Is Subjective Idealism compatible with Evolution?

[Interesting Ian]

Finally! Yes, this I will agree with. Thank you, Ian.

But to answer it anyway...because the category of behaviors that we lump together as "conscious" is a useful one. In our everyday speech, it is easier to speak of this category than to speak of the separate members of the category. This is, of course, not the only example of our using categories as convenient place-holders for the elements within them.

Mercutio,

I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't see any purpose in discussing these issues with you. If you don't recognise the existence of actual conscious experiences (not behaviour), then you would need to look into a mirror to see what mood you're in.

It's literally the most absurd thing I have ever heard anyone suggest.

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio,

I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't see any purpose in discussing these issues with you. If you don't recognise the existence of actual conscious experiences (not behaviour), then you would need to look into a mirror to see what mood you're in.

It's literally the most absurd thing I have ever heard anyone suggest.

I appreciate your politeness, Ian, and I am ready to quit jousting with you if you wish. Frankly, I have learned from it--both your position and my own--and so I don't find it nearly as frustrating as you seem to. For your frustration, I do sincerely apologise.

Now...one last thing...Why would I need to look in a mirror to see my mood? I have never said that the only behavior is publicly observable behavior! My thoughts (that is, my behavior of thinking), my feelings (b. of feeling [sad, happy, whatever], my memories (b. of remembering) are all available to me. It is only you (or anyone else) that cannot experience these behaviors of mine. They are private behaviors, that's all; they still exist, Ian.

Our disagreement is not that I claim people do not feel, think, remember...etc.; rather it is that you do not believe these are physical processes, and I do not believe they are mental. I think that pretty much sums up our differences.

Again, I would be more than happy to continue our discourse at any time. I'll take a break now, if you wish...but sometimes I cannot help myself; if you mis-characterise my position, I may be unable to restrain myself.

It is absolutely not personal.
M

 

[Interesting Ian]

I appreciate your politeness, Ian, and I am ready to quit jousting with you if you wish. Frankly, I have learned from it--both your position and my own--and so I don't find it nearly as frustrating as you seem to. For your frustration, I do sincerely apologise.

Now...one last thing...Why would I need to look in a mirror to see my mood? I have never said that the only behavior is publicly observable behavior! My thoughts (that is, my behavior of thinking), my feelings (b. of feeling [sad, happy, whatever], my memories (b. of remembering) are all available to me. It is only you (or anyone else) that cannot experience these behaviors of mine. They are private behaviors, that's all; they still exist, Ian.

Our disagreement is not that I claim people do not feel, think, remember...etc.; rather it is that you do not believe these are physical processes, and I do not believe they are mental. I think that pretty much sums up our differences.

Again, I would be more than happy to continue our discourse at any time. I'll take a break now, if you wish...but sometimes I cannot help myself; if you mis-characterise my position, I may be unable to restrain myself.

It is absolutely not personal.
M

The words "private behaviour" are an oxymoron. Behaviour means by definition something that can be observed in principle. That is to say behaviour is publically observable by definition. That's what the word "behaviour" means.

 

[Mercutio]

The words "private behaviour" are an oxymoron. Behaviour means by definition something that can be observed in principle. That is to say behaviour is publically observable by definition. That's what the word "behaviour" means.

I must inform the behaviorists. For decades, then, we have been using the wrong definition! Behavior is what you do. Anything you do. Some of it is observable by others; this is public behavior. Some is only observable to yourself; these are private behaviors.

Ask Jeff Corey--he is another behaviorist. Or pick up virtually any book on modern behaviorism. Oxymoron? nope. Technical definition.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian, check out the definition of behavior:

1 a : the manner of conducting oneself b : anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation c : the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment

I don't see any restriction to publicly-available actions.

I thought I might vote on the eliminative materialist thing, but its definition seems pretty murky. Sounds like you can have hard-core eliminative materialists, who think that all of folk psychology is meaningless, or you can have moderate EMs, who think some of it might be. I can't vote, because I have no idea. Maybe some folk psychology will turn out to be a reasonable description of the attributes of mental processes, even without providing an explanation of them.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mercutio I must inform the behaviorists. For decades, then, we have been using the wrong definition! Behavior is what you do. Anything you do.

Yes. And anything one does is physical movement, of one kind or another. One can also stretch the definition of behaviour to refer to processes in the body, but certainly all processes are in principle publically observable, otherwise they wouldn't be physical!

As I say, the words "private behaviour" are a contradiction in terms.

Some of it is observable by others; this is public behavior. Some is only observable to yourself; these are private behaviors.

I think you're using a differing definition of "observe" as well. I mean by observe to take note of ones environment through the 5 physical senses. Do you understand it as meaning something else?

Ask Jeff Corey--he is another behaviorist. Or pick up virtually any book on modern behaviorism. Oxymoron? nope. Technical definition.

Jeff Corey is a knucklehead.

Anyway, I find it rather implausible that I have been using the word behaviour in an improper meaning for the totality of my life. Moreover, if it doesn't mean what I think it means, what could it possibly mean? One cannot have private anything without rejecting materialism. This is absolutely clear.

 

[hammegk]

How do third-party scientists determine that non-public behavior is occurring, or that they know what they are measuring if they measure such via instrumentation?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian, check out the definition of behavior:

quote:1 a : the manner of conducting oneself b : anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation c : the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment.

Yes, anything an organism does, and a response. To do something, or to respond means some sort of physical activity, yes? All physical activity can in principle be observed, yes? (observed in the sense I mean it ie information through the senses).

 

[Interesting Ian]

How do third-party scientists determine that non-public behavior is occurring, or that they know what they are measuring if they measure such via instrumentation?

This is what I mean. They couldn't by definition. Therefore by definition it cannot be physical!

Help me out here Mercutio. LOL

 

[Hexxenhammer]

Yes. And anything one does is physical movement, of one kind or another. One can also stretch the definition of behaviour to refer to processes in the body, but certainly all processes are in principle publically observable, otherwise they wouldn't be physical!

As I say, the words "private behaviour" are a contradiction in terms.

I think you're using a differing definition of "observe" as well. I mean by observe to take note of ones environment through the 5 physical senses. Do you understand it as meaning something else?

Jeff Corey is a knucklehead.

Anyway, I find it rather implausible that I have been using the word behaviour in an improper meaning for the totality of my life. Moreover, if it doesn't mean what I think it means, what could it possibly mean? One cannot have private anything without rejecting materialism. This is absolutely clear.

Now we're moving from mental masturbation to verbal masturbation...

 

[Interesting Ian]

Now we're moving from mental masturbation to verbal masturbation...

Whose definition of behaviour do you agree with?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I will point out that neural patterns are observable, at least in principle.

Additionally, there's no reason why an event taking place in the brain can't affect other events taking place in the brain. That is essentially what consciousness is: a monitoring of certain mental processes by a part of the mind.

Lastly, if you people haven't put Irksome Ian on your ignore lists yet, you're completely out of your minds.

Thank you.

 

[lifegazer]

Lifegazer.

Your model to me appears to create more problems than it answers.

Sure, I have to try and explain where the universe came from, when it began, why it might be the way it is and so on, and you don't.

But you are left with the problem of where your universal mind (can I call it God?) came from, why it is running this model of universe and so on.

This evades the question of this thread - your own question - which asked whether idealism is compatible with evolution.
My point was that the existence of an all-embracing Mind is compatible with evolution:-
"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 perceived within our minds has yielded 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."

... Thus, whether you see other problems with [my] idealism isn't relevant in regards the initial question of this thread, which I have answered.

 

[EternalUniverse]

There are different types of idealism and their meanings vary. I really don't think it has much meaning denying the existence of an "external world". Could you define what precisely you mean?[/I]

I said that philosophical idealism doesn't assume that an external world exists, which means that its existence is not known for certain, not that it doesn't exist. And I'm sure you know what I mean by "external world" since you yourself used it in your post. The "external world" is composed of things which exist independent of perception (e.g. from minds). Do you have an alternate explanation?

On the other hand other idealist positions hold that although the external world is mental, it exists independently of any minds. [/i]

What do you mean by "the external world is mental"? Do you mean that the external world is only perceived mentally? If so, that really doesn't sound like idealism. It sounds more like representative realism. How would idealists justify the existence of this independent, external world? This is the problem of correspondence that idealists have to deal with. Berkeley thought that it was God who created the correspondence between our sense impressions. Any better ideas?

As I say you need to be clear about what you mean by an external world. What does it mean to say that we don't have bodies?

See above. It doesn't mean that bodies are not there, just that our understanding of bodies are through experiences (which may or not be "correct").

Which is why what I really want to see is how an idealist defends how their view doesn't slide to solipsism. If the external world is the product of minds (and presumably other minds exist independently from each other), then how can idealism justify the existence of other minds?

 

[hammegk]

I will point out that neural patterns are observable, at least in principle.

Yup, but without public behavior for correllation, how does the 3rd person scientist come to grips with any meaning of the observations?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Lastly, if you people haven't put Irksome Ian on your ignore lists yet, you're completely out of your minds.

Thank you. [/B]

I see no reason to be rude to the good people on here. Many people thoroughly enjoy my posts.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Yup, but without public behavior for correllation, how does the 3rd person scientist come to grips with any meaning of the observations?

The same way we can figure out what a circuit does even if we aren't given access to its output: by constucting a model that represents the structure of the circuit.

 

[ceptimus]

... Thus, whether you see other problems with [my] idealism isn't relevant in regards the initial question of this thread, which I have answered.

Yes. Thankyou lifegazer. I can see that your form of idealism is compatible with Darwinian Evolution. I still don't see how Ian's form of idealism is compatible with it though.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Yes. Thankyou lifegazer. I can see that your form of idealism is compatible with Darwinian Evolution. I still don't see how Ian's form of idealism is compatible with it though.

How so?

 

[ceptimus]

How so?

Put five minutes effort into answering my two questions (numbered 1. and 2. many posts back), instead of just saying, "I don't know", and then I'll tell you. So far, we effectively have this situation:

ceptimus: What do you think about this, Ian?

Interesting Ian: I don't know.