On what basis do you object to Idealism?

[Anonymous No.15386655]

Consciousness and the apparent world "out there" is accounted for. On what basis do you object to Idealism?

[Anonymous No.15386672]

>navel gazing thread

[Anonymous No.15387203]

>>15386655
it's philosophizing. that's enough. all philosophy is schizobabble.
but, if you have a proposed experiment to distinguish between idealism and whatever you think this week to be its opposite, go ahead and explain it. if no such experiment is conceivable, then there's no distinction and the entire subject is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.15387434]

>>15387203
I'm a physicalist, but this isn't a good argument.

[Anonymous No.15387479]

>>15386655
Philosophy is bullshit, and a waste of time and research funding in the modern university system. Also, most "philosophers" have very extreme and often unhinged views on social and political issues. Most of them either seem to be far-right reactionaries like Ted Kaczynski, or far-left "peace activist" conspiracy theory types like Chomsky. I don't know about you, but folks like Kaczynski and Chomsky have pretty crazy views IMO, and I have no real interest in what either of them have to say.

[Anonymous No.15387751]

>>15387203

Science can only answer questions on how the world behaves, not what it is; the latter can only be argued for on the basis of reason and clear thinking, i.e. philosophical debate.

The question of what the world is obviously important since our beliefs influence our perceptions. In relation to science, what you think the world is metaphysically directly influences the kind of behavioral models you will create.

[Anonymous No.15387764]

>>15387479
Kaczynski is a mathematician. Chomsky is a linguist.

[Anonymous No.15387769]

>>15387751
investigating anything beyond "how the world behaves" is chasing phantasms. philosophy never explained anything. it's a sterile undertaking, a haven for those not smart enough to be mathematicians, a discipline conducted entirely withing the confines of human language. it's useless.

[Anonymous No.15387770]

>>15387764
Calling Kaczynski a mathematician is like calling Chomsky a philosopher. Teddy was an artist.

[Anonymous No.15388125]

>>15387769
>>15387751
As a anon who is finishing Philosophy MA i cant agree more.
Philosophy is antropocentric interpretation of objective reallity.
>But thinking about thinking
No.. metacognition is not philosophy. Philosophy is productp of metacognition.

[Anonymous No.15388132]

>>15386655
There are outer stimuli, and they do make up a physical, consistent reality. That is what "reality" is.
Your interpretation of these stimuli is not the "objectively correct reality" - nor are our combined interpretations. It is very human-centric - on the same tier as geocentrism - to assert that you're so significant that your limited perception of stimuli is the correct one.

[Anonymous No.15388145]

>>15386655
The fact that you need sensory organs to even doubt what you experiance throws idealism into trash.

[Anonymous No.15388151]

>the universe is...le conshusness
that's woo woo silliness.

[Anonymous No.15388153]

>this thread
>/sci/ is btfo'd by their own heroes

[Anonymous No.15388162]

Unfalsifiable and therefore irrelevant to scientific understanding.

There is always another motte and bailey that idealists can retreat to, it's pointless to try and disprove the 'immaterial'.

[Anonymous No.15388167]

>>15388153
>Le ebin auteur

Not how science works.

[Anonymous No.15388199]

>>15388153
Having a belife about why something works the way it works and what it is still does not change the fact that every philosophical stance has the same weight as other. It is game of one-upmanship. Kants philosophy is briliant representation of that. Not to mentio Wittgenstein. He one-upmanshiped him self.

[Anonymous No.15388354]

>>15388151
No, it is the demonstrably unavoidable realization once a person has their own really deep NDE.
>b-b-but NDEs are dreams or hallucinations somehow
Already explicitly refuted in the literature you likely have not read on NDEs.

Here is a very persuasive argument for why NDEs are real:

https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

It emphasizes that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

>"Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."

Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison.

Or as one person quoted in pic related summarized their NDE:

>"As my soul left my body, I found myself floating in a swirling ocean of multi-colored light. At the end, I could see and feel an even brighter light pulling me toward it, and as it shined on me, I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."

Needless to say, even ultraskeptical neuroscientists are convinced by really deep NDEs. So every materialist on /sci/ would be convinced if they had a really deep NDE themselves too. Their predictable skepticism is not unique to them. We know that now.