Why Idealism is counter-intuitive? (FOR SKEPTICS)

[Jonathan Österman]

Hello and greetings.

The view of the philosophy of idealism is counter-intuitive to most people, and even to most philosophers.

It is not my intention to try and convert anyone to the philosophy of idealism.

Many educated people, and many scientists who have educated these people, naturally hold the view of scientific materialism, which believes that "mind" is simply another way of saying that "brain thinks", and that "consciousness", as something separate from brain, simply does not exist in any other way than being an illusion that we all naturally experience and deeply believe in. And therefore, there is no such thing as "free will" either, our apparent "free will" being another associated illusion. Emergence of life was an accident, and our Universe is essentially meaningless.

OK, fine. If you like this view, then be happy with it. It does not bother me a bit, as a philosophical idealist that I am. I think your view is naive and philosophically childish, and you think that my view is clearly and obviously wrong, to say the least. We agree to respectfully disagree.

Well, then, in a spirit of open-minded curiosity, let me ask you the following question, and let us know your answer, please.

My question pertains to the physical materialistic explanation of the mechanism (process) of sensory perception.

For the sake of simplicity, let's consider the process of seeing only, because our sense of sight is dominant in our human experience.

THE PHYSICAL MATERIALISTIC EXPLANATION OF OUR EXPERIENCE OF SEEING:

Please, correct me if I am wrong, the long story short, photons hit the bottom of our eyes, as a result of it electric signals are being sent from eyes along the optic nerve to the visual cortex. The visual cortex, somehow, manages to do a very complex processing of these electric signals, and the end result of this processing is us seeing the external physical reality, OUT THERE.

The external physical reality OUT THERE, as opposed to the internal physical reality IN HERE, meaning inside the visual cortex, where our seeing happens, and our internal experience of this seeing (a produced image of reality), according to the scientific materialism, can't be happening anywhere else than inside our visual cortex, similar to us being able to see our night dreams inside our sleeping brain.

So, how does it work (in scientific detail) ?

How exactly does it happen, according to mainstream physics, that we can see OUTSIDE of our brains also, and not exclusively INSIDE our brains?

Because the scientific fact is that we all see the external physical reality where it really is, OUT THERE, outside of our visual cortex exclusively, and never inside of it, like when we are sleeping?

Is it a wrong, or stupid, question?

Is it only me, who makes a problem of something obvious that is not a problem at all?

Well, I am not alone. Misery loves company!

William P. Byers, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics and Statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_P._Byers
wrote the following:

“ It is certainly conceivable that the clarity we perceive in the external world is something we bring to the world, not something that is there independent of us. The clarity of the natural world is a metaphysical belief that we unconsciously impose on the situation. We consider it to be obvious that the natural world is something exterior of us and independent of our thoughts and sense impressions; we believe in a mind-independent reality. Paradoxically, we do not recognize that the belief in a mind-independent reality is itself mind-dependent. Logically, we cannot work our way free of the bubble we live in, which consists of all of our sense impression and thoughts. The pristine world of clarity, the natural external world independent of the observer, is merely a hypothesis that cannot, even in principle, ever be verified. To say that the natural world is ambiguous is to highlight this assumption. It is to emphasize that the feeling that there is a natural world ‘out there’ that is the same for all people at all times, is an assumption that is not self-evident. This is not to embrace a kind of solipsism and to deny the reality of the world. It is to emphasize that the natural external world is intimately intertwined with the internal world of the mind.” — Princeton University Press https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardc ... blind-spot



What do you say to all of the above ?




.

[Güney27]

Hello and greetings.

The view of the philosophy of idealism is counter-intuitive to most people, and even to most philosophers.

It is not my intention to try and convert anyone to the philosophy of idealism.

Many educated people, and many scientists who have educated these people, naturally hold the view of scientific materialism, which believes that "mind" is simply another way of saying that "brain thinks", and that "consciousness", as something separate from brain, simply does not exist in any other way than being an illusion that we all naturally experience and deeply believe in. And therefore, there is no such thing as "free will" either, our apparent "free will" being another associated illusion. Emergence of life was an accident, and our Universe is essentially meaningless.

OK, fine. If you like this view, then be happy with it. It does not bother me a bit, as a philosophical idealist that I am. I think your view is naive and philosophically childish, and you think that my view is clearly and obviously wrong, to say the least. We agree to respectfully disagree.

Well, then, in a spirit of open-minded curiosity, let me ask you the following question, and let us know your answer, please.

My question pertains to the physical materialistic explanation of the mechanism (process) of sensory perception.

For the sake of simplicity, let's consider the process of seeing only, because our sense of sight is dominant in our human experience.

THE PHYSICAL MATERIALISTIC EXPLANATION OF OUR EXPERIENCE OF SEEING:

Please, correct me if I am wrong, the long story short, photons hit the bottom of our eyes, as a result of it electric signals are being sent from eyes along the optic nerve to the visual cortex. The visual cortex, somehow, manages to do a very complex processing of these electric signals, and the end result of this processing is us seeing the external physical reality, OUT THERE.

The external physical reality OUT THERE, as opposed to the internal physical reality IN HERE, meaning inside the visual cortex, where our seeing happens, and our internal experience of this seeing (a produced image of reality), according to the scientific materialism, can't be happening anywhere else than inside our visual cortex, similar to us being able to see our night dreams inside our sleeping brain.

So, how does it work (in scientific detail) ?

How exactly does it happen, according to mainstream physics, that we can see OUTSIDE of our brains also, and not exclusively INSIDE our brains?

Because the scientific fact is that we all see the external physical reality where it really is, OUT THERE, outside of our visual cortex exclusively, and never inside of it, like when we are sleeping?

Is it a wrong, or stupid, question?

Is it only me, who makes a problem of something obvious that is not a problem at all?

Well, I am not alone. Misery loves company!

William P. Byers, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics and Statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_P._Byers
wrote the following:

“ It is certainly conceivable that the clarity we perceive in the external world is something we bring to the world, not something that is there independent of us. The clarity of the natural world is a metaphysical belief that we unconsciously impose on the situation. We consider it to be obvious that the natural world is something exterior of us and independent of our thoughts and sense impressions; we believe in a mind-independent reality. Paradoxically, we do not recognize that the belief in a mind-independent reality is itself mind-dependent. Logically, we cannot work our way free of the bubble we live in, which consists of all of our sense impression and thoughts. The pristine world of clarity, the natural external world independent of the observer, is merely a hypothesis that cannot, even in principle, ever be verified. To say that the natural world is ambiguous is to highlight this assumption. It is to emphasize that the feeling that there is a natural world ‘out there’ that is the same for all people at all times, is an assumption that is not self-evident. This is not to embrace a kind of solipsism and to deny the reality of the world. It is to emphasize that the natural external world is intimately intertwined with the internal world of the mind.” — Princeton University Press https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardc ... blind-spot



What do you say to all of the above ?




.

Hello Österman,

What you are sharing here in this post is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

It is the insoluble problem that confronts every materialist.

How does something qualitative, like our conscious experience, emerge from a quality-less nature (due to the materialist's assumption that nature contains no qualities)?

So far I have never received a reasonable answer to this question in discussions.

However, one must be aware that there is also the hard problem for idealists
Cleric wrote:

"I would add that in more general terms the hard problem arises in the context of reductionistic thinking. It may not be necessarily materialistic in nature. We can have idealistic reductionism too. If we try to imagine consciousness as 'made of' some miniscule ' particles' of consciousness, then the mode of thinking in essence is not too different from that of materialism. There's still an irreconcilable chasm between the mental picture of what we imagine consciousness to be and the actual real spiritual activity that does the imagining. So, Here in the forum we have spoken before about the fact that reductionism doesn't necessarily imply reducing to 'small' things (like particles). Reductionism refers to the way of thinking, we reduce everything to thoughts, it doesn't matter if that thoughts refer to small or big things. Thus we have also used the term 'mystical reductionism' which pictures one single unity and tries to derive everything from it."

[Cleric K]

What do you say to all of the above ?

Hi Jonathan. There are many people here who would agree with what you wrote above.

It can be mentioned that the blind spot has levels (I haven't read William Byers' book, maybe he speaks of this there). Thus we can very easily fall in the trap of believing that we already have the blind spot in check and are now free from illusions. Instead, we can conceive that realizing the blind spot is not a one-shot event but a continuous process, like emerging from cocoons after cocoons.

If you would like more concrete example, consider the following. What is it that really happens when we realize the blind spot which splits the world in OUT there and IN here? We switch to a different idea of what reality is. Instead of imagining two different worlds, we acknowledge that an independent world on the opaque side of consciousness exists only in our own imagination. Like the quote says, this is not to deny that there's something which is responsible for soul phenomena that seems independent of our inner life but only to protect us from fantasizing a world completely opaque (and thus by definition unknowable) to our spiritual experience.

But even when we have that realization, there's still something which can very easily remain in the blind spot. It is the fact that we are thinking all these philosophical thoughts. Normally we are so absorbed in the contents of our thoughts that we completely forget that we're engaged in thinking spiritual activity. We are doing something, we're arranging and rearranging mental images, trying to make a form of meaning that best resonates with soul phenomena.

What is the place of thinking in your view? We surely use it to philosophize about what reality is, but in this act, the living thinking process always remains in a higher order blind spot. For example, when you wrote the above post you basically dictated the words to your fingers with your inner thinking voice. Would you say that you were conscious of that while typing? Or could you say that your thinking voice was in the background, as if somewhat hidden within another blind spot? If that is the case, do you conceive as possible that just like realizing the first blind spot liberates you from the prejudice of an outer world on the opaque side of consciousness, so learning to livingly experience our thinking could reveal even deeper layers of prejudice of which we're presently unaware?

[Jonathan Österman]

Hi Jonathan.

What is the place of thinking in your view? We surely use it to philosophize about what reality is, but in this act, the living thinking process always remains in a higher order blind spot. For example, when you wrote the above post you basically dictated the words to your fingers with your inner thinking voice. Would you say that you were conscious of that while typing? Or could you say that your thinking voice was in the background, as if somewhat hidden within another blind spot? If that is the case, do you conceive as possible that just like realizing the first blind spot liberates you from the prejudice of an outer world on the opaque side of consciousness, so learning to livingly experience our thinking could reveal even deeper layers of prejudice of which we're presently unaware?

Dear Cleric K,

Hi,

Thank you very much for your kind and wise reply.
Much appreciated.

It was a true pleasure to read it.
Somehow, I could sense deep peace emanating from it.
Are you a contemplative Christian monk, perhaps ?
To me, you seem to be very mature in your inner spiritual practise.


" What is the place of thinking in your view ? "

Well, it is a deep and profound question.
My answer would have to be very long and nuanced.

As to the rest of the above quoted fragment of your kind and wise reply, it is very deeply insightful.

Let me just say that I have been long struggling with maintaining a bit higher level of awareness, and of self-awareness. I had few good days in my life in this regard, and I will never forget them.

It is NOT like I have realized that I have a blind spot, or two. I am almost completely blind most of the time, except on a blessed good day.

So, yes, I completely do agree with everything you wrote to me, and I am grateful for your reply.

God bless you,
Jon



.

[Cleric K]

Dear Cleric K,

Hi,

Thank you very much for your kind and wise reply.
Much appreciated.

It was a true pleasure to read it.
Somehow, I could sense deep peace emanating from it.
Are you a contemplative Christian monk, perhaps ?
To me, you seem to be very mature in your inner spiritual practise.


" What is the place of thinking in your view ? "

Well, it is a deep and profound question.
My answer would have to be very long and nuanced.

As to the rest of the above quoted fragment of your kind and wise reply, it is very deeply insightful.

Let me just say that I have been long struggling with maintaining a bit higher level of awareness, and of self-awareness. I had few good days in my life in this regard, and I will never forget them.

It is NOT like I have realized that I have a blind spot, or two. I am almost completely blind most of the time, except on a blessed good day.

So, yes, I completely do agree with everything you wrote to me, and I am grateful for your reply.

God bless you,
Jon

Jon,
thank you for your appreciation but there are no exceptional beings here. All such things are glaringly obvious as soon as we realize that our present sense of what we are and what reality is, are only a work in progress. Experience shows that almost all difficulties arise when we imagine that we are already a finished being, with cognition that is well suited to address all the mysteries of existence - or if we fail to address these mysteries we assume that this is a fundamental limitation of our human existence. The last thing we consider is that we may need to transform something within ourselves in order to grasp the workings of living reality in quite unexpected ways. This puts a cap on all further development, so to speak.

Since you find The Blind Spot book of value, may I ask if you are familiar with Rudolf Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom?