https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_idealism.html
Quote:Idealism is the metaphysical and epistemological doctrine that ideas or thoughts make up fundamental reality. Essentially, it is any philosophy which argues that the only thing actually knowable is consciousness (or the contents of consciousness), whereas we never can be sure that matter or anything in the outside world really exists. Thus, the only real things are mental entities, not physical things (which exist only in the sense that they are perceived).
Idealism is a form of Monism (as opposed to Dualism or Pluralism), and stands in direct contrast to other Monist beliefs such as Physicalism and Materialism (which hold that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is physical matter). It is also contrasted with Realism (which holds that things have an absolute existence prior to, and independent of, our knowledge or perceptions).
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
~ Carl Jung
(2024-12-20, 01:09 PM)Valmar Wrote: There cannot be non-Monistic forms of Idealism, because that sort of doesn't make much sense
It depends on what the monistic target is: type or token. Idealism is necessarily monistic regarding type (of substance: there is only one, consciousness) but not necessarily regarding tokens (of consciousness: there might be truly only one consciousness as on Absolute Idealism or a plurality of consciousnesses).
When I differentiate between monistic and pluralistic idealism, I'm referring to tokens, i.e., whether there is truly only one singular Mind (consciousness) or whether there is a true plurality of minds (consciousnesses).
(2024-12-20, 03:22 PM)Laird Wrote: It depends on what the monistic target is: type or token. Idealism is necessarily monistic regarding type (of substance: there is only one, consciousness) but not necessarily regarding tokens (of consciousness: there might be truly only one consciousness as on Absolute Idealism or a plurality of consciousnesses).
When I differentiate between monistic and pluralistic idealism, I'm referring to tokens, i.e., whether there is truly only one singular Mind (consciousness) or whether there is a true plurality of minds (consciousnesses).
That's... not how it works in philosophical circles. A plurality of minds is still considered single, monistic substance ~ mind, no matter how many trillions or quadrillions or infinity.
In Idealism, there is no concept of "type" or "token" ~ that's a Physicalist / Materialist peculiarity.
Pluralism is about different base substances ~ matter, mind, astral, soul, spirit, etc, etc, depending on how you slice your definitions. But that becomes rather unwieldy because it has an interaction problem too ~ how do distinct substances interact without a common medium or nature?
Keep in mind that I am using the primary definition of "substance" here ~ a foundational entity of a metaphysics.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
~ Carl Jung
(2024-12-21, 01:27 AM)Valmar Wrote: That's... not how it works in philosophical circles.
You're bullsh**ting, which is obnoxious and time-wasting.
The type-token distinction in philosophy is a generic one, and there's nothing to prohibit the application of tokens in this context. Whether or not it's a standard application is beside the point, which is that differentiating idealisms numerically based on tokens is meaningful given that on the one hand, ( token-)monistic idealism is incoherent, whereas on the other, ( token-)pluralistic idealism is not, or, at least, not obviously so.
(2024-12-21, 01:27 AM)Valmar Wrote: A plurality of minds is still considered single, monistic substance ~ mind, no matter how many trillions or quadrillions or infinity.
In Idealism, there is no concept of "type" or "token" ~ that's a Physicalist / Materialist peculiarity.
Pluralism is about different base substances ~ matter, mind, astral, soul, spirit, etc, etc, depending on how you slice your definitions.
There is more than one way to assign number, dude. By ( type of) substance is only one. Educate yourself. From the introduction of the SEP article on monism, to which I've already linked in another thread (italics in the original; editing ellipses and colourisation mine):
Quote:There are many monisms. What they share is that they attribute oneness. Where they differ is in what they target and how they count.
[...]
Existence monism targets concrete objects and counts by tokens. This is the doctrine that exactly one concrete object token exists.
[...]
Substance monism targets concrete objects and counts by highest types. This is the doctrine that all concrete objects fall under one highest type (perhaps material, or mental, or some neutral underlying type: here the way divides).
(2024-12-22, 01:35 AM)Laird Wrote: You're bullsh**ting, which is obnoxious and time-wasting.
The type-token distinction in philosophy is a generic one, and there's nothing to prohibit the application of tokens in this context. Whether or not it's a standard application is beside the point, which is that differentiating idealisms numerically based on tokens is meaningful given that on the one hand, (token-)monistic idealism is incoherent, whereas on the other, (token-)pluralistic idealism is not, or, at least, not obviously so.
There is more than one way to assign number, dude. By (type of) substance is only one. Educate yourself. From the introduction of the SEP article on monism, to which I've already linked in another thread (italics in the original; editing ellipses and colourisation mine):
My mistake is that outside the SEP article, I have seen or heard token and type used in reference to Idealism.
But on reading the article, it does make sense.
However, what you still misunderstand is that Idealism is Monistic by its very nature ~ there is nothing logically Pluralistic about it at all. It would not be Idealism if mind were not the Monist substance which all else arises from.
Within the mindscape, we can generate entire dreamscapes, complete with forms and even pseudo-matter, so in the dreamscape, it really is all just mental stuff. There is no separate substance in the dreamscape ~ it's all just composed of dream-stuff.
So the comparison of this apparently physical reality to a dream is a useful metaphor that provides perspective.
Also, keep in mind that dreams aren't illusions ~ they are real as experienced in the mind, so this physical reality is as perceived through the senses.
Experiences must be real by virtue of being experienced.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
~ Carl Jung
(2024-12-15, 06:34 AM)Valmar Wrote: It is partially what I loathe about the deliberate use of certain metaphors to describe AI, "machine learning", even the term "artificial intelligence" itself. They are deliberate misuse metaphor with the intent to confuse and so market something that isn't actually happening, creating false and misleading ideas in the minds of the ignorant masses, so that investors with lots of money will buy into manufactured hype, so the marketeers can profit heavily.
It's all rather greasy and slimy, the whole enterprise.
Agreed, but I remember when "Artificial Intelligence" was discussed as a potentially real possibility. In the 1980's the concept was hyped as much as it is now, but then the whole idea crashed - because nothing useful came from the idea. Nowadays, the water is muddier because things like ChatGPT to work. They are, in a sense, a vastly better form of GOOGLE search! If you ask
ChatGPT it will tell you that it is based on a specific snapshot of a large slice of the internet!
David
(2024-12-23, 05:52 PM)David001 Wrote: Agreed, but I remember when "Artificial Intelligence" was discussed as a potentially real possibility. In the 1980's the concept was hyped as much as it is now, but then the whole idea crashed - because nothing useful came from the idea. Nowadays, the water is muddier because things like ChatGPT to work. They are, in a sense, a vastly better form of GOOGLE search! If you ask
ChatGPT it will tell you that it is based on a specific snapshot of a large slice of the internet!
David
Except that ChatGPT and friends can and will also give you pure garbage, and even fake results with supreme confidence.
This video is pertinent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV29EASsoUY
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
~ Carl Jung
(2024-12-15, 12:42 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: A Journey Beyond the Material: Exploring Federico Faggin’s “Irreducible”
Srinivas Hebbar I'm not trying to start another free will discussion here, but what does he have to say about it?
~~ Paul
If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi
(2024-12-23, 10:40 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: I'm not trying to start another free will discussion here, but what does he have to say about it?
~~ Paul
Ah I think one might have to read the book all the way through, I didn't see much besides some mentioning of agency.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
This post has been deleted.
|