• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Subjective Idealism compatible with Evolution?

ceptimus

puzzler
C
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
6,464
I use the term, 'Subjective Idealism' in the thread title, without really understanding what it means, but Interesting Ian posted in another thread that this is what he believes, so I assume it has something to do with consciousness being a special thing, not explained by science - maybe something immaterial, like a 'soul' is believed to be present.

I thought it might make an interesting thread to see how this belief system might be compatible with the theory of Darwinian Evolution. To me, the two ideas seem incompatible.
 
So did the 'souls' (is there a better term?) evolve too, or did they always exist?

When does the immaterial soul attach to the material brain?

Where do new souls come from (to allow for population growth)?

Do animals have souls? Fish? Ants? Worms? Bacteria? Plants?
 
Here's what Wikpedia says:
Subjective idealism is a theory in the philosophy of perception. It describes a relationship between human experience of the external world, and that world itself, in which objects are nothing more than collections (or bundles) of sense data in those who perceive them.
A famous proponent of subjective idealism was 18th century Irish philosopher George Berkeley.
This theory has much in common with phenomenalism, the view that physical objects, properties, events, etc. (whatever is physical) are reducible to mental objects, properties, events, etc. Thus reality is ultimately made up of only mental objects, properties, events, etc.
Click to expand...
So I'd say no.
 
I would say yes, because ultimately it makes no difference whether we conceive the world to be made entirely of "subjective" impressions or "objective" realities. Everything works out the same. It's like asking whether pie a la mode has the pie underneath the ice cream or the ice cream on top of the pie - it's just two descriptions of the same thing.

Are we just programs in a perfectly-consistent simulation, or are we 'real'? The only meaningful answer is 'yes'.
 
Lets get METAPHYSICAL!!!!! *Dance Music*

ceptimus said:
So did the 'souls' (is there a better term?) evolve too, or did they always exist?
Click to expand...
Souls are obviously beneficial, those without souls go to Hell, so by a process of Devine Selection we can reasonably conclude souls do in fact evolve.

When does the immaterial soul attach to the material brain?
Click to expand...
Souls exist in all places at once, they are "attached" to all things at once, therefore the question is moot.

Where do new souls come from (to allow for population growth)?
Click to expand...
You understand the process of bacteria reproduction, well its a lot like that.

Do animals have souls? Fish? Ants? Worms? Bacteria? Plants?
Click to expand...
No, no, no, no, maybe, and no.
 
ceptimus said:
I use the term, 'Subjective Idealism' in the thread title, without really understanding what it means, but Interesting Ian posted in another thread that this is what he believes, so I assume it has something to do with consciousness being a special thing, not explained by science - maybe something immaterial, like a 'soul' is believed to be present.

I thought it might make an interesting thread to see how this belief system might be compatible with the theory of Darwinian Evolution. To me, the two ideas seem incompatible.
Click to expand...

Well, philosophical idealism argues that there is no justification for an external world (i.e. that it is not certain that one exists), since all we have to go by are our mental representations. I believe that evolution assumes materialism (which opposes idealism), so the TOE will probably not really fit into any idealist paradigm.
 
ceptimus said:
So did the 'souls' (is there a better term?) evolve too, or did they always exist?

When does the immaterial soul attach to the material brain?

Where do new souls come from (to allow for population growth)?

Do animals have souls? Fish? Ants? Worms? Bacteria? Plants?
Click to expand...

Philosophical idealism doesn't assume an external world. Our bodies and brains are part of the external world too, so idealists think that their existence are not certain. In fact, idealists have to justify how their belief doesn't logically lead to solipsism since people/animals populate the external world (which may or may not exist!).
 
As people have already said, I think subjective idealism blows off the physical world, and evolution with it. There is just some kind of universal mind and all the physical stuff is illusion. Evolution is an illusion to explain the existence of the illusion of life.

Something like that.

~~ Paul
 
FWIW, I tend more towards objective idealism, but opine that the mechanisms TOE describe can fit in either framework.

Perhaps it would be more difficult for a Berkleyan to come to grips with.


Paul: Damn language; but "illusion" carries connotations I have trouble with. Wish I could explain it better.
 
Emulation = imitation with an effort to equal or surpass. How does that work here?
Hey, I'm just a simple old mindless radical behaviorist. I don't even delve into Cantor's intersubjectivity or illogical positism that much, but there's a world out there, we can agree about many of its aspects and interobserver reliability can let us reliably measure public behaviors. Private events get a bit dicey.
 
Think of the computer science usage of emulation. It's a simulation that includes all of the functional aspects of whatever is being simulated. In other words, an emulator that runs old Nintento games on your PC isn't just imitating the functioning of the game system, it IS the game system. It's also used to denote computational systems that are being represented within other computational systems.
 
I find it interesting that no subjective idealist has come by to make a comment, leaving the rest of us to wax philosophic on "what subjective idealism must claim"...while on the materialist threads it always seems to be the resident subjective idealist who makes claims about "what materialism must claim". I only hope we do a better job representing his views than he does ours!
 
Well, there's always the Internet to do the job for him.

Consider this site, for example.

[edit] Interesting... the author of the piece is also named Ian. From London. I doubt they're the same person, though, as our Ian wouldn't present the argument as consistently as the site does.
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
Well, there's always the Internet to do the job for him.

Consider this site, for example.
Click to expand...
Wow, reading that page explained a lot. I now understand why it's crap much better than I did before.
 
I'd like to make a comment since I am an idealist.

Ask yourselves three questions:-
(1) What is the absolute origin of the matter and the processes/forces which have moulded the body of man? Or, what is the origin of the universe?
(2) Is the whole universe happening within a Mind? Does only a Mind exist?
(3) Is all awareness associated with this Mind?

You don't have to answer the questions. The point is that you see "evolution" is not a problem for Idealists. Idealists embrace the order of the world within their philosophies. They just see that there is an origin and stage for this perceived universal play.
So, it doesn't matter how the order within our minds has helped to yield our bodies. Ultimately, an idealist such as myself will just say that the whole show is happening within [the awareness of] a Mind... and that this Mind was the creator of the show.

"Evolution" is only a problem for those who take the bible literally. Not for idealists.
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
…snip…

Interesting... the author of the piece is also named Ian. From London. I doubt they're the same person, though, as our Ian wouldn't present the argument as consistently as the site does.
Click to expand...

It's not II.

You may not know but for quite awhile II has been promising (threatened?) his very own website. It is on my most anticipated websites list…
 
Why would a subjective idealist bother to read this thread? In fact, why would such a person bother to do anything?

If everything that he perceives is just constructs of his own mind, then all these ideas we are posting here, and the website Wrath linked to and so on, must already be present in the mind, waiting to be 'performed' or 'rendered by the emulation' or whatever term you prefer.

It seems a pretty arrogant view to hold. It claims all thought, even the thought of what appear to be other people is actually constructs of one's own mind.

How does such a person, A, deal with what appears to be a clever person, B, who has ideas that A can't understand? Say A meets a brilliant mathematician who tries to explain something that A just can't grasp. Why would A's mind bother to conjure up such an 'illusion', or 'emulation'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom