Is Subjective Idealism compatible with Evolution?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We can, in principle, observe someone else's dream. We might do it by first mapping every memory in the person's brain by selectively stimulating the brain and having the person report the memory. Then we could "watch" a dream by noting the sequence of active spots with an MRI or some such device.

But this doesn't allow us to experience the dream in the same way as the subject. Does that mean that there is still some aspect of his subjective consciousness that we cannot observe, thus making that aspect "outside the universe"? Perhaps, but if we say so, then we must also say that the experience of being a rock is outside the universe.

Does the fact that we cannot be anything but ourselves mean that everything else's fundamental selfness is outside the universe?

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

You got me, Ian! I am not a materialist, but a pragmatist. I came into this argument simply to correct your use of vocabulary

But I'm ignoring you. I still say "private behaviour" is an oxymoron.

--if I ended up defending materialism, it was only a by-product.

Ummm . .seems to me you've ended up attacking it. Even Wrath agrees with me!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
I still say "private behaviour" is an oxymoron.

It's only an oxymoron if you've defined behavior in such a way as to ensure that all the squirming that goes on in your head can have a special immaterial status.

Ooh, Mercutio thinks people have behavior in their heads, but behavior is only external, so that internal stuff must be something immaterial and hence disproves materialism.

Proof by keyword manipulation.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

It's only an oxymoron if you've defined behavior in such a way as to ensure that all the squirming that goes on in your head can have a special immaterial status.

Ooh, Mercutio thinks people have behavior in their heads, but behavior is only external, so that internal stuff must be something immaterial and hence disproves materialism.

Proof by keyword manipulation.

~~ Paul

No. I'm happy to say that behaviour is any physical change in an organism. Brain processes can certainly be defined as behaviour. But that's not private behaviour because it is potentially publically observable. His private behaviour seems to equate to my concept of mental processes!

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Wrath:I absolutely do not follow you when you say that some aspect of the dream is outside this universe just because a second person cannot witness it. That seems to me either an inadequate definition of either "access" or "universe". I am quite puzzled by this, and look forward to your clearing it up. Please, why does my view imply to you that some aspect of my dream is outside the universe? I mean, it is part of my behavior, and I am part of the universe--what more do you need?

I think the problem lies with the claim that it's not possible in principle for anyone else to access the dream. That requires that no pattern of interactions could change or be changed by your dream. That in turn means that the dream cannot be a part of the set that defines what the "universe" is: the group of all things that interact with each other (given at least one item in the set).

The dream can't be a part of you, because if it were, others could access it if only indirectly.

Paul Anagnostopoulos: I suppose that depends on how you want to look at things. Taking your reasoning to a logical conclusion, no one can ever understand any one or any thing. No matter what we do, our models are always distinct from the things we're trying to model - and the perceptions that we use to build the models are distinct from the things themselves.

That's a valid meaning of 'understand', but not a useful one. To the degree to which it is possible to understand anything, then, dreams must be understandable.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Now you're jacking the definition of private, Ian. The term "private behavior" is a psychology term that has a particular meaning. You give us all so much crap for not knowing the definition of every philosophy term, yet you pull this stunt with a term from another discipline. It's getting tiresome.

Don't use your jacked terms to reinterpret what people say and then try to convince them they said something else.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Wrath said:
Paul Anagnostopoulos: I suppose that depends on how you want to look at things. Taking your reasoning to a logical conclusion, no one can ever understand any one or any thing. No matter what we do, our models are always distinct from the things we're trying to model - and the perceptions that we use to build the models are distinct from the things themselves.

Oh, I didn't make myself clear. I was really asking you what you meant by "outside the universe." Wow, this is hard to describe.

Consider what it's like to experience a dream. It seems possible that we may never be able to experience another person's dream in the same manner as we experience our own. It's possible that we can't do this even in principle. Are we willing, then, to say that the personal experience of a dream is outside the universe?

You just clarified what you meant by saying "I think the problem lies with the claim that it's not possible in principle for anyone else to access the dream. That requires that no pattern of interactions could change or be changed by your dream." But I don't think that's what Mercutio meant by access. He meant that we can't experience the dream like the other person does. The other person's dream does have an effect on the world, but we're still missing out on an essential aspect of it. Is that aspect outside the universe?

Perhaps the crux of the matter lies in whether or not we can, in principle, experience the dream just like the other person does.

~~ Paul

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Note: these are somewhat Wrath-specific definitions, although the concepts they refer to are fairly common. My usage of certain words to refer to certain concepts is somewhat nonstandard, though.

A 'universe' is a set of things that interact with each other in some way. The precise nature of the interaction isn't specified, and it doesn't have to be. Specific universes can be considered by identifying one thing within the set.

Some things don't exist in this universe (the one that I'm in, and by extension all of you are) but can exist in others. Some things (like invisible pink unicorns, proofs that the square root of two are rational, the biggest possible prime, the taco so spicy that an omnipotent being cannot eat it, omnipotent beings, etc.) cannot exist in any universe.

The set of all things in universes and all things not in universes is the Totality. The Totality cannot be described; although all descriptions (both possible and impossible) describe some part of the Totality, none of them describe it all, not even this description. All attempts are insufficient because each and every attempt is partially accurate. No principles hold in the Totality, because it's the superposition of all orders; there are no boundaries because all boundaries exist.

One inaccurate but useful way to think about the Totality (which cannot be thought about, because [well, you get the drill]) is to use the metaphor of the Jorge Luis Borges' "Library of Babel". His description can be found on the Net with a little searching.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm skeptical about the impossibility of the invisible pink unicorn, given the existence of the invisible pink hamster orbiting Neptune.

Perhaps my dreams occur outside this universe, within the Totality. That would explain why some entities in my dreams are impossible within this universe, yet clearly exist. Astral travel, then, might occur . . .

Hey, this has lots of potential.

~~ Paul

 

[Mercutio]

You just clarified what you meant by saying "I think the problem lies with the claim that it's not possible in principle for anyone else to access the dream. That requires that no pattern of interactions could change or be changed by your dream." But I don't think that's what Mercutio meant by access. He meant that we can't experience the dream like the other person does. The other person's dream does have an effect on the world, but we're still missing out on an essential aspect of it. Is that aspect outside the universe?

Perhaps the crux of the matter lies in whether or not we can, in principle, experience the dream just like the other person does.

~~ Paul

Thanks, Paul, and thanks, Wrath, for helping to clear things up a bit...I see what you both mean...it seems, Wrath, that by what you are saying, we can access, or observe, or whatever you want to call it, a dream in the same manner we can access or observe somebody's walking. That is, we can look at all the publicly observable behavior, the physiological signs and processes, etc...but as Paul says, experiencing the dream would be like actually experiencing the other person's walk. It is beyond us for any behavior, not just for dreaming. But we may certainly verify that they are running, or that they are dreaming, so to that extent there is a public aspect to the behavior.

Now, when Ian says

1. Everything physical can in principle be observed, either directly or indirectly, by anyone with unimpaired senses and with the appropriate instruments.
2. Your dreams cannot be so observed by anyone.
3. Therefore your dreams are not physical
4. Therefore there exist some things which are not physical
5. Therefore materialism is refuted.

I am a bit confused. My dreams are observed by me. Yours by you. The phenomenon of dreaming is something easily observable, by anyone who dreams. #2 is false. As said above, I cannot observe your feelings about your walking, but I can verify your walking, and I can observe my own sensations accompanying walking. Same with dreams. They are a physical process.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I'm skeptical about the impossibility of the invisible pink unicorn, given the existence of the invisible pink hamster orbiting Neptune.

Meh...

Perhaps my dreams occur outside this universe, within the Totality. That would explain why some entities in my dreams are impossible within this universe, yet clearly exist. Astral travel, then, might occur . . .

Doesn't work. You wouldn't be able to experience something that's outside the universe by definition. Your dreams exist within this universe... and the dream itself is real, although the things it may be about may not be.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

And you might be able to observe other's emotions, Mercutio. Each and every thing in the universe is necessarily unique, yes, but that doesn't mean that we are unable to experience at least very similar things.

Within certain tolerances, we can perceive things the same way - which is why we're able to communicate in the first place.

Tell me something: which is more real - my words, or the images you're reading off your computer screen?

 

[EternalUniverse]

Subjective idealism explicitly denies the existence of a mind-independent reality. Berkeley argued it was unintelligible.[/i]

Fair enough. For subjective idealists, then, shouldn't they distinguish between "having no justification for an external world" and "explicit denial of an external world"? It seems that the latter is too extreme. If all we have to go by are our experiences, then we really can't say for certain if these experiences are caused by something external to the mind.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I don't want to talk about other idealist positions. I haven't read up enough on them. Yes Berkeley thought it was God who directly conveys to us our sensory experiences. This explains their order so that we see discrete physical objects rather than a chaotic jumble of sensory impressions. Do you find this unsatisfactory? [/i]

Well, he is using a claim which may or may not be true (the existence of God) to support his version of idealism, so probably not.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Berkeley argued that it is merely what we call the physical world which is simply patterns in our sensory experiences. He said there are selves and their ideas. Selves are not constituted by ones sensory experiences. How could they be?[/i]

First, how can he even talk about 'sensory experiences" if there is no external world to "sense"? At least, with an explanation that doesn't include God.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Idealists infer the existence of other people in the same way as interactive dualists do. Basically by analogy. I know I have a mind, and that my bodily behaviour is partially due to that mind. Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that other peoples bodily movements are caused by other minds.

I still do not know how idealism, which denies an external world, can not lead to solipsism. If you deny the existence of any "mind-independent reality", then you also deny the existence of other minds. Unless, of course, you believe in Berkeley's contention which uses God in its explanation.

 

[Darat]

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.

Disagree what we have here is:

ceptimus: What do you think about this, Ian?

Interesting Ian: I don't know but it's incompatible with materialism.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Now you're jacking the definition of private, Ian. The term "private behavior" is a psychology term that has a particular meaning. You give us all so much crap for not knowing the definition of every philosophy term, yet you pull this stunt with a term from another discipline. It's getting tiresome.

Don't use your jacked terms to reinterpret what people say and then try to convince them they said something else.

~~ Paul

I suggest you take a look at the previous conversation. I'm just going by what Mercutio has said.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian
1. Everything physical can in principle be observed, either directly or indirectly, by anyone with unimpaired senses and with the appropriate instruments.
2. Your dreams cannot be so observed by anyone.
3. Therefore your dreams are not physical
4. Therefore there exist some things which are not physical
5. Therefore materialism is refuted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mercutio
I am a bit confused.

That's ok, I'm hopelessly confused with your position!

My dreams are observed by me. Yours by you.

Right, "observed" as in the sense of experienced. But I can neither observe/experience your dream. Therefore your dream is not physical. Right?? I mean you can't describe something as being physical which is unobservable in principle apart from one person. Moreover note that there are 2 differing senses of "observe" here which you are conflating.

The phenomenon of dreaming is something easily observable, by anyone who dreams. #2 is false.

I disagree as I just mentioned.

As said above, I cannot observe your feelings about your walking, but I can verify your walking, and I can observe my own sensations accompanying walking. Same with dreams. They are a physical process.

Walking as a public phenomenon is a physical process, not as phenomenologically experienced (or "observed" by the self as you put it. This so-called "private behaviour!" )

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Wrath said:
Doesn't work. You wouldn't be able to experience something that's outside the universe by definition. Your dreams exist within this universe... and the dream itself is real, although the things it may be about may not be.

Dang! I thought this was going to be a source of all sorts of great stuff.

Ian said:
I mean you can't describe something as being physical which is unobservable in principle apart from one person.

Ah, now it has to be observable by two or more people. That means that everything that happens to you, without other witnesses, isn't real.

~~ Paul

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Or to put that in another wording:

Everything that you experience as happening to you is real. But it's a real experience, and not necessarily a real anything else. (Clearly even experiences are part of physical reality, and so they are a real something else in addition to being an experience, but that's becoming a bit too involved for this discussion.)

 

[ceptimus]

None of this seems to have very much to do with Darwinian Evolution.

 

[Darat]

None of this seems to have very much to do with Darwinian Evolution.

Well of course not, you didn't expect to get any answers did you? That may have needed er... someone to think about the twaddle they keep posting.