nothing exists. Simply because Possible worlds uses the word "world" does not mean that a world or something has to exist in it.

15
Choose Your Own Topic / Here's why there's something rather than nothing...
« on: November 10, 2011, 12:02:10 pm »
I've yet to see a reason why it's not possible that nothing exist necessarily.

Pages : [1] 2 3 4