/lit/ - Literature

https://www.routledge.com/Idealism-The-History-of-a-Philosophy/Dunham-Grant-Watson/p/book/9781315711447

This is a good history of idealism with a bit of a focus on how idealism has related to and developed on scientific theories.

>>20339445
Looks good. Do you know anything about the authors?

>>20339284
There is a nuanced difference between panpyschism and idealism also.
I would say panpsychism is more correct.

>>20340177
rocks are not conscious, you fucking retard

>>20340181
There is a kind of internal mental life of matter, which can coalesce itself into certain material forms of varying complexity. All complex adaptive systems have a degree of consciousness.

>>20340181
Is someone who you ask for the time and that doesn't respond to you not conscious? Are you not conscious if asleep? Is your awareness of the attributes of a rock not conscious?

sublime object of ideology by zizek

>>20340181
>think of a rock
>thought of rock doesn't think itself
>therefore thought of rock isn't a thought
?

>>20340193
a plain rock
is
not
conscious

you have to be kinda voodoo mystical retard aussie to believe that automatons which react to stimuli without some kind of thinking happening in between are not conscious
your plants are not conscious
ants are somewhat conscious since they have a considerable number of neurons and not just deterministically bend toward light

>>20340211
The rock can come from consciousness even if not displaying it, and your observations of a part of someones mind are not grounds to judge the whole source.

>>20340211
Rocks lack metacognitive awareness, but they have a rudimentary form of consciousness/qualia.
>ants are somewhat conscious since they have a considerable number of neurons
Higher-order representations are created for minimizing "free energy principle", which does not require nervous system, and this indicates a degree of consciousness. Matter/energy fulfill the free energy principle, since they constitute a complex adaptive system, therefore the Universe is conscious.

>>20340211
>you have to be kinda voodoo mystical retard aussie to believe that automatons which react to stimuli without some kind of thinking happening in between are not conscious
>your plants are not conscious
>ants are somewhat conscious since they have a considerable number of neurons and not just deterministically bend toward light
All of those are made of the same matter, which we can say comes from a "Brahman" for simplicity's sake. The "ants" as individuals just dependently "posses" the matter to utilize it through some ineffable metacognitive process that is too esoteric for mere mortals but I digress. Positing that there are 2 worlds, a conscious world and an unconscious world where the conscious for some absurd reason has to depend on the unconscious one will always be silly.

>>20340199
>Are you not conscious if asleep?
Nope

>>20340227
>free energy principle
Unnecessary, pseudo-matter ("idea" or consciousness we perceive as matter) existing does not mean it is the only way pseudo-matter can exist, nor that any of it's behaviors are fundamental.

>>20340177
Goddamn you are fucking dumb.

>>20340256
Works in my dreams. Try doing more meditation
>source?
My dreams retard

>>20340265
All the matter we see in this world fulfill "free energy principle", which indicates we can infer all matter is conscious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_principle
>>20340266
You're a piece of shit. Slit your throat.

>>20340282
>All the matter we see in this world fulfill "free energy principle", which indicates we can infer all matter is conscious:
All the matter/energy we see in this world follow "free energy principle", which indicates we can infer all matter/energy is conscious to varying degrees:***
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_principle

>>20340256
You may have either really poor conceptions of what awareness and consciousness is or might not have even bothered paying even the slightest bit of attention to your sleeps.

>>20340199
>Is someone who you ask for the time and that doesn't respond to you not conscious?
He was conscious of the question but not aware of it.
>Are you not conscious if asleep?
In a modified mixed state which varies between full unconsciousness and consciousness of imaginative content. Consciousness is still responsive in a latent mode in sleep, which you can easily observe by shouting loudly in the ear of someone who sleeps. They wake up.
>Is your awareness of the attributes of a rock not conscious?
I can be either conscious of the attributes of the rocks through its perception, or conscious and aware of those attributes because I am intentionally positioned toward them. In both cases the rock doesn't need to be anything else than itself, a dumb rock with no mind and no consciousness, for it to happen.
>>20340213
>The rock can come from consciousness even if not displaying it, and your observations of a part of someones mind are not grounds to judge the whole source.
Yes it is. Every mind is a particular instance of Pure Consciousness, and we are all inter-subjectively linked, just not in the mystical bullshit way you asiatic minds wants us to believe.

>>20340288
Define consciousness

>>20340256
I mean, you are conscious when you sleep, just a modified state of consciousness, but why the fuck are we comparing sleep, a state which no non-living beings have ever been in, to being a fucking mineral?

>>20340349
Check out Diderot's D’Alembert’s Dream.
Diderot made specific arguments regarding the issue of alive and dead matter, and ultimately comes to a position where everything is alive in some sense, but its stronger, more overt emotional and
intellectual capabilities can only come to the fore in specific structural interplay between "atoms" of matter - basically a nuanced panpsychist-vitalist-materialist position.
Basically, consciousness, emotion, thought, alive matter and dead matter, all need to be clearly looked into to see how these concepts relate to one another, as well as how they appear in the world.
This can become especially tricky for materialists regarding plants and crystals, as many definitions for some of these (consciousness, etc.) will include one or both of these in their sphere of applicability.

>>20340177
not sure what this entails but I tend to think most objects we perceive are bundles of energy but our eyes perceive something physical because the forces of positive and negative energy give off the impression of something physical but beyond that its just not "there"

>>20340323
>He was conscious of the question but not aware of it.
And how do you know the supposed Brahman isn't responding because he doesn't care?
>In a modified mixed state which varies between full unconsciousness and consciousness
>full unconsciousness
Doesn't exist. Not being sentient and self aware doesn't make someone not conscious. Pay attention when you go to bed.
>I can be either conscious of the attributes of the rocks through its perception, or conscious and aware of those attributes because I am intentionally positioned toward them. In both cases the rock doesn't need to be anything else than itself, a dumb rock with no mind and no consciousness, for it to happen.
So why would, in a dimension that is not truly atomic but rather just a field (or series of fields) with disturbances, an object (rock) be fundamentally different than a cow? Wouldn't it just point to a supposed Brahman's "thought" that doesn't reciprocate you in a sapient manner?

>>20340323
>>The rock can come from consciousness even if not displaying it, and your observations of a part of someones mind are not grounds to judge the whole source.
>Yes it is. Every mind is a particular instance of Pure Consciousness, and we are all inter-subjectively linked, just not in the mystical bullshit way you asiatic minds wants us to believe.
Did you even read what you're replying to?
>universe is not conscious
>yes it is because you are observing only a part of it that isn't responding and think it isn't conscious
>no because muh new age everyone is connected stuff

>>20340349
Check out Diderot's D’Alembert’s Dream.
Diderot made specific arguments regarding the issue of alive and dead matter, and ultimately comes to a position where everything is alive in some sense, but its stronger, more overt emotional and intellectual capabilities can only come to the fore in specific structural interplay between "atoms" of matter - basically a nuanced panpsychist-vitalist-materialist position.
Basically, consciousness, emotion, thought, alive matter and dead matter, all need to be clearly looked into to see how these concepts relate to one another, as well as how they appear in the world.
This can become especially tricky for materialists regarding plants and crystals, as many definitions for some of these (consciousness, etc.) will include one or both of these in their sphere of applicability.

(reposted due to poor formatting before)

>>20340378
>bundles of energy
What is energy?

>>20340378
I think if you place the world/environment above all things as a first cause, you negate God and thus negate yourself
>>20340415
the most primal substance of existence, beyond atoms, fuck Democritus.

>>20340419
>primal substance of existence
Where do they come from, where do they go? Are they limited and conserved? Are individuals energy?

Acosmism is obviously wrong. That's another thing that separates panpsychism and idealism. Idealism can be acosmist whereas panpsychist cannot.

>>20340429
>Where do they come from, where do they go?
where did you come from Cotton Eye Joe?

but seriously, everything is energy. without energy, there is no existence. period.

>>20340439
>without energy
What if instead of "existing" I just imagined a consistent reality with rules and ideas, and pretend it is energy? How would I differentiate between the real thing and the fake?

>>20339284
>the history of idealism in philosophy?
A long time ago, in a Germany far far away, there was a Hegel. And he had a religious sect of a few likeminded fellas named Fichte, Schelling, etc. They all believed, that you are a product of some dog dreaming you up.
But then the 20th century came. And then came the 21st century. And no one cares anymore what these clowns thought. For they were absolutely parochial and unimportant.

>>20340439
Panpsychism: All energy is conscious.
Idealism: All energy exists as a projection of the mind.

>>20340446
Unironically, this Frenchie was more in the right direction than the German idealists.

>>20340444
rules and ideas aren't energy, they're rules and ideas. apples and oranges, etc
>>20340449
that would imply the desk I'm typing on is a living thing so no. or the chair I have my ass on has a mind.

>>20340446
>And no one cares anymore what these clowns thought
But we do care what the biggest clown thinks, that being the Demiurge, whose thoughts shape our every day here on Earth as if it holds any meaning beyond the thoughts cessation, and whom we end up obsessing over like /v/ does over a twitter screencap.

>>20340449
is scat porn conscious?
is poo conscious?
is semen mixed with poo conscious?
is 1 year old dried out semen conscious?
which is more conscious, 2 year old dried out semen or 1 year old dried out semen?
is black semen more conscious than aussie semen?

your theories are untestable and ridiculous and you should consider thinking harder

>>20340457
How does the mind differentiate between energy and non energy though?
>that would imply the desk I'm typing on is a living thing so no
But it still stems from something conscious, being the point. Your individual thoughts aren't conscious but they are consciousness and stem from it.

>>20340459
Those are ideas stemming from your consciousness you degenerate. But I would not imply you are not conscious, just retarded.

>>20340374
> Check [random ramblings of a mandman]
>>20340374
>This can become especially tricky for materialists regarding plants and crystals,
Its tricky for anyone with a goddamn reason. Its a particular indictment of your position that even materialists have the presence of mind to realize its wrong.
>And how do you know the supposed Brahman isn't responding because he doesn't care?
Because of the deep inter-subjective nature of consciousness. We lean how to be conscious by being exposed to other consciousnesses and non-consciousnesses, and we learn how other consciousnesses and non-consciousness are by ourselves being conscious. I know that there is a difference between being conscious and being attentive to your surroundings. I have myself operated modification of the state of my consciousness in which my awareness was fully turned toward internal, inactual, fictive content and which stopped me from being responsive to all the other content of my actual consciousness (daydreaming, deep thinking, being lost in thoughts, etc...). I also know that even in those states, a simple modification of my consciousness is always capable of repositioning me toward actual content. If you pinch me while I'm daydreaming I don't have a choice to keep on daydreaming.
>Doesn't exist.
It does. Even now in waking time you have micro-moments of unconsciousness. Doesn't really matter tho, for the matter at hand.
>So why would, in a dimension that is not truly atomic but rather just a field (or series of fields) with disturbances,
The fuck is this mongoloid speak? The mind is not a different dimension, it is not in a different dimension, please explain to me in very specific mathematical terms what the fuck is the relationship between the mind and transformations on platonic solids in higher dimensions? If you can't, shut the fuck up with this retardation.

>>20340462
>How does the mind differentiate between energy and non energy though?
through gaps between things, like thin air
>But it still stems from something conscious, being the point. Your individual thoughts aren't conscious but they are consciousness and stem from it.
then I would say that only living things are conscious, like plants, animals and humans

Oh shit, an actual schizo joined in

>>20340404
>>no because muh new age everyone is connected stuff
Kill yourself you illiterate cunt.

>>20340473
I literally can't understand what the fuck you're saying so have a (You) to inspire you to rewrite it.

>>20340457
>>20340459
All matter/energy is conscious, due to minimizing free energy, but only organisms can have metacognitive awareness which involves being aware of the higher-order representation.

>>20340489
how do you know nature isn't conscious?

>>20340498
Nature is conscious.
The Earth is obviously an organism.

>>20340484
> I can't understand what you write
> But I'm supposed to understand
">>20340392
>So why would, in a dimension that is not truly atomic but rather just a field (or series of fields) with disturbances, an object (rock) be fundamentally different than a cow? Wouldn't it just point to a supposed Brahman's "thought" that doesn't reciprocate you in a sapient manner?"

>>20340498
all things that are conscious must have a biological imperative, but energy is everywhere, either constructed by mankind or a biological organism

>>20340476
>through gaps between things, like thin air
Physical space/spacetime is, by all notions, "limited" but it is still expanding. I would not give it any special characteristic that cannot be discerned and mental. Energy in the atomic, quantitative notion is just consistency of field disturbance. What makes energy more special than the field?

>>20340501
not obviously

>>20340508
because atoms can be broken down further than what pre-Socratics like Democritus assumed

>>20340502
>>So why would, in a dimension that is not truly atomic but rather just a field (or series of fields) with disturbances, an object (rock) be fundamentally different than a cow? Wouldn't it just point to a supposed Brahman's "thought" that doesn't reciprocate you in a sapient manner?"
Reality isn't actually atomic, it's a giant field with disturbances. What makes a cow more special than a rock to be conscious in terms of matter? The post I replied to was making an implication that consciousness arises from the matter, thus a rock is not conscious, I implied that the necessitated consciousness of an individual is not truly dependent on the matter rather that the material world is itself, an individual. What are the exact mechanisms that lead to the codependence of the weak individual on the material world individual? I don't know.

>>20340513
Yes but those broken down atoms are still just disturbances of a field. What makes the disturbance more fundamental than the field? Shouldn't physical reality, in a philosophical discussion be seen as a field instead of as particles or energy?

>>20340489
>All matter/energy is conscious, due to minimizing free energy
Explain this specifically, with the appropriate maths and physics , please.

>>20340537
All living systems possess a kind of (high-level/abstract) model/representation that's involved in adapting to continue its existence, and these living systems and their environments become statistical models of each other over time. To quote from a website: "this means actively reducing the uncertainty or entropy of their Bayesian beliefs about what caused their sensory observations, either by changing the statistical models they embody, or by sampling the sensory observations expected under those models. For environments, this means accumulating traces of meaningful, goal-directed activity driven by their denizens. Under this view, living systems (and, implicitly, their environments), are fundamentally in the game of reducing sensory uncertainty and maximizing evidence for their own existence."
Increases in degree of complexity of adaptive systems correlate with more effective means of reducing free energy and maximizing marginal likelihood.
It is somewhat similar to how deep learning models minimize "loss function" by enforcing correspondence between feature maps (X, independent variable) and expected labels (Y, dependent variable) for forecasting future trends or classification.

https://youtu.be/NIu_dJGyIQI

The model at the highest level of representation also includes itself, which also includes its own negation.
Every complex adaptive system from coral reef to ecosystems are like this, not just the human brain. This would lead more to a kind of panpsychism or vitalism rather than idealism or physicalism.
Matter/energy constitute a complex adaptive system as many people argue, which means they're conscious (i.e., they have a high-level model).

>>20340523
>Reality isn't actually atomic, it's a giant field with disturbances.
We aren't micro-scale entities, and no non-local-scale entities have ever displayed any of the characteristics we associate with consciousness. I mean, fairyflies kinda are at a different scale, but they are still very close to us relatively.

>>20340536
they're still fundamental, moreso than atoms as the basical building blocks of reality, no energy = no atoms = no existence.

>>20340552
>All living systems possess a kind of (high-level/abstract) model/representation that's involved in adapting to continue its existence
Doubtful already.
>To quote from a website
lmao
> [quoted stuff] That's just PPM (Predictive Processing Model], which *is* the most accurate current general model of cognitive structuration we have. It's just a particular structural/functional model tho, it has nothing mystical about it. Our nervous system organizes its actions based on information maps it creates of different inputs, and constantly runs predictions and comparisons between actual inputs and the predictions. This is a particularly strong model since it means that inputs leading to outputs will always cause new inputs, and that neither inputs nor outputs have a chronological priority. This resolves one of the biggest problems of general cognitive theories based on reduction of errors, which was that they usually implied all living beings should seek absolute sensory deprivation and let themselves die (so as to produce the least amount of errors).
>The model at the highest level of representation also includes itself, which also includes its own negation.
Mongoloid speak.
>Every complex adaptive system from coral reef to ecosystems are like this, not just the human brain.
You have it the wrong way. Reducing free energy, or whatever, is a physical process available to any physical being. That we share its use between entities doesn't mean we share properties beyond being both physical.

>>20340635
>Doubtful already.
It's done via modeling it through a Markov blanket that tries to minimize the difference between their model of the world and their sense and associated perception.
>it has nothing mystical about it.
It's just soulless physicalists/materialists avoiding the panpsychist/mystical implications of their theory.
>Mongoloid speak.
The model at the highest level includes itself, so naturally the negation exists.
> Reducing free energy, or whatever, is a physical process available to any physical being. That we share its use between entities doesn't mean we share properties beyond being both physical.
I think energy/matter meets the criteria of "the free energy principle" in adapting to continue its existence, it is also in the highest level of abstraction a model which also includes its continued failure to exist, of course we only see the "continuing to exist" mode.
The existence of the model, involved in the process of minimizing free energy principle, indicates something like panpsychism, vitalism, pantheism, or whatever. A mysterious irradiance permeates everything.

>>20340635
And to be clear, this doesn't male me a materialist. Consciousness is a flux made possible by the concreteness of various ontological strata, irrespective of their reality.
> The purely physical
> The cognitive (which corresponds to what Freud mistook for the unconscious, and which is an informational dynamic process which does include some perceptive conscious processes such as subvocalization)
> The ideal (which is the intentional correlate of both the unconscious processes and the actuality/inactuality of their content)
> The transcendental, which is what we can learn once we have isolated all empirical content away from our consciousness. This is were we learn that all consciousnesses exists within their own unconstituted time.

>>20340688
>It's just soulless physicalists/materialists avoiding the panpsychist/mystical implications of their theory.
> Scientist (incorrectly) makes metaphysical claims based on empirically obtained data
> Mystics (correctly) : "NO YOU CANT DO THAT!"
> Scientist (correctly) produces a model of informational transformation which can explain multiple cognitive systems we have empirically observed and refrain from making larger claims about its relation to higher-degree conscious activity
> Mystics (incorrectly) "BUT WHY ARENT YOU MAKING METAPHYSICAL CLAIMS!?!"
Its so tiring.

>>20340753
In English doc?

>>20340753
>which can explain multiple cognitive systems
It's supposed to explain complex adaptive systems. Free energy principle can be applied to an ecological context also.
I'm just arguing it has panpsychist implications. It's similar to Christof Koch arguing Integrated information theory has panpsychist implications in his book "Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist".

>>20340760
Acquire ~30 IQ.

>9 posters

>>20340879
To be fair most people think idealism is when things are ideal, and thus never click these threads

>>20340939
No one thinks that

Read this a few months ago. Pretty comprehensive and readable (and enjoyable), if you're willing to read about British idealism in particular. It's more topically than chronologically, though; I don't know if that's a plus or minus for you.

>>20342256
Go make a thread on /v/ and ask them what they think idealism means.

>>20339284
>panentheism

>>20340211
We can't see beyond the limitation of our own consciousness to know if there is a kind of consciousness, that looks nothing like our own, in the external world. A rock is not conscious in the sense of having any human or animal attributes: cognition, willful action, planning,,memory etc. But all of the latter are just what we can observe and infer in other life forms. It is conceivable to imagine an intelligence that exists beyind these forms, but by necessity it could not be known. What Im saying is that rock could be conscious though not in the sense commonly thought. Maybe like a tiny tiny infestismal fragment of consciousness.

>>20340507
>all things that are conscious must have a biological imperative,
Where does the biological imperative originate from?

>>20340753
Muh empricism.

>>20343664
A first cause which has no time constraints or space constraints

What I'm trying to say is the universe MAY be conscious but not everything that proceeds from it is conscious

>>20340449
Oh that clarifies matters. Panpsychism is clearly wrong. I guess I'm an idealist.

>>20343530
This isn't /v/

>>20343757
But it's still 4chan, and statistically if most of your family is dumb you are also likely to be dumb.

>>20343760
Each board is specialized you low IQ moron.

>>20343764
Each board is especially retarded though

>>20343760
Not necessarily.

>>20339284
I'm trying to understand the difference between solipsism and idealism. Am I correct in saying that idealists believe that the material world exists, there is more than one consciousness and how each different consciousness has it's one interpretation of reality but this interpretation is objective to itself?

>>20343810
Idealists of all kinds believe in different things. Solipsism is just the issue of other minds or something but it applies to a material world as well. Also depends on what you mean by exists, does a chair in your dreams exist?

>>20343819
>Solipsism is just the issue of other minds or something but it applies to a material world as well
Solipsists believe that either consciousness/the mind is the only thing that can be known about reality or that consciousness IS reality and the physical world does not exist.
> Also depends on what you mean by exists, does a chair in your dreams exist?
I believe that the chair exists in my dream just as much as it exists when I'm awake. It exists as a variation of colours and possibly physical sensations when I touch it, but there's no proof of it existing externally in a material world.

>>20343810
Just because everything is an idea doesn't mean you can't have some kind of harmony between them. This issue pertains to any non determinism philosophy, such as materialist ones, having an intermediary like God or matter doesn't solve either.

Each persons reality is their own, simply confused due to the mechanisms of multi-subject interaction that is inherently unpredictable because if it was, it would actually be solipsistic. If you take reality as infinite flux-creativity you don't need to worry about moment to moment objectivity, the subjectivity-objectivity distinction goes away. Human life on Earth exists because of the ignorance of individuals who did not know the tools to arise functional sentient consciousness and did so with dependence on a "Brahman", and if you, me and the rest of humanity had accurate knowledge of reality including the principles of multi-subject interaction we would be in a more favorable reality.

What is the reason the "Brahman" doesn't talk to us? Possibly because the condition for our existence here is ignorance, and we chose a dunce planet with un intimidating metaphysics, like a dream that depends on your bed being warm and your room being dark. If disturbed, the whole system would need adjustment and would not have attracted us for dependence in the first place.

>>20343844
>Solipsism (/ˈsɒlJpsJzəm/ (listen); from Latin solus 'alone', and ipse 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist.
Meaning even in an ideal world you still need some kind of reason or proof to think that other minds exist.

>>20340096
Not really, they all read very well and honestly I forgot there were different authors for most of it. They give a balanced assessment while drawing meaningful focus on how idealism isn't antiscience as is often supposed.

>>20340438
>Acosmism is obviously wrong
why?

The biggest obstacle to idealism is the fact that our language is not designed in a way to offer words that properly indulge idealist concepts. Look up the definitions of consciousness, none of them are good enough.

>>20343628
unbacked hippie voodoo hurrdurr

>>20344740
It's okay I understand you can't understand so you reactively label any idea beyond your tiny pea brain "hippie".

>>20343690
There are (typically) two kinds of panpsychism. You sound like cosmopsychist:
>There are two ways of construing this: micropsychism and cosmopsychism. The micropsychist works within a particle-ontology interpretation of physics, and identifies basic forms of consciousness with the physical properties – mass, spin, charge, etc. – of fundamental particles. The cosmopsychist, in contrast, works within a field-ontology interpretation, and identifies fundamental forms of consciousness with universe-wide fields. According to micropsychism, the fundamental conscious subjects are particles, such as electrons and quarks. According to cosmopsychism, there is one fundamental conscious subject: the universe itself.

>>20345112
Both of those are pseudo scientific, why would the existential nature of reality and all possibility coincide with our current limited knowledge of physics?

>>20345214
You're basically saying "prove truth exists"

>>20345316
False

>>20345214
You can google for better philosophical definitions. One is top-down and the other bottom-up.
>Micropsychism – All facts – including the facts about organic consciousness – are grounded
in consciousness-involving facts at the micro-level.
>Cosmopsychism – All facts – including the facts about organic consciousness – are grounded in consciousness-involving facts concerning the universe.

>>20345214
(reposted for clarity)
You can google for better philosophical definitions. One is top-down and the other bottom-up.
>Micropsychism – All facts – including the facts about organic consciousness – are grounded in consciousness-involving facts at the micro-level.
>Cosmopsychism – All facts – including the facts about organic consciousness – are grounded in consciousness-involving facts concerning the universe.

>>20339445
Is this the only book suggestion ITT?

>>20347026
I recommend David Skrbina's Panpsychism in the West.

>>20340181
stupid nigger alert

>>20345112
Thanks. I noticed it has no major proponents according to Wikipedia. :(

>>20344740
You are the lowest IQ poster I've ever read

>>20339284
https://www.routledge.com/Cosmologies-of-the-Anthropocene-Panpsychism-Animism-and-the-Limits-of/Vetlesen/p/book/9780367545345

Anyone know if this book is good philosophy or just a bunch of hippie bullshit?

>>20347122
Cope

>>20340211
Where do you draw the line? And then tell us why.

>>20349190
Where there's a soul or not

>>20340177
You dont know what idealism OR panpsychism is

>>20343844
>Solipsists believe that either consciousness/the mind is the only thing that can be known about reality
Which is consistent which with the problem of phenomenological closure, i.e. that all that can be known, experience or perceived that is material is given to a consciousness. This applies as well to materialists, it just becomes an heuristical problem instead of an epistemological one.
>I'm trying to understand the difference between solipsism and idealism
The minimal claim of idealism is that ideas are of a completely different nature to that of material objects. This difference can be articulated in many ways, for example as an ontological dualism, as most interpret Plato did, or as a phenomenological dualism, like Husserl did.
>>20343676
>Muh empricism.
is valid when the object discussed is an empirical object, and the claims made are limited to their field of science. If you think an idealist needs to seethe when a scientist claims that water turns to ice at x instead of y temperature, you are a fucking quack.
Transcendental Idealism + Empirical Realism, if both a properly delineated, is the Truth.

>>20340177
Not really.

>>20349918
Idealism is monistic while Panpsychism is pluralistic, for one.

>>20339284
first you have to establish what idealism is, if a vague term for any philosopher that's not a materialist(most of them can fit this description if you try hard enough) or the german school developed to answer Kant's problem of the thing itself, for the second one knowing Fichte is a pretty good start

>>20350230
Panpsychism can be both pluralistic and monistic.

>>20351537
>idealism was invented by post-kantian retards
kek

>>20352061
>>idealism was invented by post-kantian retards
indeed it was, everything else is just different philosophies put together with a vague concept of the idea being more substantial than some shallow notion of phenomena

>>20350230
>Idealism is monistic
Nope
>Panpsychism is pluralistic
Its nonsense, it can be whatever it wants to be.
0/2, try again, better luck next time.

>>20345346
I doubt I'm monistic though

>>20339284
How old were you when you realized occasionalism and subjective idealism are undeniable truths?

>>20352509
I tried occasionalism, but it seems far fetched.

I'm trying to find Dualistic Cosmopsychists but only Uwe Meixner is coming up and his books are expensive and he's basically a nobody

>>20353411
wanted to add because I believe the soul/consciousness exists even after something has died

>>20352509
the older i get, the more tempting subjective idealism becomes to me. the only real objection to it is just...fuzzy feelings that *gasp* it just cant be true...right? ......right?

>>20340558
on what grounds do you claim to know of the characterisitcs of a fundamental substance? how can you definitively say that energy is the uncaused substance by which everything rlse emerges, and that energy itself is caused by something else truly fundamental?

>>20353450
how can we possibly know that everything originates in the mind and that nothing exists outside of it? is this even an accurate reprrsentation of subjective idealism? i dont know how anyone can claim to know the true nature of metaphysics given our empirical relationship with reality.

>>20340211
>t. midwit baiter

>>20340256
Look up Tibetan Sleep Yoga

>>20340349
No you're not. Can you tell how much time has passed when you wake up? No, because you weren't conscious.

>>20354502
ok riddle me this: does time exist when no one observes it?

>>20354510
Of course not

>>20354512
ok say that there's a shop, but its closed, and the clocks are the same time as the ones on the outside, does time move at the same rate if no one sees the hands or digits moving? this is provided everything is set at the very precise time (4 am outside is 4 am inside) if no one observes the hands moving, do they move?

>>20354502
That's just because you are still so intertwined with your ego that you believe it to be your true self. If you meditate enough to realise that the real 'you' exists in the bright light of awareness at your centre, you can learn to reside there and stay conscious throughout the entire sleep process.

Acosmism is true

>>20354519
>if no one observes the hands moving, do they move?
How could they move if they don't even exist?

>>20354557
Good question. Does time change at a faster or slower or not at all rate in the shop?

>>20354615
I already said time doesn't exist if no one observes it, so I don't understand your questions. How can something move faster or slower if it doesn't exist?

>>20354634
how do we know they do not exist if they are not observed?

>>20354634
Ok lets say it *might* in that situation

>>20354880
Esse est percipi

>>20354887
Parmenides came up with this actually.

>>20340193
Word salad territory. Vague objects, obscuring qualifiers.

>>20354928
Not really.

>>20339284
Faggots who confuse political and phenomenological idealism should be executed.

>>20354928
That's absurd, Parmenides couldn't possibly have known Latin.

>>20354521
I wonder what percentage of the world pop can actually enter the unmanifested. I've been trying for a few years now and it seems fucking impossible. I wanna do it before it becomes cool.