Bernardo Kastrup Analytic Idealism
https://www.essentiafoundation.org/analy...
Thoughts?
I think he stands head and shoulders above all thes
Where do these ideas and concepts come from? They come from our brains, which are in the material world. They cannot exist independently of material reality
I think most of what you say is begging the question, this being an example. Kastrup does not deny that there's something real "out there" with which our perceptions and measurements correlate. But he maintains that our perceptions and models are like the dials on our dashboard and the nature of what's "out there" is not like the dials on our dashboard.
I challenge you to present an accurate summary of Kastrup's Analytical Idealism. If you are unable then you are arguing against it sight unseen. Simply dismissing it as "laughable" is not an argument.
PairTheBoard
I think most of what you say is begging the question, this being an example. Kastrup does not deny that there's something real "out there" with which our perceptions and measurements correlate. But he maintains that our perceptions and models are like the dials on our dashboard and the nature of what's "out there" is not like the dials on our dashboard.
I challenge you to present an accurate summary of Kastrup's Analytical Idealism. If you are unable then you are arguing against it sight unseen.
If the concept in play is as simple as 'the real world differs from our sense data' then cool, this is obviously true to any 10 ear old seeing an optical illusion for the first time. The issue I have is when this strays into 'therefore reality is only a mental construct'.
I have neither the inclination nor patience to put any more time into this concept. Much like free will, or god, this is philosophical masturbation - fun, but with no useful end product. I'm a communist, which means I like to spend my time on material matters. I'm happy to chalk this up as a loss.
If the concept in play is as simple as 'the real world differs from our sense data' then cool, this is obviously true to any 10 ear old seeing an optical illusion for the first time. The issue I have is when this strays into 'therefore reality is only a mental construct'.
I have neither the inclination nor patience to put any more time into this concept. Much like free will, or god, this is philosophical masturbation - fun, but with no useful end product. I'm a communist, which means I like to s
Sound is created by the brain, smell is created by the brain, sights are created by the brain, the feeling of being solid is created by the brain ... what am I forgetting ... taste is created by the brain. What we call reality is a mental construct. It's all a conversion factor of the brain that interprets and creates the experience out of the ether/quantum foam. Psychology 101 calls this brain function "transduction": converting incoming sensory data via electrical impulses into perceptions. All the phenomenon that compose our model of reality exist in the brain and in the brain only (at least in the form in which they interpret them). So goes the story, as Kastrup is fond of writing. Idealists are playing off this setup with their speculations.
Sulfur molecules don't have any smell until they get in the brain (where they still don't, actually), but where the smell is created/transduced/converted into a perception. If all of "reality" is like this, it does call it into question along the lines that early quantum mechanics physicists warned. Versions of idealism grow out of this and are not laughable.
Kastrup's model in "Nutshell" puts forward that ultimately one quantum field will be discovered, and that it is a consciousness/subjective experience field. All the things we call the physical world are just ideas and perceptions within that field, with each individual consciousness being a subset/"alter" of that grand field. Similar to dreams: all that is needed to create the whole seeming space-time experience is consciousness. That's proven ... right? And this model extrapolates it to the nature of reality in toto. (Side point: since we know consciousness can play this role in dreams, what right do we have to insist that is ridiculous as a metaphysics for the whole shebang?)
And so each point of consciousness is an excitation of that grand C-field, and all that is learned and experienced in those local points of C are contained within the larger (actually "One") field. The 1-Field (my term).
"Nature is a field of subjectivity, all mentation" ... goes the theory. This accounts for a lot and also sidesteps the (mainly bogus?) "hard problem of consciousness." The consciousness field is fundamental instead of consciousness being an emergent phenomenon of matter.
I'm on board with the main tenet -- that C-Field rules. Everything is a field of mentation, which jives nicely with our minds being fields of mentation. And the interaction there accounts for a whole lot of things ... including, for example, Mozart at his piano age 8. Time to write a symphony. Even Michael Jackson: "Well, I just hear it. It comes to me."
Everything is a field, we know, so this idea of grand consciousness field interacting with brain waves seems to not be a stretch or even a problem at all. Would be automatic, as the grand field flows through our mind/local field ... and all is a consciousness game. "One fundamental in my reduction base, " he says, "consciousness."
The sole given of our lives -- "I experience therefore I am" -- is his irreducible entity. A beautiful symmetry there, and exactly where the scientific method struggles.
Cool theory. Accounts for a lot. Is speculative. Has sound points. Who knows? I do like it.
The only way to understand Brahaman is to negate everything that is not Brahman. It's not this, not that. It's you ldo.
Half a few glasses of wine and talk to ChatGPT on advanced voice mode for an hour about it.
