Debunking idealism old and new

[Soul_of_Shu]

Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.[6]

Thanks for making my point. The derivation of observe is 'to watch' or to 'look at', implying subjectivity. To suggest that a brick reacting to sunlight by heating up is somehow 'watching' or 'looking at' or 'sensing' the sunlight, is tantamount to the panpsychism which holds that discrete ontic particles have conscious agency. So, when it is applied to a measurement apparatus that should not be taken to imply some kind of subjective features, like watching and looking, how is it not a re-defining of the derivation of the term?

It's a technical term.

Nonetheless, it is a technical term that redefines the derivation of 'observe', i.e. to watch or look at. One can only conclude that in the materialist effort to remove consciousness from factoring into the process, and not be seen to be making claims tantamount to panpsychism, they had to invent the notion of a non-conscious watcher.

[Jim Cross]

Thanks for making my point. The derivation of observe is 'to watch' or to 'look at', implying subjectivity. To suggest that a brick reacting to sunlight by heating up is somehow 'watching' or 'looking at' or 'sensing' the sunlight, is tantamount to the panpsychism which holds that discrete ontic particles have conscious agency. So, when it is applied to a measurement apparatus that should not be taken to imply some kind of subjective features, like watching and looking, how is it not a re-defining of the derivation of the term?

It's a technical term.

Nonetheless, it is a technical term that redefines the derivation of 'observe', i.e. to watch or look at. One can only conclude that in the materialist effort to remove consciousness from factoring into the process, and not be seen to be making claims tantamount to panpsychism, they had to invent the notion of a non-conscious watcher.

I would argue that probably the physicist's use of the term corresponds more closely to its colloquial usage than your usage.

To observe implies perceiving something else but there is no something else for the mind-at-large to perceive.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I would argue that probably the physicist's use of the term corresponds more closely to its colloquial usage than your usage.

There's a colloquial usage other than, e.g., I'm observing/watching/looking at this text? Pray tell?

[Jim Cross]

I would argue that probably the physicist's use of the term corresponds more closely to its colloquial usage than your usage.

There's a colloquial usage other than, e.g., I'm observing/watching/looking at this text? Pray tell?

But wait. The mind-at-large isn't metacognitive. It can't observe itself.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I would argue that probably the physicist's use of the term corresponds more closely to its colloquial usage than your usage.

There's a colloquial usage other than, e.g., I'm observing/watching/looking at this text? Pray tell?

But wait. The mind-at-large isn't metacognitive. It can't observe itself.

Nice try with the head-fake, but it's still fourth down and ten

[carlodicelico]

This, "Classic idealism, formulated by Bishop Berkeley in a number of works in the 18th Century,", must mean specifically Western or German Idealism? Idealism more generally goes back many thousands of years in both the Western and Eastern schools, no?

[Jim Cross]

This, "Classic idealism, formulated by Bishop Berkeley in a number of works in the 18th Century,", must mean specifically Western or German Idealism? Idealism more generally goes back many thousands of years in both the Western and Eastern schools, no?

The materialism/idealism debate goes back thousands of years in both Eastern and Western traditions. Most people don't realize the materialistic elements in tantrism.

That is why the debate is unproductive. If it could have been resolved, it would have been resolved by now.

[lorenzop]

I question the 'intersubjective agreement' presupposition of Materialism - - considering the variations in our psycophysilology, agreements should be rare. Materialism assumes our machinery generates nearly identical experiences across human observers - has this ever been established as true.

[Cosmin Visan]

I think that if we are to experience the consciousness of other people we would experience the greatest shock in our life for how different their world is compared to ours. Think only about the duck-rabbit image. Let's say that a person only saw ducks previous to seeing this image, and another person only saw rabbits prior. Their "common world of the shape" would be experienced in such utter different ways, that that "common world" would not be common at all.