[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 69 KB, 981x1200, 1631367183519.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21039941 No.21039941 [Reply] [Original]

has idealism been refuted by science? are there still any valid arguments left now that we have microscopes and stuff?

>> No.21040184

>>21039941
let me know when you can observe happiness, purpose, or truth under a microscope and then you can ask if science has disproven any kind of philosophy

>> No.21040234

>>21039941
You may be interested to read that Berkeley uses perception of extension through microscopes as an argument against primary qualities in his First Dialogue between Hylas and Philonous (search for "microscope").

I don't see how science could refute idealism. Science cannot show us mind or matter as substance. Even if we see particles that are invisible to the naked eye through a microscope, we are still only directly perceiving sensible qualities.

>> No.21040242

>>21039941
transcendental idealism is literally the current scientific view. eg. reality is recreated inside of our brains or at least everything that we experience

>> No.21040249

>has science refuted something outside of its scope?
Stupid question and false dichotomy. Any frogposter would have made a more insightful thread.

>> No.21040509

>>21040184
brain scans of brain chemicals

>>21040242
material observed and represented through material is still materialism

>> No.21040601

>>21039941
Science only works because scientific models that don’t work get thrown out, not because there is some noumenal world it describes. The principle of the scientific method is basically darwinian.

>> No.21040610

>>21039941
Of course not. How could any set of observations refute a global theory about all observations.

>> No.21040620
File: 80 KB, 907x1360, 61b2SE9LckL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21040620

>>21039941
>t. has not read Critique of Pure Reason
Why are so many anons like this?

>> No.21040630

>>21040509
Explain how any kind of brain scan of chemicals or neurons could be identical to the experience of red. If it was identical to it, it would itself be red, and not in space and such. Its in principle impossible to locate immaterial unextended qualities within quantitative extended materials.

>> No.21040746

>>21040630
You are arguing under the wrong assumption that the person you're talking to is a conscious being. He's a p-zombie though. P-zombies do not have subjective experience.

>> No.21040878

>>21040630
using brain scans to reconstruct the visuals has been happening for a while, the images aren't 1 to1 but that's a problem with the technology being in tis infancy
don't tell me you also believe that cloning is impossible because you can't reproduce a soul

>> No.21040881

>>21040509
Even if we could prove with 100% accuracy that certain brain stimulation produced certain qualia/subjective experience, it still wouldn't prove why such experiences correlate/arise out of matter. Chemical reactions in laboratories don't produce subjective experience (as far as we know) so why do chemical reactions/neural stimulation in the brain produce subjective experience?

>> No.21040889

>>21040881
because they happen in the brain which is an organ made out of matter processing material impulses

>> No.21040908

>>21040878
It reconstructs 1s and 0s and outputs them as pixels, it doesn’t reconstruct the qualitative experience of the color.

>> No.21040911

>>21040746
He should at least be able to understand the concept of subjective experience and see the logic that if they do exist, they cannot be reducible to matter and would be self-verifying to the person who has them.

>> No.21040923

>>21040878
Even if you could tell with 100% accuracy what somebody was experiencing from the state of their brain that would only prove that changing the brain causes changes in subjective experiences and that the two correspond, but it could never prove that subjective experiences resides in matter.

>> No.21040926

>>21039941
Science is not philosophy. There are many scientists who have been philosophers and vice versa, naturally. However, science concerns the "how" of events, which is not to be confused with the "why" of them. Much as an event's cause is not synonymous with its purpose, science is not synonymous with philosophy.

Science cannot refute philosophy (and vice versa) any moreso than sound can refute taste. The premise of the question is flawed.

>> No.21040932

>>21040923
Even Daniel Dennet believes this, you can't serious doubt that experience exists at least as epiphenomenon.

>> No.21040939

>>21040926
You've got it wrong, Philosophy is Transcendental, it deals not with what is experienced but the form, the greater framework, that experience is possible in at all.

>> No.21040951

>>21040911
>He should at least be able to understand the concept of subjective experience
Why should he, if he never experienced it and you can't show it to him? He's like a blind man who denies the existence of color. There's nothing you can do.

>> No.21040957

>>21040951
The concept of a non-physical thing is perfectly understandable at least in a negative sense if you understand what a physical thing is. You should at least be able to understand what follows from something being non-extended.

>> No.21040958

>>21039941
>has idealism been refuted by science?
Of course no. Science presupposes logic and mathematics, they're not empirically provable.

>> No.21040963

>>21040939
Are you implying that science is a subset of philosophy?

>> No.21040964

>>21040958
Both are just technical disciplines that don't have a claim to truth, just usefulness. You can choose your axioms however you like, there are tons of different systems of logic and mathematics, whatever is useful is fine. Non-Euclidean geometry makes no sense in any intuitive way but its useful to physics so we've had to accept the nonsensical axioms of it.

>> No.21040965

>>21040957
The concept of a non-physical thing is /x/ nonsense and has been debunked by science.

>> No.21040970

>>21040908
how do you know this if you can't see the pixels?

>> No.21040976

>>21040965
It's not possible to debunk a concept.

>> No.21040978

>>21040965
Even if you don't think any non-physical thing exists you can understand what the concept entails and doesn't entail and certainly cannot claim its a logical contradiction that is a priori impossible.

>> No.21040984

>>21040923
can you prove that this "subjective experience" differs in any way from what has been determined with 100% accuracy to be what that somebody is experiencing

>> No.21040988

Physical things don't exist. Only mental stuff does. How do I know? Because """"space""" is a logical contradiction. The different points in space are identical, 10 square feet here is identical in every way 10 square feet across the universe, thus according to the logical law of identity, having no differences (when considered in abstraction form the rest of space) they are the same thing. Therefore, all points in space are the same, and since physical substance is supposedly extended across space, all physical substance is a logical contradiction since there is only one point in space, and all other points are completely conceptually identical to it, and thus, according to basic logic, the same point, unless you can name a conceptual difference between them.

>> No.21041001

>>21040984
I literally conceded the point that they always coincide, so this line of argument is irrelevant. No, I can't offer proof that a private sensation differs from a publicly exhibited image. Duh. That's a methodological problem with sensations that makes statements about them unverifiable for anybody but the individual experiencing them, but unless you're a retarded verificationist, that does not entail eliminating them ontologically.

>> No.21041004

>>21040988
except that the 10 square feet are in a different location
viewed in abstraction of course things lose their distinction because that's what abstraction is but at this point you are arguing that the same words mean the same thing

>> No.21041015

>>21041001
so in other words the subjective experience is merely another term for the same thing as you can supply no difference between them meaning you can remove it without losing anything, thus it does not exist and amounts to a semantic trick

>> No.21041019

>>21041004
That's only a relational property, a space gains it location by relations to other points in space, but there cannot be any such relations, as there is only one point of space. Even if I granted this relation, then I could always ask more questions. How is the entire space (the whole universe) determined? Where is it? It better have a position relative to some other, greater space or else you've explained nothing at all, because the whole is left in a non-location, undetermined, and thus the parts only have relative positions relative to each other. You're left with either an arbitrary cut off that explains nothing or an infinite regress to ever greater spaces. This is solved by denying the existence of Space. It simply doesn't exist.

>> No.21041038

>>21041015
Rephrase the first part of your sentence.

>you can remove it without losing anything
Without losing anything but the thing you removed, yes, retard. That's how all non-causally active objects work. Right now, nothing at all changes in our observable universe changes if you removed something outside of it (gravity travels at a certain speed, so they don't affect anything yet) but that isn't a reason to assume that nothing outside the observable universe exists, unless, again, you are a retarded verificationist.

>> No.21041044

>>21041019
>but there cannot be any such relations, as there is only one point of space
you base this on your abstraction, not the concrete reality of space
the universe simply marks the sum of all locations, the locations relate to each other but the universe doesn't since it contains them and since it contains them it isn't nothing

>> No.21041056

>>21041044
The different points in space are a prerequisite for spatial relations, I cannot think of a spatial relation without already having multiple points in space, so spatial relations (locations) can't explain why there are multiple points in space.

>> No.21041062

>>21041038
>but the thing you removed
except you already said they 100% coincide, if they coincide 100% there is nothing left over that would be lost
if you have a rubber duck but call it a flarm because it has properties that distinguish it from being just another rubber duck without being able to tell me what those properties are you just have a rubber duck, just like trannies aren't women just because they feel like women without being able to define what a woman is without defining it as feeling like a woman
it's a complete phantom

>> No.21041069
File: 29 KB, 331x500, 41C3gZRqSVL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21041069

>>21039941
This is a scientific argument for idealism. There are others.

>> No.21041074

>>21041056
spatial relations exist because of the multitude of spatial relations, what you are thinking about is a problem of time but if at least two locations are created at the same time both have their spatial relation immediately actualized

>> No.21041084

>>21041062
There are two completely separate objects here, you're putting words into my mouth with nonsense about properties. It is logically possible to think of a sense datum without thinking of a brain. It is logically possible to think of a brain without thinking of sense datum. You can, purely logically, although perhaps not causally (we can't know) eliminate one without the elimination of the other logically following. Even if the two correspond because of some causal relation, both of them exist and are thinkable without logic forcing me to think the other - if two thinks can be thought separately, they are logically at least, different objects - and no causal relations that might make the existence of one dependent on the other are enough to prove that wrong.

>> No.21041088

>>21040878
lol no it hasn't. Show me one example of someone using a brain scan to generate an image of a visual field.

>> No.21041091

>>21041074
I'm afraid time doesn't exist either, because all the points in time are identical as well.

>> No.21041133

>>21041084
>It is logically possible to think of a sense datum without thinking of a brain
it isn't because you would be trying to imagine reality but since you claim that reality is only experienced subjectively you would now be lacking the very thing that creates subjective experience, thus you do not have any grounds to imagine any kind of reality without your brain
otherwise you would be agreeing with me in saying that material reality alone is producing the subjective experience as such

>> No.21041140

>>21041088
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsjDnYxJ0bo
this was a decade ago, I also remember a video of a cats visual image being recreated

>> No.21041141

>>21041133
What the fuck are you talking about. I'm making a point about the conceptual separability of the two terms. Even if I was dead or couldn't experience anything or didn't have a brain, that point would be logically true as long as the terms maintained their meanings.

>> No.21041154

>>21041133
Also I never once disputed that material reality may very well CAUSALLY produce subjective experience, my point is that doesn't mean that subjective experience is material or non-existent.

>> No.21041164

>>21041141
>I'm making a point about the conceptual separability of the two terms
you only think you do but it's logically impossible to do so in the first case at the very least
you only know the world through your brain, thus you can't imagine a world without an observer, you are imagining something, sure, but it is still the world that you know through your filtered, idealist conception
read schopenhauer's critique of kant if you want to know more

>> No.21041177

>>21041154
if you concede that material reality is alone responsible for producing subjective reality you are disagreeing with idealism and I don't see why you are arguing with me
if all the input is congruent with the outcome there is no difference between the causal objective reality and the perceived subjective reality

>> No.21041178

>>21039941
No, science isn't philosophy.

>> No.21041182

>>21041164
This argument is bad. Its like saying you can't imagine the world in which you are dead because in that world, you'd be dead and unable to imagine anything. You are confusing the conditions of the instantiation of concepts with the conditions of their validity. Neither Schopenhauer nor Kant thinks concepts, in the sense of problematically abstractly conceiving of hings are mediated by anything - our experience is mediated by space, time and the categories, but we can very well abstractly think of things in abstraction from those things.

>> No.21041185

>>21041177
I'm a dualist ontologically if not causally. You seem to be unable to understand the difference.

>> No.21041209

>>21041182
in imagining the world were you are dead you are still imagining the world as seen through what you know consciously, as if through consciousness of others so to speak, try to imagine a reality were nobody ever lived instead
even in abstraction you only imagine the filtered qualities of the sense data since that's the only grasp on the object available to you, you can't break through to the thing in itself unless reality were entirely material and objective

>> No.21041220

>>21040963
profane science is the material offshoot of sacred science, which is philosophical, so yes.

>> No.21041221

>>21041185
you don't either if you have nothing to constitute the dual part of duality besides wanting to have that opinion

>> No.21041278

>>21040964
>Both are just technical disciplines that don't have a claim to truth
What has more claim to objective universal truths than math? What is Pi contingent on?
>just usefulness
Lol, almost all of math is pretty useless.
>You can choose your axioms however you like
Well, you can't strictly speaking. But axioms aren't prior to notions they represent anyway. Formulating Peano axioms in ZFC language doesn't reveal anything about numbers.
> there are tons of different systems of logic and mathematics, whatever is useful is fine
So what? All those systems are universally true and do no invalidate each other.
> Non-Euclidean geometry makes no sense in any intuitive way
Intuition comes with experience, if you work long enough, you develop intuition for hyperpbolic and projective geometry, nothing's extraordinary about that.
>but its useful to physics so we've had to accept the nonsensical axioms of it
That's not why we had to accept those "nonsensical" axioms, they were accepted long ago they found application in physics.

>> No.21041325

>>21039941
I'm still skeptical on the matter but Bernardo Kastrup's work is interesting if you want a modern scientific refutation of physicalism and explication of what he calls analytic idealism, which as far as I can tell is more or less a modern formulation of advaita vedanta.
>Analytic Idealism is a theory of the nature of reality that maintains that the universe is experiential in essence. That does not mean that reality is in your or our individual minds alone, but instead in a spatially unbound, transpersonal field of subjectivity of which we are segments. Analytic Idealism is one particular formulation of Idealism, which is based on and motivated by post-enlightenment values such as conceptual parsimony, coherence, internal logical consistency, explanatory power and empirical adequacy. It’s a formulation that will appeal to intellectually hard-nosed, left-brained, science-oriented people
>https://www.essentiafoundation.org/analytic-idealism-course/
He has many books and interviews on youtube too.

>> No.21041403

>>21041209
You are confusing, as Kant and Schopenhauer warned against, imagining in the sense of intuitively exhibiting and imagining in the sense of abstractly conceiving.

>> No.21041407

Nagel's Bat.

>> No.21042159

>>21040932
>Daniel Dennet
That's the best you have?
>you can't serious doubt-
Many people do