3 ms·

Indeed, this is the next Copernican revolution which can't come soon enough. So many things make much more sense the moment we swap primacy of matter with prima

Indeed, this is the next Copernican revolution which can't come soon enough. So many things make much more sense the moment we swap primacy of matter with primacy of consciousness.

vidarh 6y ago
The distinction is largely moot unless we discover a way to pierce the veil. The strongest argument for modern materialism (in the philosophical sense of the term) is that it doesn't matter if it is true unless we discover a way to observe or interact with something beyond - as long as all we observe is a materialist representation of the world, we have no other meaningful choice than to act as if it is true, because we can but guess at what else might exist and the options are infinite.
- namero999 6y ago
  I would tend to agree with what you say here, with some clarifications. The first one is that I think it's a matter of _models_. What I mean is that digging under the surface of materialism, what we'll find is pure physics, and currently physics is based on incomplete models or models based on unreachable or non-interactive constructs. Many-universes, 26 dimensions, dark energy, collapse of wave function... Placeholder ideas to make the math work. So, idealism is preaching that there could be the possibility that our current holes in knowledge and understanding might be filled with mind stuff rather than matter stuff. Sure, it might require us to flip the causality relationship between the two, but I don't see that as a fundamentally different way of guessing at what else might exist, and just as materialism has descriptive and predictive power based on abstract, unreachable constructs, so can an idealist worldview. With regards of having to act as if materialism must be true, I would agree but it depends on at which scale we operate. Meaning, I doubt there could be any other functioning paradigm to go about our daily life and to progress practical science. But for things such as "why is there stuff instead of not" or even more tricky questions such as "what's the meaning", I'd look elsewhere.
- jordwest 6y ago
  > The distinction is largely moot unless we discover a way to pierce the veil. Buddhists might tell you we've already discovered a way to pierce the veil ("enlightenment"). Recently I saw a video of Shinzen Young [0] describing his experience of this, and it sounds a lot like this observation of something beyond. Regardless of whether it's really seeing the nature of reality or just a trick of the brain, I find it fascinating that so many people (throughout history) have very similar [1] experiences and it's given me a lot of motivation to meditate more... [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPnLDtHLymo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPnLDtHLymo [1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/what-does-it-feel-like-to-be-enlightened/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/what-does-i...

Indeed, this is the next Copernican revolution which can't come soon enough. So many things make much more sense the moment we swap primacy of matter with primacy of consciousness.

vidarh 6y ago

The distinction is largely moot unless we discover a way to pierce the veil. The strongest argument for modern materialism (in the philosophical sense of the term) is that it doesn't matter if it is true unless we discover a way to observe or interact with something beyond - as long as all we observe is a materialist representation of the world, we have no other meaningful choice than to act as if it is true, because we can but guess at what else might exist and the options are infinite.

namero999 6y ago
I would tend to agree with what you say here, with some clarifications. The first one is that I think it's a matter of _models_. What I mean is that digging under the surface of materialism, what we'll find is pure physics, and currently physics is based on incomplete models or models based on unreachable or non-interactive constructs. Many-universes, 26 dimensions, dark energy, collapse of wave function... Placeholder ideas to make the math work. So, idealism is preaching that there could be the possibility that our current holes in knowledge and understanding might be filled with mind stuff rather than matter stuff. Sure, it might require us to flip the causality relationship between the two, but I don't see that as a fundamentally different way of guessing at what else might exist, and just as materialism has descriptive and predictive power based on abstract, unreachable constructs, so can an idealist worldview. With regards of having to act as if materialism must be true, I would agree but it depends on at which scale we operate. Meaning, I doubt there could be any other functioning paradigm to go about our daily life and to progress practical science. But for things such as "why is there stuff instead of not" or even more tricky questions such as "what's the meaning", I'd look elsewhere.
jordwest 6y ago
> The distinction is largely moot unless we discover a way to pierce the veil. Buddhists might tell you we've already discovered a way to pierce the veil ("enlightenment"). Recently I saw a video of Shinzen Young [0] describing his experience of this, and it sounds a lot like this observation of something beyond. Regardless of whether it's really seeing the nature of reality or just a trick of the brain, I find it fascinating that so many people (throughout history) have very similar [1] experiences and it's given me a lot of motivation to meditate more... [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPnLDtHLymo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPnLDtHLymo [1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/what-does-it-feel-like-to-be-enlightened/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/what-does-i...