What does physicalist science tell us about reality?

[Jim Cross]

That's not true. The "W" can be entirely within our internal experience. We can easily perceive internal processes (not so easily for modern people, but still very possible) and make them the object of our thinking. We can do that most easily with our own thought-forms. There is no need to assume "W" is something other than our own activity to start systematically investigating the perceptions. And once we start doing that, we may come to realize what we previously assumed was "external", for no reason other than our naïve perception, is not essentially external at all. Goethe did not assume light was "out there" and I have no idea where you get that from. This brief quote makes that rather clear:

"I am the decisive element - it is my personal approach that creates the climate; it is my daily mood that makes the weather."

Is something wrong with your vision? The diagram has X in it for Experience and a W in it for World and they are separate.

Jim - think of the thought-form "triangle" and observe it. Maybe add a couple more thought-forms of "circle" and "square", etc. to what you are observing. You are now experiencing (X) a world (W) of thought-forms entirely within you. You can even use your perception (P) of one thought-form to decide (D) to create another one (A) and observe the new one added to your inner world (W) you are experiencing (X). Seriously, you don't even need to respond... this is so simple that it cannot even be obfuscated by tangled physicalist abstractions, so just save yourself the trouble.

Oh, sure. Everything is in My Mind. So in My Mind Physicalism is correct.

[AshvinP]

Is something wrong with your vision? The diagram has X in it for Experience and a W in it for World and they are separate.

Jim - think of the thought-form "triangle" and observe it. Maybe add a couple more thought-forms of "circle" and "square", etc. to what you are observing. You are now experiencing (X) a world (W) of thought-forms entirely within you. You can even use your perception (P) of one thought-form to decide (D) to create another one (A) and observe the new one added to your inner world (W) you are experiencing (X). Seriously, you don't even need to respond... this is so simple that it cannot even be obfuscated by tangled physicalist abstractions, so just save yourself the trouble.

Oh, sure. Everything is in My Mind. So in My Mind Physicalism is correct.

Who said "everything" is in your mind? Not me. I just pointed out to you clearly how you were making unwarranted physicalist assumptions about Hoffman's model. Then you use your own physicalist assumptions and related interpretations to dismiss his model, just like you do to dismiss idealism in general. Dont worry Jim, there are even idealists who do this when it comes to views challenging their specific formulations of idealism. And it's ok to lose an argument sometimes, your ego won't dissolve completely

[Jim Cross]

Oh, so everything isn't in my mind. There's something else out there.

Cool.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Oh, so everything isn't in my mind. There's something else out there.

Under idealism, 'out there' is Mind's objectified idea constructions as they appear to Mind's subjectified monads of Mind. However, insofar as such ideation is conceived to be things out there that exist regardless of whether or not Mind/s exist, then as John Wheeler put it, "There is no 'out there' out there." Indeed, if all subjectified monads of Mind cease to be, then forget about 'in here' too.

[Jim Cross]

Oh, so everything isn't in my mind. There's something else out there.

Under idealism, 'out there' is Mind's objectified idea constructions as they appear to Mind's subjectified monads of Mind. However, insofar as such ideation is conceived to be things out there that exist regardless of whether or not Mind/s exist, then as John Wheeler put it, "There is no 'out there' out there." Indeed, if all subjectified monads of Mind cease to be, then forget about 'in here' too.

Yeah, like I said, there is something "out there". The various isms just differ on what it is.

[Jim Cross]

Oh, so everything isn't in my mind. There's something else out there.

Under idealism, 'out there' is Mind's objectified idea constructions as they appear to Mind's subjectified monads of Mind. However, insofar as such ideation is conceived to be things out there that exist regardless of whether or not Mind/s exist, then as John Wheeler put it, "There is no 'out there' out there." Indeed, if all subjectified monads of Mind cease to be, then forget about 'in here' too.

Yeah, like I said, there is something "out there". The various isms just differ on what it is.

Let me revise this. If there is nothing "out there", then all of the discussion about mind at large and alters is meaningless. The entire DID thing is meaningless. The W and the X in Hoffman's diagram is meaningless.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Let me revise this. If there is nothing "out there", then all of the discussion about mind at large and alters is meaningless. The entire DID thing is meaningless. The W and the X in Hoffman's diagram is meaningless.

For sure, nothing meaningless about proponents of idealism trying to come up with some explication, however provisional it may be, for experiencing the apparency of objectified phenomena?

[Jim Cross]

Let me revise this. If there is nothing "out there", then all of the discussion about mind at large and alters is meaningless. The entire DID thing is meaningless. The W and the X in Hoffman's diagram is meaningless.

For sure, nothing meaningless about proponents of idealism trying to come up with some explication, however provisional it may be, for experiencing the apparency of objectified phenomena?

Provisional? Are we still waiting on the final theory?

Keep in "mind" the only reason there needs to be an explication is because of the primary premise of idealism itself.

[AshvinP]

Under idealism, 'out there' is Mind's objectified idea constructions as they appear to Mind's subjectified monads of Mind. However, insofar as such ideation is conceived to be things out there that exist regardless of whether or not Mind/s exist, then as John Wheeler put it, "There is no 'out there' out there." Indeed, if all subjectified monads of Mind cease to be, then forget about 'in here' too.

Yeah, like I said, there is something "out there". The various isms just differ on what it is.

Let me revise this. If there is nothing "out there", then all of the discussion about mind at large and alters is meaningless. The entire DID thing is meaningless. The W and the X in Hoffman's diagram is meaningless.

So your perception of a "triangle" that you form from your own Thinking is meaningless? Come on, Jim, you know this is silly. You keep talking about metaphysical conclusions, while we were intially discussing your flawed physicalist-dualist assumptions which cause you to misunderstand everyone else's model and the nature of philosophical and scientific inquiry itself. Like I said, you are not alone and find good company in Eugene, for ex. You guys both stubbornly refuse to admit the obvious implications of your own assumptions, even though they are easily illustrated by the triangle example. Your assumption is, "there is me with my personal mental realm, and there is the world I perceive which is entirely external to my mental realm". Can you admit you are actually making that assumption?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Keep in "mind" the only reason there needs to be an explication is because of the primary premise of idealism itself.

Well duhhh! And what are proponents of physicalism basing their explications on if not the primary premise of physicalism?