tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post4167983669655403332..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: More Problems with IdealismLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-3347052966107962462014-02-28T09:08:24.499-08:002014-02-28T09:08:24.499-08:00I don't think we're communicating any more...I don't think we're communicating any more, LK. I thought you were able to distinguish between an idea and 'matter' but I now suspect that you cannot.<br /><br />I also tried to show that the super-mind is composed of a describable substance (mind and idea) but 'matter' is not describable. I have done my best to show you this. But apparently I have failed.<br /><br />It was a nice discussion but I no longer think that it is productive. All the best.Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-42463739707259153672014-02-28T08:44:33.935-08:002014-02-28T08:44:33.935-08:00"But the elementary particles etc. are only a...<i>"But the elementary particles etc. are only approached through ideas, no?"</i><br /><br />That they are represented to us only indirectly by scientific probing of matter does not mean that you can't describe matter. You just assume that senses don't give an approximation of the external objects, when the evidence suggests that they do.<br /><br />Also, just look at your position: in fact, everything you said applies to the super-mind:<br /><br /><i>But the super-mind is only approached through ideas, no? So, where is the super-mind? Is it at all describable or is it a complete unknown?</i><br /><br />You will quickly respond that you can postulate the super-mind by inductive analogy and get evidence of it **indirectly ** through ideas which you postulate come from it.<br /><br />Can't you see how your epistemological arguments in their basic form are just like mine?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-53194633640048297522014-02-28T08:32:56.209-08:002014-02-28T08:32:56.209-08:00But the elementary particles etc. are only approac...But the elementary particles etc. are only approached through ideas, no? So, where is the matter? Is it at all describable or is it a complete unknown?Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-18577500356821013962014-02-28T08:29:50.988-08:002014-02-28T08:29:50.988-08:00As long as you do not beg the question and assume ...As long as you do not beg the question and assume your idealism is absolutely true beforehand, then it follows that it is logically possible that the everything that science says about the elementary particles mediated by the fundamental forces in the standard model is our description of what matter is.<br /><br />For you have a clear argument by analogy above that shows you that the postulate that (at least) some of our perceptions are causally dependent on external objects is logically possible and a straightforward reasonable and probable induction by analogy.<br /><br />The counterargument that we never have direct and immediate access to "matter" doesn't refute me because I never claimed that we have direct and immediate access to it, only indirect.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-30830339276362963362014-02-28T08:12:54.712-08:002014-02-28T08:12:54.712-08:00You could have a deterministic universe in idealis...You could have a deterministic universe in idealism. But then in what sense would it be deterministic? Would only the super-mind fully understand the laws? Could we? Would that entail that we needed access to the thoughts of the super-mind? Is this possible? And on and on we go. These are questions that have to do with a different "layer" of metaphysics.<br /><br />All idealism is saying is that (a) the term "matter" means nothing and (b) it is more reasonable to account for the constancy of ideas with reference to a super-mind because it is describable to some extent.Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-79326485290122568242014-02-28T08:08:05.070-08:002014-02-28T08:08:05.070-08:00And what is this matter? Can you explain or descri...And what is this matter? Can you explain or describe it?Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-63754815502417831642014-02-28T08:01:55.781-08:002014-02-28T08:01:55.781-08:00But look I've just given you an inductive argu...But look I've just given you an inductive argument for materialism, against the idealist argument.<br /><br />They are both types of induction by analogy:<br /><br />(1) the idealist:<br />We observe directly things that claim to be minds that probably have minds (e.g., people). On analogy, there might be an unobserved super-mind that is the external cause.<br /><br />(2) the realist:<br />We observe directly in our minds objects that appear to have no minds and probably do not have minds (e.g., tables, chairs, rocks, books). On analogy, there may be unobserved non-mental objects that are the external causal origin of our perceptions of these things. <br /><br />These postulated "unobserved non-mental objects" we can call "matter."Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-49229798054744927062014-02-28T07:51:41.041-08:002014-02-28T07:51:41.041-08:00I said that MATERIALISM is not based on induction ...I said that MATERIALISM is not based on induction or logical reasoning, not realism.<br /><br />Also, you have to give me an example of a scientific question that idealism has no good answer to. To my mind all the answers are the same as in materialism. I'm surprised you don't see this to be honest...Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-24132675411643927742014-02-28T07:42:45.031-08:002014-02-28T07:42:45.031-08:00"I never said that the super-mind actively in...<i>"I never said that the super-mind actively intervened in the world."</i><br /><br />But that suggests that the universe (conceived as the perceptions over which we have no control) is either autonomous or partly autonomous.<br /><br />But isn't this a slippy slope that you must avoid?<br /><br />If it's the case that the things work like a machine, why postulate a super mind at all?<br /><br />Doesn't the supermind become unnecessary?<br /><br />At any rate: please do not construe my dogged criticisms here on this topic as anything but interest in philosophy.<br /><br />I hope this heated debate in philosophy will not get personal, as I have a great deal of respect for you intellectually.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-12938210555927840052014-02-28T07:36:03.334-08:002014-02-28T07:36:03.334-08:00I do not think they are all theological questions....I do not think they are all theological questions. Most of them are scientific questions. The number of scientific questions that idealism has no good answer to is huge, I contend.<br /><br />At any rate, it is clear to me that the charge that realism "is not based on induction or logical reasoning" is not true:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-argument-for-idealism-versus-realism.htmlLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-35585043677693514562014-02-28T05:12:02.186-08:002014-02-28T05:12:02.186-08:00"Why did the super mind destroy the dinosaurs..."Why did the super mind destroy the dinosaurs?"<br /><br />Again, you're bringing theology into this.<br /><br />I never said that the super-mind actively intervened in the world. Supposing that is a theological questions.<br /><br />Besides, what is your answer? Chance event? I.e. an event without meaning? I can just as easily say that the super-mind created the world and then passively contemplates it thus allowing for chance events. Or I could say something different. Or whatever. These are not metaphysical questions. They are theological.Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-54481707146981494722014-02-28T05:08:58.794-08:002014-02-28T05:08:58.794-08:00"Well, as idealism sees it, there are no thin..."Well, as idealism sees it, there are no things but minds or ideas: so do you think that a fossil plant found today really existed 420 million years ago?"<br /><br />Sure, why not. If that's what the carbon analysis yields.<br /><br />"You do not think that they really existed as external objects of matter. So in what sense did they "exist"?"<br /><br />As ideas in the super-mind. The have all the same properties. We just eliminate the term "matter" because it doesn't have meaning.<br /><br />"I assume you do not claim that plants have minds?"<br /><br />It's not impossible. But I find it unlikely. They still exist in the super-mind though.<br /><br />"So is a plant just an idea that modern humans experience now without any existence in a postulated past, or what?"<br /><br />It exists in the super-mind. Just like if a materialist says it exists "in matter". But that "matter" is a term without content whereas the super-mind is a term with content.<br /><br />"What does the idealist posit? That there was a world 430 million years ago devoid of human minds but experienced by god / the super mind filled with plants and Cambrian aquatic animals? To what purpose?<br /><br />For some unexplained reason the super mind imagined all these animals. Then cause mass extinctions and then vast numbers of other animals in later eras, only to cause more mass extinctions. Why?"<br /><br />You're veering into theological speculation here. I can just as well ask these questions of the materialist. I can keep asking why, why, why and eventually they either start speaking theology or they say they don't know. I don't think that this is an interesting or productive aspect of the discussion.Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-52685451030286839962014-02-28T04:55:47.078-08:002014-02-28T04:55:47.078-08:00Of course a realist materialist science provides a...Of course a realist materialist science provides a coherent explanation of fossils: they *really existed in the external world* and passed their DNA onto modern plants.<br /><br />What does the idealist posit? That there was a world 430 million years ago devoid of human minds but experienced by god / the super mind filled with plants and Cambrian aquatic animals? To what purpose?<br /><br />For some unexplained reason the super mind imagined all these animals. Then cause mass extinctions and then vast numbers of other animals in later eras, only to cause more mass extinctions. Why?<br /><br />The questions multiple to huge numbers quickly.<br /><br />Did dinosaurs have minds?<br /><br />Why did the super mind destroy the dinosaurs?<br /><br />We have a coherent materialist explanation of all these things under an assumption of an external world of matter that needs no super mind or god to sustain it.<br /><br />E.g., the dinosaurs died because of a chance contingent event.<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-89451395738265485442014-02-28T04:47:05.407-08:002014-02-28T04:47:05.407-08:00Well, as idealism sees it, there are no things but...Well, as idealism sees it, there are no things but minds or ideas: so do you think that a fossil plant found today really existed 420 million years ago? <br /><br />You do not think that they really existed as external objects of matter. So in what sense did they "exist"? <br /><br />I assume you do not claim that plants have minds?<br /><br />So is a plant just an idea that modern humans experience now without any existence in a postulated past, or what?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-62994632363122710572014-02-28T04:36:05.773-08:002014-02-28T04:36:05.773-08:00Matter doesn't explain fossils. How does matte...Matter doesn't explain fossils. How does matter explain fossils?<br /><br />All the findings of science are still valid from an idealist perspective. But the notion of matter is eliminated.<br /><br />If you can explain to me why you need matter to explain fossils or colour blindness then by all means tell me...Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-3038946250839760892014-02-28T04:11:55.537-08:002014-02-28T04:11:55.537-08:00Apologies, I was not saying above -- nor meant to ...Apologies, I was not saying above -- nor meant to imply in any way -- that you don't believe in fossils.<br /><br />Sure, I have no doubt that you recognise that there are objects of perception that appear to your mind called "fossils".<br /><br />My point is that my working hypothesis of a real external world of matter and energy provides the <i>best explanation</i> of why fossils -- and numerous other things -- are there at all.<br /><br />What is your idealist explanation of why god/the super-mind puts them there? Do you have any coherent explanation you can give?<br /><br />And the list goes on and on: why does god/the super-mind make some people colour blind?<br /><br />This is all about <i>inference to the best explanation</i>, which I will show in the next post that you yourself -- as an idealist -- must invoke and use too, if you want to defeat Cartesian and radical skeptics.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-20414737480134838552014-02-28T03:52:23.677-08:002014-02-28T03:52:23.677-08:00I don't understand section (5) at all. Do you ...I don't understand section (5) at all. Do you really think that I don't believe in fossils? I don't see how this follows at all.<br /><br />Are you sure that you're not reading your prejudices against fundamentalist religion into this discussion?Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-30980899590839521302014-02-27T12:37:20.505-08:002014-02-27T12:37:20.505-08:00"The materialist explanation is not based o i...<i>"The materialist explanation is not based o induction or logical reasoning.</i><br /><br />But, Philip, that is utterly untrue: the standard argument for an external world is a straightforward inference to the best explanation/abduction, and I have shown in section (5) above that realist materialist science does indeed provide the best explanation.<br /><br />You can split hairs by arguing over the exact logical classification of inference to the best explanation, but it is either (1) an inductive argument as legitimate as your argument by analogy or (2) a legitimate (non-deductive) third category of argument that nevertheless is in the same general class as induction in that it yields probable truth.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-64011867847191576672014-02-27T09:15:32.877-08:002014-02-27T09:15:32.877-08:00The idealist explanation derives from induction an...The idealist explanation derives from induction and analogical reasoning. Similar to the argument that other finite minds exist in other bodies -- but with one more layer of abstraction.<br /><br />The materialist explanation is not based o induction or logical reasoning. It is purely mystical.Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-13182336732921206782014-02-27T08:48:15.356-08:002014-02-27T08:48:15.356-08:00["Materialists are mystics because we can onl...<i>["Materialists are mystics because we can only account for things in terms of our minds"] is not a summary of my argument.</i><br /><br />Okay.<br /><br /><i>"I can examine what constitutes the entire world that I know — that is, the world of ideas and minds — and I can divide the ideas into two groups: (1) ideas over which I have control (imaginations etc.) and (2) ideas over which I have no control (perceptions). ... So, I can say that since all that I experience are ideas and minds then all that must exist are ideas and minds — this is an empiricist position.</i><br /><br />Go on...Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-59978173297207023032014-02-27T08:31:09.993-08:002014-02-27T08:31:09.993-08:00"Materialists are mystics because we can only..."Materialists are mystics because we can only account for things in terms of our minds. Idealists are mystics because we cannot account for a mind beneath the objects of our accounting."<br /><br />That is not a summary of my argument. I suspect that you have not understood it. And I have repeated it three times. So I suspect that will not understand it if I repeat it again.Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-33433698254883080422014-02-27T08:28:02.079-08:002014-02-27T08:28:02.079-08:00So we're right back where we started, with eve...So we're right back where we started, with everyone suspecting the other of mysticism, whether by dint of positing an overmind or a mind-independent reality. <br /><br />Materialists are mystics because we can only account for things in terms of our minds. Idealists are mystics because we cannot account for a mind beneath the objects of our accounting. <br /><br />Materialists are idealists with less theism. Idealists are materialists reconciled with theism. Teleology is a category of causality is a category of perhaps God's teleology, if we do the logical and decidedly not mystic thing and accept the existence of a God.<br /><br />So... good game, I guess.<br /><br />I mean, I could TRY to point out that it's not so much heartily affirmed faith in matter but rather doubt about the existence of a deity that motivates materialists such as myself -- the difference between the stronger "I DO believe there is NO God" and the weaker "I doubt there is God." This alone, I would think, should suffice to refute charges of blind mysticism and dogmatism. But no, apparently this should mean that I must logically become a full-on Pyrrhonist or something.<br /><br />Oh well. "Hail Eris."<br /><br />(P.S. to Phil: If you are so inclined to have a peek, I left another response in the previous discussion, which restates a point that I think warrants consideration!)Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-58893167076007867402014-02-27T07:28:03.634-08:002014-02-27T07:28:03.634-08:00Response:
http://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.co...Response:<br /><br />http://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/the-mystery-of-matter-a-response-to-lord-keynes-on-berkeleys-idealism/Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com