• 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?

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.

In fact you have to explain all the same things I do (as aspects of the model that the mind is creating), but you have the additional problem of explaining the existence of your universal mind.

Such a mind, capable of creating such a vast and confusing universe, is surely a very complex thing, and even more difficult to explain the existence of than my material universe.

Should you be tempted to dodge the question by saying, 'God has existed forever' or 'These questions have no answer', then I would point out that I can say exactly the same about the material universe, thereby saving the additional complication that your system necessitates.
 
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,
Click to expand...


No not at all. Consciousness is consciousness. It is not what it doesn't appear to be eg material or whatever.

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...

How so?
 
ceptimus said:
So did the 'souls' (is there a better term?) evolve too, or did they always exist?
Click to expand...

Why can't they always have existed and evolve?

When does the immaterial soul attach to the material brain?
Click to expand...

Sometime between conception and birth.

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

Why do you think there are new souls?

Do animals have souls? Fish? Ants? Worms? Bacteria? Plants? [/B]
Click to expand...

Depends if sentient.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
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
Click to expand...

That's interesting Paul. You also maintain there is no distinction between materialism and idealism. So under materialism physical stuff is also an illusion?
 
Hi Ian. Thanks for contributing. I have learnt a lot by arguing with you, so though I don't often agree with you, I appreciate your being here.

ceptimus: Do animals have souls? Fish? Ants? Worms? Bacteria? Plants?

Interesting Ian: Depends if sentient.

I tried you on this one before somewhere, but it got lost in the noise. If you accept Darwinian Evolution (do you?) then presumably animals evolve without being sentinent up to a certain point, then become sentinent? I'd like you to expand on how you think that happens. Is there a sharp demarcation, when one particular individual creature was suddenly sentinent when its parent(s) was/were not? This is one of the points where, to me, idealism seems incompatible with evolution.
 
Mercutio said:
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!
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?? I understand materialism perfectly. It simply maintains that there is a realm existing, which enjoys an ontological self-subsistent existence, which certainly includes our sensory perceptions, and is typically supposed to involve the existence of other "stuff". This other "stuff" is somehow responsible for said sensory experiences although, paradoxically, the said "stuff" is only known through our sensory experiences.
 
EternalUniverse said:


Philosophical idealism doesn't assume an external world.

Click to expand...


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?

A subjective idealist simply thinks the objects of experience is a short hand way of referring to a particular family of sensory experiences or qualia. Consider what is referred to as a peach. This simply means that one experiences certain characteristic qualia (sense experiences) of a certain visual nature, and (should one make certain bodily movements), of a certain tactile nature, and of a certain olfactory nature, and of a certain gustatory nature. Such characteristic qualia are found together and are collectively referred to as a peach.

What subjective idealism explicitly denies is that the reality of a peach is not constituted by our sensory perceptions of it. As a corollary, it explicitly denies there is a wholly mind-independent peach which is somehow responsible for our sensory perceptions of it.

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



Our bodies and brains are part of the external world too, so idealists think that their existence are not certain.
Click to expand...

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?

Here is a link introducing the notion of philosophical Idealism.
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Numerous crass errors. Although the word "realism" is used in a bewildering number of differing ways, one most certainly cannot equate it with meaning philosophical materialism! One certainly cannot even equate it with the notion of a material world and a fortiori one cannot equate it with materialism.

One can be an idealist, even a subjective idealist and be a realist. Realism in such a context means that our scientific theories correctly depict how reality really is.
 
ceptimus: Is there a sharp demarcation, when one particular individual creature was suddenly sentinent when its parent(s) was/were not?

Interesting Ian: I don't know. What do you think?

Hey! I asked first.

It's not a problem for materialists like me. I don't believe 'consciousness attaches to the brain sometime between conception and birth', like you do. I think 'consciousness' in so far that it means anything, is just a word for the material functions going on within a brain. So a slug might have some very small consciousness, with its feeble brain, and you and I have a much bigger consciousness.

Are you able to answer these questions (I sound like Tricky now):

1. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

2. If so, then is there a sharp demarcation, when one particular individual creature was suddenly sentinent when its parent(s) was/were not?

I'm genuinely interested in what you think.
 
Interesting Ian said:


Would you mind sharing your understanding?
Click to expand...
I'm not going to give you a book report. Suffice to say I can read and comprehend what I read. Idealism says everything is a mental construct and so it follows that any apparent evolution is illusionary. If they were compatible it seems to me that lifegazer's Big Giant Head must have been around imagining bacteria, then multicelled organisms, and so on.
 
ceptimus said:
ceptimus: Is there a sharp demarcation, when one particular individual creature was suddenly sentinent when its parent(s) was/were not?

Interesting Ian: I don't know. What do you think?

Hey! I asked first.

It's not a problem for materialists like me. I don't believe 'consciousness attaches to the brain sometime between conception and birth', like you do. I think 'consciousness' in so far that it means anything, is just a word for the material functions going on within a brain. So a slug might have some very small consciousness, with its feeble brain, and you and I have a much bigger consciousness.

Are you able to answer these questions (I sound like Tricky now):

1. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

2. If so, then is there a sharp demarcation, when one particular individual creature was suddenly sentinent when its parent(s) was/were not?

I'm genuinely interested in what you think.
Click to expand...

Well I've told you I don't know. I'm not sure if anything else can be said.
 
ceptimus said:
ceptimus:[/bAre you able to answer these questions (I sound like Tricky now):

1. Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?
Click to expand...
Not quite what you want to ask I don't think. Belief in evolution isn't nessecary as it happens whether someone believes it or not. I don't believe in evolution. Like I don't believe in gravity. It just is.

Actually. It is what you want to ask Ian since he might think these natural processes are all an illusion. Never mind.
 
Interesting Ian said:

Well I've told you I don't know. I'm not sure if anything else can be said.
Click to expand...
So does this point refute your kind of idealism, or does it stop you believing in Darwinian Evolution?

Don't you find the question interesting? If you have a philosophy which you hope is internally consistent, aren't these 'I don't know' questions exactly the ones you should be thinking about? It might even turn out to refute idealism (or Darwinianism). Isn't that a prize worth pursuing?
 
Hexxenhammer said:
I'm not going to give you a book report. Suffice to say I can read and comprehend what I read. Idealism says everything is a mental construct and so it follows that any apparent evolution is illusionary. If they were compatible it seems to me that lifegazer's Big Giant Head must have been around imagining bacteria, then multicelled organisms, and so on.
Click to expand...

It is not clear to me that evolution cannot occur. What is it precisely about idealism that compels offspring to be identical to their parents?
 
ceptimus said:
So does this point refute your kind of idealism, or does it stop you believing in Darwinian Evolution?

Don't you find the question interesting? If you have a philosophy which you hope is internally consistent, aren't these 'I don't know' questions exactly the ones you should be thinking about? It might even turn out to refute idealism (or Darwinianism). Isn't that a prize worth pursuing?
Click to expand...

Any metaphysical system has many difficulties. I'm not sure why you think this poses no difficulty for materialism at all. You are saying that there is an organism which is completely lacking in consciousness, but its offspring is very slightly conscious? What is the crucial difference which leads to this conscious awareness?
 
Hexxenhammer said:
Not quite what you want to ask I don't think. Belief in evolution isn't nessecary as it happens whether someone believes it or not. I don't believe in evolution. Like I don't believe in gravity. It just is.

Actually. It is what you want to ask Ian since he might think these natural processes are all an illusion. Never mind.
Click to expand...

Natural processes are an illusion? What do you mean? Would this mean ghosts are as real as the rest of the world btw (ie all is illusion)?? Or are there diferent degrees of illusion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom