Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Idealism or Materialism?
Thread: Idealism or Materialism? This thread is 11 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · «PREV / NEXT»
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 06, 2013 02:34 PM

No universe makes sense without a mind observing/grasping it - (and an idealistic universe would start with the mind, not the matter, simply said).

But here we are at the heart of the philosophical problems that come with all these considerations.

If we say, that a universe without any observational presence makes no sense, because "it's just there rotting into entropy" or "a movie no one watches", then we have to explain the long time the universe was "void and empty of mind/observational presences".
We can do that by either assuming that (some of) those presence(s) have been there in the first place (or at least developing before the material universe) OR that any such universe is BOUND to develop observational presences along the line of its existence.

This is a very dangerous conclusion, because it is of course questionable whether a universe is BOUND to develop in a certain way just because the existence of said universe would otherwise "make no sense".

Which is where basically materialism steps in, saying mind or not, the universe is there, period, observable or not, and the idea that its existence would make no sense without a mind to observe it, does the matter injustice and is preposterous anyway.

Same problem here, though: Not verifiable, see above. There is no way to ascertain that there are indeed universes that are not "observed", and there is no logic that says, our universe must continue behind the event horizon, because there is also the time gap - the horizon is at 93 billion light years and growing - the universe might actually start to contract NOW at the event horizon, but we would know it only in a couple billion years from now.

That's in short, what I perceive as the main "roads" here, and I tend to nod into the idealist direction, because for me it is a much more gratifying idea.

Think of all the superheroes comics, stories and movies - everyone likes that stuff. Why? Because the mind is in control of the material reality and can change it. If that's not "applied idealism" ...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 06, 2013 03:06 PM

Well, I wouldn't use the phrase "makes no sense" because there would be no sense to make or not. But let me ask you this, we know that life on earth is about 3.5 billion years old, we know that our universe is about 13 billion years old. For the sake of the argument, let's assume there is no intelligent life or life at all in any other planet. There might not be indeed. Would you say the universe made no sense 5 billion years ago?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 06, 2013 03:53 PM

I answered that:
Quote:

If we say, that a universe without any observational presence makes no sense, because "it's just there rotting into entropy" or "a movie no one watches", then we have to explain the long time the universe was "void and empty of mind/observational presences".
(Explanation as follows
We can do that by either assuming that (some of) those presence(s) have been there in the first place (or at least developing before the material universe)

This would basically mean that some kind of mind already existed (and probably created the universe for whatever purpose). This entity MIGHT be called (a) god, but can have any other form, a giant neural network, whatever, and even IF it's called god it may not have to be the only one or the only universe. It just means, that first came the idea or the spirit or the mind, then it created something.

Quote:
OR that any such universe is BOUND to develop observational presences along the line of its existence.

Time is not a constant factor, so while 3.5 billion years may seem like a rather long time - it's just a number, and if it took so long to finally produce minds to acknowledge the vastness of all this. (So from that perspective it was somewhat only waiting to finally make sense, an empty movie theatre waiting for the onlookers to start dribble in, which means, that it did make sense).
This is insofar interesting, because this (idealistic) position logically demands that the development of life has been inevitable, and here we are at the question, why that should be so, even though I don't think there is anyone everywhere thinking the development of life would NOT be inevitable in a probabilistic sense.

There ARE those philosophers that say, the universe WANTS to be able to acknowledge and observe/study itself - the idea of a more cosmic form of a quasi-sentient "nature", but factually a universe-inherent property of it (albeit no material one).

Anyway, this leaves solid ground because it dissolves into speculation. And before we leave solid ground completely, the bottom line is that, again, we can only judge from our perspective. At this point the universe makes sense, so we must conclude that this has been the way to go. Chances are, if the universe was born short of 14 billion years ago, expanding to gargantuan size in virtually no time, that there may have been life anywhere in our universe as much as 10 billion years ago. That's by the way another thing to mull upon: why is everything so bloody big? To make sure, something happens? (with at least 100 billion suns in at least 100 billion galaxies, everything is bound to happen anyway, so to continue this, you might conclude, that it has to be to make sense.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 06, 2013 08:38 PM
Edited by artu at 20:51, 06 May 2013.

Quote:
I answered that


Yes, but I don't agree that a universe that contains no sense automatically makes no sense. The things you write does not seem as self-evident to me as they seem to you. I CAN imagine, actually I find it very probable for a universe to exist without any kind of subject in it. I look at life like a lottery ticket won. Well, not even like the lottery because lottery MUST be won by someone, life may have not existed at all. The odds are more like a guy struck by lightning twice (and yes there really is a guy like that). The chances are very low, but then with so many planets in countless solar systems and billions and billions of years, not so very low. I still wouldn't say that's WHY the universe is very big though. I'd say that's HOW life came to existence. I don't think the universe has a reason. For something to make sense, it must have a reason within itself. It must have the qualities of a subject, as in the universe of pantheists, say Spinoza for example. And again, I don't think that's self-evident at all. Remember when Einstein sad "God throws no dice" he was objecting to the randomness in quantum physics and he turned out to be wrong.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 07, 2013 08:34 AM
Edited by JollyJoker at 08:37, 07 May 2013.

Ok, one last try.
Quote:

Yes, but I don't agree that a universe that contains no sense automatically makes no sense. The things you write does not seem as self-evident to me as they seem to you. I CAN imagine, actually I find it very probable for a universe to exist without any kind of subject in it.
Yeah, we can imagine a lot of things, but a lot of those make no sense. Let's just see what you are actually doing here. Since we had established that a universe that may have contained no "sense" at one point, but does now is fine. There is a perspective, there are observers that can establish something.
Now take a universe that contains no "sense", has never contained any and won't ever contain any.
The only perspective that would allow you to ascertain that is a god-like perspective: you somehow look into it from beyond and see the thing in all its emptiness. It must be from beyond, because if it was from inside, it would actually contain sense.
Question: does it make sense to assume the existence of something that can never be ascertained, because if it would be possible, it wouldn't exist anymore (or there was a god). It's somewhat like this: there is a thing X, that appears blue via observation (observation is giving it it's blue color). You say now: I can imagine there are things X that are actually red. Of course you can. But does that make sense? That "actually" assumes a reality behind that is possible to ascertain, a solid, eternal - godly - truth, but there obviously is no such thing, at least not that most of us know of, and if there is, well.

Quote:
I look at life like a lottery ticket won. Well, not even like the lottery because lottery MUST be won by someone, life may have not existed at all. The odds are more like a guy struck by lightning twice (and yes there really is a guy like that). The chances are very low, but then with so many planets in countless solar systems and billions and billions of years, not so very low.
Strange, because I think the chances are 100%. Not everywhere, of course. A lot of suns may just have no planets or none in the habitable zone, but with 100-300 billion stars in our galaxy alone and 100 billion galaxies within the observable universe, even if ours is already 13.8 billion years old, it makes no sense to see ours as a stroke of luck or something. I would expect an abundance of life in this universe at this point of its development.
Quote:
I still wouldn't say that's WHY the universe is very big though. I'd say that's HOW life came to existence. I don't think the universe has a reason. For something to make sense, it must have a reason within itself. It must have the qualities of a subject, as in the universe of pantheists, say Spinoza for example. And again, I don't think that's self-evident at all. Remember when Einstein sad "God throws no dice" he was objecting to the randomness in quantum physics and he turned out to be wrong.
I agree that Spinoza is pretty interesting, and it's no happenstance that the idealists build upon his philosophy - which was regarded as atheism by many at the time.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted May 07, 2013 06:39 PM
Edited by Zenofex at 18:40, 07 May 2013.

Quote:
We have to keep in mind that this debate was on its culmination before modern physics: 19th century.
True, idealism, namely the four Germans, were looking for an objective underlying truth - BUT NOT IN THE MATERIAL WORLD as it was known at that point. (which is why I point to idealism when "extrapolating" materialistic views.)
I never said that they were looking for the objective truth in the material world, the whole point of the idealism is that the truth is completely independent from the material world. Hence the assumption that the idea precedes the matter. The problem with that kind of thinking is that you somehow have to prove that the mind can originate information without any prior information gained through interaction with the material world.
Quote:
Materialism on the other hand, has been looking for those truths as well - and claims that everything has its cause in the material world and there is nothing outside of that, specifically no "mind". Isn' that the procalamation of an absolute truth? (You say: "It however states that an (abstract) idea must have a "trigger" in the material world and without such, it just won't exist. That includes mathematics." - That is an absolute claim which is supported by what?)
What the materialism claims is that the mind results from the matter and can not exist independently from the matter. The idealism claims the opposite. Both concepts are restricting and in conflict, otherwise there wouldn't be any differentiation (and we wouldn't be having this argument). Like I already mentioned, to prove the point of the idealism, you have to prove the existence of an objective reality which can exist on its own without any interaction with the material world.
Quote:
You also say: "Nobody will imagine "nothing" and everybody will try to comprehend the word individually and will comprehend it with respect to some interaction with the physical world. That's valid for all kinds of "incomprehensible" concepts."
That's just because without interaction it is irrelevant - why would we assume something IMMATERIAL that had no connection to the material world?
You tell me? I'm saying that you can't imagine anything that doesn't have its roots in the material world. Maybe what your are trying to imagine is very abstract but this abstraction must have its roots somewhere, agree? The very definition of "abstraction" presumes prior information.
Quote:
Oh, and I'd like to add that materialism isn't EMPIRICISM, I repeat that
You can't really separate the two. Materialism uses empirical proofs to justify its position because it assumes that the information exists even without a mind to process it and thus can be subjected to observation when there is a mind to process it. In other words, the universe contains all the reading material that the mind needs to explore it (even if the amount of this material appears to be infinite) and the mind's job is to learn to read. As there's nowhere to take the information from (or at the very least the initial information) but the material world, empiricism is employed unavoidably*. The idealism on the other hand does not care about the information stored in the material world because that information will always be insufficient with regard to the pure, independent idea which can be reached only outside the material world.

*This by the way does not mean that a direct observation is always needed. Something can be "found" before it is observed. As long as this "something" proves to be an indivisible part of the material world, there's no problem with that.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
master_learn
master_learn


Legendary Hero
walking to the library
posted May 07, 2013 07:35 PM
Edited by master_learn at 19:37, 07 May 2013.

Quote:
What the materialism claims is that the mind results from the matter and can not exist independently from the matter.

Human body is JUST a SPECIFIC kind of matter.
That does not mean the mind should be dependant ONLY from the human body.The mind might be dependant on the matter not only by this one level on dependance.

Other level of dependance of mind from the matter is just ignored by materialists.
What if the mind is dependant of water,earth,fire,air?

So I say its entirely possible the mind to be dependant by DIFFERENT matter than only the body he operates in.

So I imagine the variant where two statements are true-
Mind is dependant of matter.
Mind is not dependant of the body.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted May 07, 2013 07:42 PM

Quote me where I say that the mind is dependant on the human body.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Seraphim
Seraphim


Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
posted May 07, 2013 07:47 PM

Quote:

What if the mind is dependant of water,earth,fire,air?


What do you suppose are nerves made of? And fire is not a substance, it is a reaction.

Quote:

So I say its entirely possible the mind to be dependant by DIFFERENT matter than only the body he operates in.


Like nutrients?

Quote:

So I imagine the variant where two statements are true-
Mind is dependant of matter.
Mind is not dependant of the body.



Sure, if you believe that, ok.
I dont think that mind can be independent of body because a mind is a part of the body. The blood that flows on your knee,also flows on your head and supplies it with oxygen, nutrients and so on.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
master_learn
master_learn


Legendary Hero
walking to the library
posted May 07, 2013 08:14 PM

Quote:
Quote me where I say that the mind is dependant on the human body.

Very good point,Zenofex.
But as you see,I didn't write down your nickname with @ as a signal that I respond to you.

I used that statement to write down,that death could mean something MORE than expected by materialists.

But that would be like creating a link to the religion thread,which is not my intent.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 07, 2013 09:01 PM

@ Zenofex

Correct me, if I'm wrong, but aren't you already assuming that the "universe" IS an exclusively "material" world?

As far as I know, materialism claims the "superiority" of matter (in the form of matter and "energy" over "mind, that is, that mind is a product of energy/matter, and the only thing existing IS energy/matter.

Question: Would you agree that if materialism is right we should be able to "decode" the mind and the consciousness and "build" an artificial one? Not now, obviously, but in fairly short time, let's say within the next 50 years, if nothing goes brutally wrong with the species.
And yould you also agree that the inability to do so would hurt the materialistic point quite seriously?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 07, 2013 09:17 PM

Quote:
Question: Would you agree that if materialism is right we should be able to "decode" the mind and the consciousness and "build" an artificial one? Not now, obviously, but in fairly short time, let's say within the next 50 years, if nothing goes brutally wrong with the species.
And yould you also agree that the inability to do so would hurt the materialistic point quite seriously?


Quite speculative, but even if the answer was yes you must keep in mind that our mind is not just our intellect. It also consist of desires, needs which are caused by hormones, hunger, instincts.. These are all explainable in materialistic terms with human chemistry, biology and neurology but assuming we'll be able replicate that soon is optimistic. We can already create AI that beats the world chess champion at his game but that kind of intellect is just a small portion of the human mind.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 07, 2013 10:18 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Question: Would you agree that if materialism is right we should be able to "decode" the mind and the consciousness and "build" an artificial one? Not now, obviously, but in fairly short time, let's say within the next 50 years, if nothing goes brutally wrong with the species.
And yould you also agree that the inability to do so would hurt the materialistic point quite seriously?


Quite speculative, but even if the answer was yes you must keep in mind that our mind is not just our intellect. It also consist of desires, needs which are caused by hormones, hunger, instincts.. These are all explainable in materialistic terms with human chemistry, biology and neurology but assuming we'll be able replicate that soon is optimistic. We can already create AI that beats the world chess champion at his game but that kind of intellect is just a small portion of the human mind.

What is your point?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 07, 2013 10:30 PM

Inability to do so wouldn't hurt the materialistic view seriously.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 07, 2013 11:00 PM

Considering it's basically a dead philosophy anyway ...

Well, everyone their believe and all.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 07, 2013 11:09 PM

We are ahead by one vote, dude

Seriously though, it's so far away from dead. The only guys who claim that are pseudo-science producing apologists who try to prove God by science which is a methodical paradox anyway.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Seraphim
Seraphim


Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
posted May 08, 2013 01:15 AM

Quote:
Considering it's basically a dead philosophy anyway ...


And so is idealism.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 08, 2013 01:18 AM
Edited by Corribus at 03:47, 08 May 2013.

They are both very much alive. Although since 20th century philosophy kind of lost its weight to science (philosophers as influential as Plato, Descartes, Kant, Marx etc etc don't exist anymore) and science is basically materialistic.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Seraphim
Seraphim


Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
posted May 08, 2013 01:21 AM

Quote:

They are both very much alive. Although since 20th century philosophy kind of lost its weight to science and science is basically materialistic.


There is a lot of "New Age" stuff.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 08, 2013 01:23 AM

New Age is different, nobody who is truly educated in his/her field takes that stuff seriously anyway. They are like horoscopes.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 11 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0755 seconds