5 ms·

I'm quite surprised that there's not a consensus about the philosophical framing of physics (metaphysics). The way I see it: - Consciousness (perceptions, fee

I'm quite surprised that there's not a consensus about the philosophical framing of physics (metaphysics). The way I see it: - Consciousness (perceptions, feelings, thought) is the only thing that really exists. - There are patterns in what we perceive, for example, when we drop a rock, we see it falls and hear the impact. - So we develop models to describe patterns in our consciousness. Physics is just a description of those patterns. So the physical world doesn't really exist, it's just an idea in our minds.

ffwd 10y ago
The problem is this is self evident and doesn't explain anything. Saying that consciousness is the only thing that exists is like saying God created the universe. Well then who created God? We have to try to explain what all this is through our conscious experience, and if it happens to be that it's impossible for us to do so, we'll have to re-evaluate our options then. I personally don't believe this to be the case - I think everything exists and consciousness is only one way too perceive that everything, but that's another debate I guess
- RivieraKid 10y ago
  > The problem is this is self evident and doesn't explain anything. Definitely not self evident, vast majority of people don't see things this way. It doesn't have to explain anything, it's something akin to observation. Just a description of how things are, not an explanation. > Saying that consciousness is the only thing that exists is like saying God created the universe. I don't get this, how is this remotely similar, what does God have to do with this? The way I see it, history is just mental concept / idea. We take our physical model and similate the current state of the universe backwards - and call this history. > I personally don't believe this to be the case - I think everything exists and consciousness is only one way too perceive that everything, but that's another debate I guess Well, you only have perceptions (what you see, hear, feel, ...). It's the only thing you can be sure of. The "real world" is in its essence a thought, idea, mental model. Think about what does the statement "Eiffel tower exists" mean. It's a probabilistic statement about future perceptions - if you go to Paris, you will probably see it.
  - ffwd 10y ago
    > Just a description of how things are, not an explanation. In my opinion it definitely is an explanation. There's a difference between a world where only consciousness exists, to one where the real world exists and consciousness is one aspect of it. > I don't get this, how is this remotely similar, what does God have to do with this? Saying only consciousness exists doesn't explain what consciousness is. Same as saying that God created the universe doesn't explain what created God. If it happens to be that the physical world exists and consciousness is a phenomena of the brain, as we see it today through our perceptions, then consciousness is NOT the only thing that exists, and we can start to probe what the role of it is in the bigger picture. > It's the only thing you can be sure of. The "real world" is in its essence a thought, idea, mental model. But what if it isn't? What if the real world is tightly coupled to the physics that we perceive, and that our concept of it in consciousness actually comes from physics and not from our mental model. There is definitely a chance that all our perceptions are false / an illusion of some kind, but since as you say, they are all we have, we have to presume some level of reality outside our mind and then go from there, and then if some day it's proven to be totally false we can evaluate our options then.
sverige 10y ago
So Kant would have you believe. But there are lots of others who say the physical world would exist just fine without human consciousness.
- RivieraKid 10y ago
  Well, they're wrong. What exactly do they mean when they say that the physical world exists? When you say that the moon exists, you basically mean that when you look up at night, you expect to see moon. It's a statement about your perceptions / consciousness.
  - szemet 10y ago
    What about the rules governing the position of the moon on the sky? If we switch off all consciousness by giving strong sleeping pills to all humans (animals too? - or is it just you who matters (solipsism)?), will the moon change its position while we are sleeping? So will your/the consciousness move the world while you/we are unconscious - using some simple and higly regular rules (called physics)? But if you/we are unconscious, then why on earth should we call that unconscious mover of the world consciousness?
    - RivieraKid 10y ago
      > or is it just you who matters (solipsism)? Basically yes (depending on the definition of solipsism). From your point of view, all that really exists is your current consciousness. Other people's minds are just a part of your mental model of the world.
      - sverige 10y ago
        There is no need for further discussion then.
psyc 10y ago
This is called Idealism. I wouldn't go so far as to say I "believe in it", but I often think its implications should be explored much more. Unfortunately, hardly anyone takes it "seriously" enough.
- RivieraKid 10y ago
  I find my views are somewhat similar to idealism, solipsism and dualism. Interestingly, it seems those are minority views, but I believe that this clearly the correct worldview.
- ci5er 10y ago
  They don't seem to take anti-materialistic monism seriously either! :-) It's hard to get tenure these days if you ever mention solipsism, the direct conclusion of Descartes' cogito (which he never seemed to quite get to himself) or solipsism seriously. Individually or in some creative combo move. I don't know if that's because people think that Kant has been beat up enough that they don't want to be seen standing near his stinking corpse, or thinking about it just makes some people feel 'icky' or what. Which is too bad, because I find that Johnson's (to Berkeley) "I refute it thus!" to be more of a hissy fit than a satisfying response. IDK. Maybe I'd just like someone to use more words? :-)

ffwd 10y ago

The problem is this is self evident and doesn't explain anything. Saying that consciousness is the only thing that exists is like saying God created the universe. Well then who created God? We have to try to explain what all this is through our conscious experience, and if it happens to be that it's impossible for us to do so, we'll have to re-evaluate our options then. I personally don't believe this to be the case - I think everything exists and consciousness is only one way too perceive that everything, but that's another debate I guess

RivieraKid 10y ago
> The problem is this is self evident and doesn't explain anything. Definitely not self evident, vast majority of people don't see things this way. It doesn't have to explain anything, it's something akin to observation. Just a description of how things are, not an explanation. > Saying that consciousness is the only thing that exists is like saying God created the universe. I don't get this, how is this remotely similar, what does God have to do with this? The way I see it, history is just mental concept / idea. We take our physical model and similate the current state of the universe backwards - and call this history. > I personally don't believe this to be the case - I think everything exists and consciousness is only one way too perceive that everything, but that's another debate I guess Well, you only have perceptions (what you see, hear, feel, ...). It's the only thing you can be sure of. The "real world" is in its essence a thought, idea, mental model. Think about what does the statement "Eiffel tower exists" mean. It's a probabilistic statement about future perceptions - if you go to Paris, you will probably see it.
- ffwd 10y ago
  > Just a description of how things are, not an explanation. In my opinion it definitely is an explanation. There's a difference between a world where only consciousness exists, to one where the real world exists and consciousness is one aspect of it. > I don't get this, how is this remotely similar, what does God have to do with this? Saying only consciousness exists doesn't explain what consciousness is. Same as saying that God created the universe doesn't explain what created God. If it happens to be that the physical world exists and consciousness is a phenomena of the brain, as we see it today through our perceptions, then consciousness is NOT the only thing that exists, and we can start to probe what the role of it is in the bigger picture. > It's the only thing you can be sure of. The "real world" is in its essence a thought, idea, mental model. But what if it isn't? What if the real world is tightly coupled to the physics that we perceive, and that our concept of it in consciousness actually comes from physics and not from our mental model. There is definitely a chance that all our perceptions are false / an illusion of some kind, but since as you say, they are all we have, we have to presume some level of reality outside our mind and then go from there, and then if some day it's proven to be totally false we can evaluate our options then.

sverige 10y ago

So Kant would have you believe. But there are lots of others who say the physical world would exist just fine without human consciousness.

RivieraKid 10y ago
Well, they're wrong. What exactly do they mean when they say that the physical world exists? When you say that the moon exists, you basically mean that when you look up at night, you expect to see moon. It's a statement about your perceptions / consciousness.
- szemet 10y ago
  What about the rules governing the position of the moon on the sky? If we switch off all consciousness by giving strong sleeping pills to all humans (animals too? - or is it just you who matters (solipsism)?), will the moon change its position while we are sleeping? So will your/the consciousness move the world while you/we are unconscious - using some simple and higly regular rules (called physics)? But if you/we are unconscious, then why on earth should we call that unconscious mover of the world consciousness?
  - RivieraKid 10y ago
    > or is it just you who matters (solipsism)? Basically yes (depending on the definition of solipsism). From your point of view, all that really exists is your current consciousness. Other people's minds are just a part of your mental model of the world.
    - sverige 10y ago
      There is no need for further discussion then.

psyc 10y ago

This is called Idealism. I wouldn't go so far as to say I "believe in it", but I often think its implications should be explored much more. Unfortunately, hardly anyone takes it "seriously" enough.

RivieraKid 10y ago
I find my views are somewhat similar to idealism, solipsism and dualism. Interestingly, it seems those are minority views, but I believe that this clearly the correct worldview.
ci5er 10y ago
They don't seem to take anti-materialistic monism seriously either! :-) It's hard to get tenure these days if you ever mention solipsism, the direct conclusion of Descartes' cogito (which he never seemed to quite get to himself) or solipsism seriously. Individually or in some creative combo move. I don't know if that's because people think that Kant has been beat up enough that they don't want to be seen standing near his stinking corpse, or thinking about it just makes some people feel 'icky' or what. Which is too bad, because I find that Johnson's (to Berkeley) "I refute it thus!" to be more of a hissy fit than a satisfying response. IDK. Maybe I'd just like someone to use more words? :-)