Will idealism ever become part of the mainstream?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Astra ... I'd suggest that lack of scientific verification that consciousness is solely an epiphenomenon of brain activity surely hasn't hindered materialism from becoming the predominant paradigm. Nor has lack of verification for there being some 'stuff' of matter existing independent of consciousness, other than as a hypothetical abstraction. So I'm not sure that inconclusive scientific verification for the primacy of consciousness should necessarily preclude that ontological premise from being the basis of a shift in paradigms. In any case, while I'm also not sure about when materialism may meet its demise, and some phase transition into a new paradigm will reach the tipping point, I've little doubt that it will, just as with all paradigms that have preceded it. So it's more a question of what will eventually supplant it. Nonetheless, I concur that making a convincing scientific case with a view toward swaying academia away from its predominant mindset must be a crucial part of such a shift, because, as BK puts it, for them the scientific mindset acts as a 'bouncer' for the heart. Still, the experiential component is just as crucial, as expressed in the following comment, if I may be allowed to copy and paste from another thread ...

"Another factor to keep in mind is that it is often the case, as it has been in my case, that the switch from the materialist mindset which most everyone is indoctrinated into, to seeking and embracing a viable alternative, in this case idealism, has been largely instigated by ongoing, life-long, inexplicable, indelible numinous/paranormal experiences (never mind the puzzling strangeness of QM) that simply defy any explanation under materialism. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that there is no such physicalist explanation, just that after many years of exploring such a possibility, I've eventually found that the more plausible, by far, explanation is more compatible with the primacy of consciousness, expressed within a scientifically compatible model based in idealism, which Bernardo, together with others who've joined him in the endeavours of the Essentia Foundation, are attempting to coherently and comprehensively explicate ~ especially with a view towards shifting the paradigm within academia, and which then in tandem with the more intuitively inspired shift at the level of ever-increasing ordinary folks dealing with extraordinary experiences, will perhaps be the catalyst that counteracts the sheer weight of the current predominant paradigm. This is not to say that absent such an experiential component a solid strictly reason-based case can't be grokked, just that without that experiential component the challenge remains mostly counter-intuitive to the well embedded materialist mindset, and hence more difficult to grok."

[AshvinP]

Not that I think you're wrong but what makes you confident that materialism is on its way out? Is there anything concrete you could point to?

If you mean like data or statistics, not really. I believe there are broad evolutionary forces at work which are steering the collective subconscious away from the materialist perspective, and we can see that reflected in all domains of human culture, i.e. art, literature, philosophy, STEM, politics, etc., throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. We can see scientists in certain fields like theoretical physics, AI research, and psychology seriously questioning whether materialist assumptions can do any more work within their fields than it already did, and modern technology is only going to continue making it easier for people to imagine idealist perspectives even if they are not made explicit for some time. Which doesn't necessarily mean it will be imagination in a positive direction, but certainly away from materialism.

I respect your views here but something that honestly worries me is the intermixing of spirituality with scientific proof for idealism. I'm all for spirituality but I feel like if we're going to provde idealism it has to be on its own scientific merits. It does kind of concern me that very few atheists seem to be swayed by idealism. I know you could say they are inherently biased but to me if you have to invoke things that aren't proven to back up a metaphysical viewpoint it lacks the evidential power to really succeed. It honestly seems like a lot of idealists are spiritual people interested in science who are trying to find something to validate their views. That's okay, I'm kind of in the same boat but at the same time I think the two should be seperated as much as possible. If we can't find convincing experimental data to back our view I find that very depressing. A change in the "collective unconscious" is a perfectly tenable viewpoint if you assume things like Jungian philosophy is true but I'm trying to go off as few assumptions as possible. I'm very hopeful that materialism will no longer be the standard viewpoint but it seems like a lot of people fighting against it are doing it more out of a commitment to a spiritual viewpoint than really being convinced by data. Hopefully I'm wrong.

I agree, and that's why I am simply saying materialism is on the way out and idealist perspectives are becoming more natural. I believe this will happen regardless of who proves what to whom, or who explicitly holds to any particular metaphysical-spiritual worldview. We don't need to convince anyone of anything for this to happen - there are forces at work much 'larger' than us.

[Astra052]

Astra ... I'd suggest that lack of scientific verification that consciousness is solely an epiphenomenon of brain activity surely hasn't hindered materialism from becoming the predominant paradigm. Nor has lack of verification for there being some 'stuff' of matter existing independent of consciousness, other than as a hypothetical abstraction. So I'm not sure that inconclusive scientific verification for the primacy of consciousness should necessarily preclude that ontological premise from being the basis of a shift in paradigms. In any case, while I'm also not sure about when materialism may meet its demise, and some phase transition into a new paradigm will reach the tipping point, I've little doubt that it will, just as with all paradigms that have preceded it. So it's more a question of what will eventually supplant it. Nonetheless, I concur that making a convincing scientific case with a view toward swaying academia away from its predominant mindset must be a crucial part of such a shift, because, as BK puts it, for them the scientific mindset acts as a 'bouncer' for the heart. Still, the experiential component is just as crucial, as expressed in the following comment, if I may be allowed to copy and paste from another thread ...

"Another factor to keep in mind is that it is often the case, as it has been in my case, that the switch from the materialist mindset which most everyone is indoctrinated into, to seeking and embracing a viable alternative, in this case idealism, has been largely instigated by ongoing, life-long, inexplicable, indelible numinous/paranormal experiences (never mind the puzzling strangeness of QM) that simply defy any explanation under materialism. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that there is no such physicalist explanation, just that after many years of exploring such a possibility, I've eventually found that the more plausible, by far, explanation is more compatible with the primacy of consciousness, expressed within a scientifically compatible model based in idealism, which Bernardo, together with others who've joined him in the endeavours of the Essentia Foundation, are attempting to coherently and comprehensively explicate ~ especially with a view towards shifting the paradigm within academia, and which then in tandem with the more intuitively inspired shift at the level of ever-increasing ordinary folks dealing with extraordinary experiences, will perhaps be the catalyst that counteracts the sheer weight of the current predominant paradigm. This is not to say that absent such an experiential component a solid strictly reason-based case can't be grokked, just that without that experiential component the challenge remains mostly counter-intuitive to the well embedded materialist mindset, and hence more difficult to grok."

I think it's just concerning that a seeming majority of idealists have a strong bias towards sprituality. It's hard to make the case we're coming to our conclusions based on reason and evidence when things like paranormal experiences keep getting brought up. I can't say whether the paranormal expereinces people have are real or not but they're totally anecdotal and probably can't be replicated. For me, that's not a good enough reason for a new paradigm to take over. Just because our feelings lie in one area we can't let that cloud our judgement. Unfortunately I can't shake the feeling that a lot of us are attracted to idealism because we think it provides a scientific explanation for our supernatural beliefs; I'm not excluded from that. It's just concerning for me that it seems like a majority of people interested in idealism are looking for some kind of validation for spiritual beliefs rather than coming to it based on the evidence and rationality behind it. I think Bernardo is a very smart, reasonable person but when you have a Buddha figurine behind you and constantly dip your toes into the religious side of things, it doesn't build a good case for your views being purely based on rational judgement. Maybe I'm wrong, I just don't want to fall into wishful thinking because my spritual hopes don't line up with facts.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I think it's just concerning that a seeming majority of idealists have a strong bias towards sprituality.

Well for those who've known the profound experiential component of the primacy of consciousness there is no need for scientific verification of those experiences, since it's no longer a case of mere belief, but rather an indelible knowing. However, the point remains that such an experiential component alone will not suffice to sway the deeply entrenched materialist indoctrination of the mindset within academia, hence it will also require the making of a plausible, reason-based, scientifically compatible case, in order to shift the paradigm on a mass scale, and hence the endeavours of those involved in the Essentia Foundation to build such a case ~ among others working elsewhere in that regard.

[Astra052]

I think it's just concerning that a seeming majority of idealists have a strong bias towards sprituality.

Well for those who've known the profound experiential component of the primacy of consciousness there is no need for scientific verification of those experiences, since it's no longer a case of mere belief, but rather an indelible knowing. However, the point remains that such an experiential component alone will not suffice to sway the deeply entrenched materialist indoctrination of the mindset within academia, hence it will also require the making of a plausible, reason-based, scientifically compatible case, in order to shift the paradigm on a mass scale, and hence the endeavours of those involved in the Essentia Foundation to build such a case ~ among others working elsewhere in that regard.

I agree with what you're saying. There are states that are achievable through meditation, psychedelics, NDEs, and other extreme states of consciousness that are enough to convince people that there is more than what materialists are offering. I have no problem acceting that. Like you say, the real challenge comes when you have to prove things in an academic sense. A profound experiene you or I may have had is not enough to sway the current paradigm off of its position. I've studied and even practiced forms of esotericism for years, I know what people mean when they talk about experiences that are just totally convincing towards the idealist or at least non-materialist view. This just isn't sufficent however to satisfy rational and evidence based inquiry which is what everything will come down to if we want more than just feelings to base our views on. I'm hopeful that Bernardo and the various people working on the Essentia Foundation project are going to help us get where we want to be. The fact that Mr. Kastrup's articles have been posted on SciAm and these conversations are even happening at the level they are shows that change is happening, no matter how small. And really, until materialism can explain how consciousness arises (without explaining it away) or we somehow get to a point to where we quantum mechanics are fully understood, the jury will continue to be out.

[Martin_]

This just isn't sufficent however to satisfy rational and evidence based inquiry which is what everything will come down to if we want more than just feelings to base our views on.

They're not just feelings. They are experiences.
We're not talking about irrational fleeting subjective feelings and mood swings here.

Were talking about hard-earned and well documented, extremely lucid experiences, shared by very likely most of the human race across millennia.

Please, do not dismiss them so lightly.

[AshvinP]

Another thing to keep in mind is that idealist philosophy, at its best, is aimed at questioning our unexamined axioms about the world. It is not so much about arguments over what metaphysical position can better explain this or that phenomenon (except phenomenal consciousness). One of the deepest and most influential unexamined axioms is precisely the division of "natural" and "supernatural" into separate categories of experience, and therefore the division of science and analytical philosphy from spiritual outlooks. If idealism became solely about those academically acceptable arguments, then it would lose most of its appeal and value for me. But I don't think it will, because by its very nature it can't help but go to the heart of metaphysical and spiritual matters.

[Martin_]

@Astra. And yes. I get your point. Ppl listen a lot more to the ones in their own camp. A materalist atheist will listen a lot more to an idealist atheist than an idealist spiritualist. I agree with that.

[Astra052]

This just isn't sufficent however to satisfy rational and evidence based inquiry which is what everything will come down to if we want more than just feelings to base our views on.

They're not just feelings. They are experiences.
We're not talking about irrational fleeting subjective feelings and mood swings here.

Were talking about hard-earned and well documented, extremely lucid experiences, shared by very likely most of the human race across millennia.

Please, do not dismiss them so lightly.

I'm not trying to dismiss them, it's just that if they aren't replicable or provable then science won't care. That has no bearing on how real or impactful it was on the person who had the experience but within the academic discussion it's not really relevant.

[Astra052]

Another thing to keep in mind is that idealist philosophy, at its best, is aimed at questioning our unexamined axioms about the world. It is not so much about arguments over what metaphysical position can better explain this or that phenomenon (except phenomenal consciousness). One of the deepest and most influential unexamined axioms is precisely the division of "natural" and "supernatural" into separate categories of experience, and therefore the division of science and analytical philosphy from spiritual outlooks. If idealism became solely about those academically acceptable arguments, then it would lose most of its appeal and value for me. But I don't think it will, because by its very nature it can't help but go to the heart of metaphysical and spiritual matters.

The whole supernatural vs natural thing bugs me because lets say one day something "supernatural" is proven within a scientific framework, it immediately becomes "natural". I think most people who argue for the reality of something "supernatural" don't see it as somehow seperate from the natural world but just as much apart of it. It's a dichotomy created mostly by atheist skeptics who want to bury spiritual beliefs as superstitious "woo woo" .