• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Philosophy of Spirit

Sweden said:
Yes 'mind' in English is mistakenly thought to be a noun. But grammar and science are different things. In the absence of a functioning brain 'mind' cannot exist, anymore than can 'walking' in the absence of legs. You are a prisoner of a false concept, like generations of would-be philosophers before you.
Click to expand...

Mind is a noun just as story is.

It is just not a physical thing in the same way as a story isn't.
 
Sweden said:
Of course I noticed it's a 'Philosophy Forum'. Where else would one find playing with words substituting for knowledge? No wonder you disdain science, you know so little of it.
Click to expand...
Is this Trolling Day in Sweden?

Adjö, Amigo.

That's "Bye, Pal" in Swanish. For when conversation gets Sweinish. Which is Germerican for Swinish.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Mind is a noun just as story is.

It is just not a physical thing in the same way as a story isn't.
Click to expand...


Yes. But mind is only a noun because people in the past wrongly thought it existed. In the light of present scientific knowledge 'mind' should be replaced by 'thinking' - not a thing but an action.
 
Sweden said:
Yes. But mind is only a noun because people in the past wrongly thought it existed. In the light of present scientific knowledge 'mind' should be replaced by 'thinking' - not a thing but an action.
Click to expand...

The body politic is a noun. The political left is a noun. Neither are actually physical things. Just because something is a virtual or imagined thing does not stop it being a thing. Grammatically.
 
Tim the plumber said:
The body politic is a noun. The political left is a noun. Neither are actually physical things. Just because something is a virtual or imagined thing does not stop it being a thing. Grammatically.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is is I emphasize I'm talking about science not grammar.
 
Angel said:
2.1 Background: Idealism as understood in the German tradition

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Click to expand...

Angel said:
Yes, I do believe Skeptic Bob has provided us with a way to understand the abstruse Hegelian concept of the "objectification of Spirit (Mind)" -- see second paragraph of post #2.

That cylindrical, red, hard, sour, stinky object over there -- that object is the object it is, there, now, for us human beings, because our human minds objectify it thus, there, now.
Get it?
Think about it.

The objectification of spirit (mind).

This should be a very exciting moment in your intellectual life.
Click to expand...

Angel said:
We are in the realm of perception at this stage.
So how does the Hegelian "objectification of spirit (mind)" square with the Berkeleyan concept that "to be is to be perceived"?
Click to expand...

Angel said:
The difference, as per the Stanford entry above at #4, lies here, it seems: subjective idealism is a form of immaterialism, whereas objective idealism is not.

So what does that mean?...
Click to expand...

For subjective idealism reality is mental; objects are ideas in the mind.

For objective idealism reality is the expression of spirit (mind).
 
Angel said:
For subjective idealism reality is mental; objects are ideas in the mind.

For objective idealism reality is the expression of spirit (mind).
Click to expand...

More utter none sense. Just almost random words trying to sound profound.

There are obviously objects in the real world. This key board for example. I have a mental model of it in my mind. The model and the key board are separate things. Bothe real just one is an idea one is an object.
 
Tim the plumber said:
More utter none sense. Just almost random words trying to sound profound.

There are obviously objects in the real world. This key board for example. I have a mental model of it in my mind. The model and the key board are separate things. Bothe real just one is an idea one is an object.
Click to expand...
Are you lost? You're in the Philosophy forum here, not in the Beliefs and Skepticism forum. Calling what you don't understand "utter none sense [sic]" is encouraged and protected only in the latter forum, a sort of safe space for ignorance and stupidity; this sort of thing does not pass muster here. Here, if you claim that Hegel is "utter nonsense," then you had better understand Hegel well enough to make your case against him.
 
Angel said:
Are you lost? You're in the Philosophy forum here, not in the Beliefs and Skepticism forum. Calling what you don't understand "utter none sense [sic]" is encouraged and protected only in the latter forum, a sort of safe space for ignorance and stupidity; this sort of thing does not pass muster here. Here, if you claim that Hegel is "utter nonsense," then you had better understand Hegel well enough to make your case against him.
Click to expand...

It is not I that has to make such a case. You are the one making the claim. It is for you to explain your/this supposed clever bloke's ideas. If you can't manage that in a coherent and understandable way that is not my fault, it is yours.

Just because this is not the B+B section does not mean it is a safe space for gibberish. You will have to go to the theology section for that.
 
Tim the plumber said:
It is not I that has to make such a case. You are the one making the claim. It is for you to explain your/this supposed clever bloke's ideas. If you can't manage that in a coherent and understandable way that is not my fault, it is yours.

Just because this is not the B+B section does not mean it is a safe space for gibberish. You will have to go to the theology section for that.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about, Tim the plumber. You can get away with that sort of thing in Beliefs and Skepticism, but not here. For example, you spout the B&S shibboleth: "You're making the claim, etc." So tell us: What claim is Angel making in this thread?
 
Disclaimer.
Angel is neither George Berekley nor GWF Hegel.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about, Tim the plumber. You can get away with that sort of thing in Beliefs and Skepticism, but not here. For example, you spout the B&S shibboleth: "You're making the claim, etc." So tell us: What claim is Angel making in this thread?
Click to expand...

I don't know what claim you are making. I only see gibberish purporting to be a claim or possibly a question, never sure which it is supposed to be.

That is the point. You have to positively make a claim and/or ask a question.
 
Angel said:
Sorry, my patience with frivolity was worn out in B&S, The answer is: Angel is making no claim in this thread. Please litter elsewhere, Tim.
Click to expand...

Just try to make a decent point some day.
 
Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Idealism* ​

Idealism is the metaphysical and epistemological doctrine that ideas or thoughts make up fundamental reality. Essentially, it is any philosophy which argues that the only thing actually knowable is consciousness (or the contents of consciousness), whereas we never can be sure that matter or anything in the outside world really exists. Thus, the only real things are mental entities, not physical things (which exist only in the sense that they are perceived).

Idealism is a form of Monism (as opposed to Dualism or Pluralism), and stands in direct contrast to other Monist beliefs such as Physicalism and Materialism (which hold that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is physical matter). It is also contrasted with Realism (which holds that things have an absolute existence prior to, and independent of, our knowledge or perceptions).
Click to expand...
Idealism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

*But Were Afraid To Ask or Didn't Know Enough To Ask
 
If you think about it, objective idealism fits very nicely with quantum physics. Think about it.
 
Angel said:
If you think about it, objective idealism fits very nicely with quantum physics. Think about it.
Click to expand...

If you manage to post some sort of point others could discuss it.

You fool only yourself when you try to sound clever.
 
Tim the plumber said:
If you manage to post some sort of point others could discuss it.

You fool only yourself when you try to sound clever.
Click to expand...
The post you quote asked members to think, not run off at the mouth. If you understand objective idealism and the concept of the collapse of the wave function in quantum physics, you should have something intelligent to say about their compatibility.
 
Question:
How is objective idealism, a philosophical view of reality that goes all the way back to Plato, supported by quantum mechanics?
 
Angel said:
Question:
How is objective idealism, a philosophical view of reality that goes all the way back to Plato, supported by quantum mechanics?
Click to expand...

It isn't once you understand what the concept of observation is withing physics.

The observation need not be done by a conscious being. No mind involved necessarily.
 
Tim the plumber said:

It isn't once you understand what the concept of observation is withing physics.

The observation need not be done by a conscious being. No mind involved necessarily.
Click to expand...
Do please explain the concepts of "observer" and "measurement" in quantum mechanics for us. We look forward to your explanation.
 
Angel said:
Do please explain the concepts of "observer" and "measurement" in quantum mechanics for us. We look forward to your explanation.
Click to expand...

Well, you seem to be the expert in quantum physics, you are the one making the claim that it has relevance or equivalence to this philosophy, so presumably you know about it in some detail. Otherwise you would be talking drivel about a subject you know nothing about, which can't be can it?
 
Tim the plumber said:

Well, you seem to be the expert in quantum physics, you are the one making the claim that it has relevance or equivalence to this philosophy, so presumably you know about it in some detail. Otherwise you would be talking drivel about a subject you know nothing about, which can't be can it?
Click to expand...
Much obliged for your perspicacious explanation.

Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers?
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature.”

For Kastrup and his colleagues, these types of measurements can only be performed by a conscious observer. They write that inanimate objects like a particle detector can’t truly measure a particle. With the double-slit experiment, “the output of the detectors only becomes known when it is consciously observed by a person,” writes Kastrup. Extending this to all of reality, he argues that a “transpersonal mind” underlies the material world.

Not everyone agrees. In a Scientific American article from earlier this month, author Anil Ananthaswamy writes that double-slit experiments don’t necessarily support the existence of a transpersonal mind or the need for a conscious observer to collapse a wave function.

Ananthaswamy does accept, however, that a measurement is needed for this collapse to occur, but he adds that quantum mechanics is unclear about the nature of that measurement.

He writes that in spite of these experiments, it’s too early to ”make any claims about the nature of reality.” This is especially true given that scientists have yet to agree on the nature of consciousness, let alone whether its observational powers are needed for quantum phenomenon to occur.
Click to expand...
Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers? - Science and Nonduality Science and Nonduality
 
Angel said:
Much obliged for your perspicacious explanation.

Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers?

Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers? - Science and Nonduality Science and Nonduality
Click to expand...
He writes that in spite of these experiments, it’s too early to ”make any claims about the nature of reality.” This is especially true given that scientists have yet to agree on the nature of consciousness, let alone whether its observational powers are needed for quantum phenomenon to occur.
Click to expand...

So; don't know is the best you can say.

That's that one gone away then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom