Question about the "Objective world"

[Vernon88]

Hi,

I would like to have something cleared up.

So Bernardo says that it is ridiculous to assume some abstract world made out of equations "out there" and to conclude that the Brain generates the qualitative experiences.

At the same time he denies solipsism and argues for the the existence of an objective reality.
But we know if I look at a leaf it appears green to me, but to someone who is color blind that leaf may appear Blue, it may also look totally different to an Insect. So it seems that there are consensus ripples of mind that show themselves in different shapes depending on the observer.

Here comes my question, If you call this objective consensus reality "ripples of mind at large" or "abstract world made out of equations" seems to be only a semantic difference. yet Bernardo seems to call one ridiculous and the other plausible. Why?

I know there are more consequences to idealism and you don't need to list them. This question is only about the notion of "objective world", it seems to be identical with the materialist world of matter.

[Ben Iscatus]

If you call this objective consensus reality "ripples of mind at large" or "abstract world made out of equations" seems to be only a semantic difference. yet Bernardo seems to call one ridiculous and the other plausible. Why?

A mental world is more plausible for all the reasons BK cites, eg:
- only one ontological primitive required (parsimony);
- avoidance of the hard problem, the impossibility of qualitative consciousness arising from quantitative matter (in essence all is quality, with quantity as a description of its behaviour)
- no ridiculous requirement for gazillions of new universes every femtosecond (MWI);
- the possibility of meaning in suffering (we are useful to MAL as self-reflective, value-judging alters) instead of nihilistic despair at a pointless universe.

[AshvinP]

Hi,

I would like to have something cleared up.

So Bernardo says that it is ridiculous to assume some abstract world made out of equations "out there" and to conclude that the Brain generates the qualitative experiences.

At the same time he denies solipsism and argues for the the existence of an objective reality.
But we know if I look at a leaf it appears green to me, but to someone who is color blind that leaf may appear Blue, it may also look totally different to an Insect. So it seems that there are consensus ripples of mind that show themselves in different shapes depending on the observer.

Here comes my question, If you call this objective consensus reality "ripples of mind at large" or "abstract world made out of equations" seems to be only a semantic difference. yet Bernardo seems to call one ridiculous and the other plausible. Why?

I know there are more consequences to idealism and you don't need to list them. This question is only about the notion of "objective world", it seems to be identical with the materialist world of matter.

The difference is that the physicalist holds the abstractions are actually what the objective reality consists of. They are literally thinking some sort of abstract equations (or equally abstract conceptions) are out there giving rise to our experience. BK understands "ripples of MAL" is just an abstract picture of what is really out there, the latter being infinitely more concrete and meaningful. Under idealism, what we call "meaning" of experience is much closer to what is actually out there. Meaning without spatiotemporal boundaries. Also, just because it is habitual now, we must remember not to take "out there" to mean a spatially external reality to our own under idealism, bc no such reality exists.

[Vernon88]

Thanks. But then where in MAL is the information stored ? Where is the Database that holds the position, size and color of every physical object ?

[Robert Arvay]

Vernon, allow me to reply "outside the box," if I may call it that.

Physical reality is every bit as real as consciousness.
Conscious perception is part of a hierarchy of interconnected realities.
The hierarchy may be thought of as

Creator,
Creatures (us)
Creation (physical reality).

This is only a conceptual sketch, but it is a good beginning framework.

As creatures, we possess the following three attributes:

Life,
Consciousness,
Free will.

These three are closely intertwined, and may be considered as the
three sides of a triangle.

There is much more to this, but I'll leave it here for now.
-
-

[Eugene I]

Thanks. But then where in MAL is the information stored ? Where is the Database that holds the position, size and color of every physical object ?

Well, they are stored in the MAL's memory (duh!)

[Ben Iscatus]

If Time is part of an alter's personal scaffolding but not intrinsic to a transpersonal MAL, presumably memory is just a question of focus?

[AshvinP]

Thanks. But then where in MAL is the information stored ? Where is the Database that holds the position, size and color of every physical object ?

You are thinking in abstract physicalist terms which the idealist outright rejects as having any reality, and therefore lacking any use when speaking of underlying essence. There are no essential spatial dimensions, i.e. position and size. Information is not stored anywhere in "space". Think about it this way - when you perceive a color, does some meaning arrive simultaneously with its perception, or does it come as nonsensical data which you later render sensible by retrieving the meaning from some "database" container? Clearly it is the former, because what you are actually perceiving is the noumenal essence of color which is its meaning. There is no "physical object" you perceive, only meaning.

[Lysander]

Thanks. But then where in MAL is the information stored ? Where is the Database that holds the position, size and color of every physical object ?

You are thinking in abstract physicalist terms which the idealist outright rejects as having any reality, and therefore lacking any use when speaking of underlying essence. There are no essential spatial dimensions, i.e. position and size. Information is not stored anywhere in "space". Think about it this way - when you perceive a color, does some meaning arrive simultaneously with its perception, or does it come as nonsensical data which you later render sensible by retrieving the meaning from some "database" container? Clearly it is the former, because what you are actually perceiving is the noumenal essence of color which is its meaning. There is no "physical object" you perceive, only meaning.

Reading your posts has had a big impact on my thinking, especially the emphasis on how we only perceive inter-personal shared meanings. I had never come across this before coming to the forum.

[AshvinP]

Thanks. But then where in MAL is the information stored ? Where is the Database that holds the position, size and color of every physical object ?

You are thinking in abstract physicalist terms which the idealist outright rejects as having any reality, and therefore lacking any use when speaking of underlying essence. There are no essential spatial dimensions, i.e. position and size. Information is not stored anywhere in "space". Think about it this way - when you perceive a color, does some meaning arrive simultaneously with its perception, or does it come as nonsensical data which you later render sensible by retrieving the meaning from some "database" container? Clearly it is the former, because what you are actually perceiving is the noumenal essence of color which is its meaning. There is no "physical object" you perceive, only meaning.

Reading your posts has had a big impact on my thinking, especially the emphasis on how we only perceive inter-personal shared meanings. I had never come across this before coming to the forum.

Thanks for the feedback, Lysander. I could say the same for myself a year ago. I had come across the abstract concept of Reality as shared meaning. for ex. in Peterson and Vervaeke videos, but they remained isolated concepts not really plugged into the whole network of ideas I had surrounding essential Reality. It is sort of scary to think that this hyper fragmented state is the default position of most people in the world, but on the other hand it only took a bit of prompting from others and a slight shift in perpspective to have these things connect with each other much more smoothly in my thinking. There is still much much more work to be done, for sure, but it is hopeful and exciting to know one's thinking is oriented in what proves to be a consistently fruitful direction.