Then what perceives the copy? (This is the old homunculus problem).
Ah I see, I think you got me there. I still have a few more questions to make sure I'm fully understanding though
It is there. It just is not made up of mindless matter. It is made up of perceptions.
So what exactly is there? By this do you mean it exists, it’s just generated inside my consciousness? I'm a little confused at this one
I trust my senses. I just don't add the assumption that there is something mindless that causes me to have the sense contents I have. Making that assumption creates either the intractable hard problem or the intractable interaction problem. Not doing so does not create any intractable problem. Those stories that idealists tell are conceivable solutions to the tractable problems of idealism. The intractable problems are intractable because they have no conceivable solutions. That is why I consider the idealist leap to be smaller than the materialist leap.
Thanks for your responses so far Scott, just help me understand this last piece a little better, because I can certainly see how it’s equally non-falsifiable to say that there is such a thing as mindless matter, a pure assumption that comes with a lot of problems to make it unlikely. However why Mind At Large specifically? It feels to me like I could just swap that with any other theory I want, so my question really is, how does this model of thinking separate itself from all the other theories about what reality might really be.
Can you elaborate on how it helps make the case for materialism?
Ashvin, the above paragrpah is all I was trying to say about how you mentioned the VR headset, I realize now it's not a case for Materialism, but I'm more just asking how do I know that I'm not actually just in a VR headset in some other universe? Why Idealism? Why Mind At Large? This is the problem I was trying to articulate.
Pure mathematics. Take Max Tegmark's Our Mathematical Universe hypothesis (that all that is are mathematical objects), add a Mathematician that thinks up these objects (otherwise one is faced with the hard problem) and you have a version of idealism.
You learn about the world via interaction with it, even if it is actually all just Mathematics. How can a person who has never sensed the universe think about that which they've never experienced or interacted with? I would also ask, if someone is in a coma, are they conscious? I'd assume not?
The point of the above quote: You see that puff of logic there? That is in my experience not how a transition happens. @Joseph, if you expected that we'd be able to provide you with that singular piece or reasoning, that you were (perhaps) hoping for, so that you in "good conscience" could switch (once and for all) to a primarilly Idealist worldview, you might get disappointed. (I'm second guessing your motives here a bit, apologies if i'm wrong)
I appreciate the wisdom, I completely understand that changing your worlview is not as simple as a single piece of information, but it’s certainly something I’m willing to work towards if my current worldview is flawed, and I’m approaching with an open mind.
In criminal guilt there is something at stake - justice, the freedom of the accused. Nothing is at stake in the debate between idealism and materialism except egos.
Sure, but I’m arguing these points because I personally want to see how they stand against a more Idealist worlview, not because I want to change anyone’s mind. So I’m thankful to everyone engaging in debate, it's been very productive for me so far.