Consciousness, A Priori Reasoning and Pluralism

[AshvinP]

When you say an idea is not "real" you are denying the entire foundation of idealism. The theory of general relativity is an idea (or set of ideas) and sense-observations, which are outward manifestations of ideas (under any consistent idealism), are tested against it. So what you say above is false under any consistent idealism.

I never said that ideas are not real. I only said that there are other aspects of reality that are not ideas.

The example you gave is a perfect example of how one type of ideas (physical models) are tested against other kinds of ideas (sense observations that are manifestations of ideas). In this case the ideas of this physical model of relativity theory are only relevant and true with respect to the ideas underlying the sense observations. So, if the ideas underlying the sense observations would be different, then the ideas of the physical model would also be different. If MAL would manifest the sensory world in a different way, there would be different observations and therefore different ideas of the physical models relevant to those observations. In other words, the ideas of the relativity theory are true, but true only relative to the ideas that underlie the sense observations, which in turn could be different. But yes, for us humans who currently live in this particular structure of sense observations, these ideas are pragmatically true. But in principle, they are all still relative. Ideas can not be tested for absolute truthfulness against other ideas, but they can certainly be tested for relative and pragmatic truthfulness against other ideas.

You did say ideas can only be tested against something real, but not other ideas, which implies ideas are not real. But anyway, we have been over this many times before. The materialist abstracts away from ideas and calls that "particles" or "waves" etc., and you abstract away from ideas and call it "pure experiencing" or "awareness" etc. Then both of you say the "mere ideas" cannot bear the weight of the sense-perceptible world. It is the same process of abstraction only using different terms.

Yes, of course, if we did not exist in the reality we actually exist in, different objectively testable ideas would hold true and we would end up with different ideal theories. But we don't live in another abstracted hypothetical reality, but in our own concrete reality. What you call "absolute truthfulness" is a correspondence of facts "out there" with ideas "in here" and that is a dualist formulation of reality, along with 3rd person perspective, which simply does not and could not exist.

[Eugene I]

Yes, of course, if we did not exist in the reality we actually exist in, different objectively testable ideas would hold true and we would end up with different ideal theories. But we don't live in another abstracted hypothetical reality, but in our own concrete reality. What you call "absolute truthfulness" is a correspondence of facts "out there" with ideas "in here" and that is a dualist formulation of reality, along with 3rd person perspective, which simply does not and could not exist.

Some people do experience very different, not abstract, but very concrete realities during NDE, mystical/spiritual and awakening experiences. And when that happens, those concrete experiences liberate them from being locked by rigid relative truths and beliefs that had imprisoned and limited them before, the truths that they developed while living in the concrete reality of their sensually experienced world.

[AshvinP]

Yes, of course, if we did not exist in the reality we actually exist in, different objectively testable ideas would hold true and we would end up with different ideal theories. But we don't live in another abstracted hypothetical reality, but in our own concrete reality. What you call "absolute truthfulness" is a correspondence of facts "out there" with ideas "in here" and that is a dualist formulation of reality, along with 3rd person perspective, which simply does not and could not exist.

Some people do experience very different, not abstract, but very concrete realities during NDE, mystical/spiritual and awakening experiences. And when that happens, those concrete experiences liberate them from being locked by rigid relative truths and beliefs that had imprisoned and limited them before, the truths that they developed while living in the concrete reality of their sensually experienced world.

I don't think they do. In fact, if you posted written summaries of their accounts here, I am sure we could identify the archetypal overlaps with esoteric spirtual tradition and the intellectual coloring which leads to varying details and general incompletness. It would be no different than a partial scientiifc account with intellectual coloring of the scientists who developed them in relation to more comprehensive theories which are more self-aware of potential influence of personal prejudices. Actually, even more relevant analogy would be modern imaginative movies, like Dune and the Matrix, which I commented on recently. The archetypal estoeric Christ journey is easy to discern in these stories when one knows what to look for, even though they will look like a bunch of "different stories" which are the product of "different minds" to the untrained eye.