Idealism without God

H

Hume

Verified User
The author makes a good case why we should trust our own experience to judge what is real.

Science only reports on physical facts. Religion talks about what god believes to be true.

"If idealism requires a traditional Judeo-Christian God, that strikes me as a cost. My book, The View from Everywhere, argues that idealism does not require such a God.
God is traditionally taken to be an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient agent."

iai.tv

The universe is made of experiences, not things | Helen Yetter-Chappell » IAI TV

Realist idealism without God
iai.tv iai.tv
 
Hume said:
The author makes a good case why we should trust our own experience to judge what is real.
Click to expand...

Human experience doesn't prepare us to understand how time and space are not uniform parameters, how the subatomic world exists in a state of quantum superposition, or how to concieve of hyperdimensional space.

The empiricism conceived of by John Locke and the other British empiricists simply didn't account for physical realities that lie beyond our experiential sense perceptions.
 
Cypress said:
Human experience doesn't prepare us to understand how time and space are not uniform parameters, how the subatomic world exists in a state of quantum superposition, or how to concieve of hyperdimensional space.

The empiricism conceived of by John Locke and the other British empiricists simply didn't account for physical realities that lie beyond our experiential sense perceptions.
Click to expand...
How does a concept of time and space affect my experience?
 
Cypress said:
Human experience doesn't prepare us to understand how time and space are not uniform parameters, how the subatomic world exists in a state of quantum superposition, or how to concieve of hyperdimensional space.

The empiricism conceived of by John Locke and the other British empiricists simply didn't account for physical realities that lie beyond our experiential sense perceptions.
Click to expand...
Leibniz conceived the universe as relativistic in 1700. Certainly his experience was not based on the proof 200 years later.
 
Hume said:
The author makes a good case why we should trust our own experience to judge what is real.

Science only reports on physical facts. Religion talks about what god believes to be true.

"If idealism requires a traditional Judeo-Christian God, that strikes me as a cost. My book, The View from Everywhere, argues that idealism does not require such a God.
God is traditionally taken to be an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient agent."

iai.tv

The universe is made of experiences, not things | Helen Yetter-Chappell » IAI TV

Realist idealism without God
iai.tv iai.tv
Click to expand...
idealism does not require a judeo Christian God.

morality and creating high trust societies is an undeniable good regardless of spiritual beliefs, unless you hate humans and human thriving, then you're just a genocidal Nazi.
 
In your new book, you ask how the mind can influence matter. Are we any closer to answering that question today than when Descartes posited it nearly four centuries ago?
There’s materialism, which is now known as physicalism, which says that only physical really exists, and there is no mental.

Then there’s idealism, which is now enjoying a mini-renaissance, but by and large has not been popular in the 20th and early 21st century, which says that everything fundamentally is a manifestation of the mental.

Then there is classical dualism, which says there’s clearly physical matter and there’s the mental, and they somehow have to interact. It’s been challenging to understand how the mental interacts with the physical—that’s known as the causation problem.

And then there are other things like panpsychism, that’s now becoming very popular again, which is a very ancient faith. It says that fundamentally everything is “ensouled”—that everything, even elementary particles, feel a little bit like something.

nautil.us

What Counts as Consciousness

Neuroscientist Christof Koch on human minds, AI, and bacteria.
nautil.us nautil.us
 
Hume said:
Leibniz conceived the universe as relativistic in 1700. Certainly his experience was not based on the proof 200 years later.
Click to expand...
Galileo conceived of an early form relativity 200 years before Leibniz and 400 years before Newton. But it was only partially the answer to special and general relativity, because it was only dealing with inertia.

You know how Einstein came up with special relativity? By reasoning and thought experiment, not by empirical experience and sense perception.
 
Cypress said:
Galileo conceived of an early form relativity 200 years before Leibniz and 400 years before Newton. But it was only partially the answer to special and general relativity, because it was only dealing with inertia.

You know how Einstein came up with special relativity? By reasoning and thought experiment, not by empirical experience and sense perception.
Click to expand...
So, experience does not depend on science.
 
Cypress said:
Galileo conceived of an early form relativity 200 years before Leibniz and 400 years before Newton. But it was only partially the answer to special and general relativity, because it was only dealing with inertia.

You know how Einstein came up with special relativity? By reasoning and thought experiment, not by empirical experience and sense perception.
Click to expand...
Newton believed in absolute time and space.
 
Bottom line:

Scientists of a thousand years in the future...may view the "science" of today the same way we view the "sience" of a thousad years ago.

Same goes for physicians of that time.

Being comfortable with how little we may actually know about the REALITY of existence is someting for which we might well strive.
 
Hume said:
Newton believed in absolute time and space.
Click to expand...
I know. But I didn't mention Newton. Newton didn't understand how time and space were variable, because nothing in his experience prepared him for perceiving that. That's why Newtonian mechanics doesn't work at relativistic speeds approaching c.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Bottom line:

Scientists of a thousand years in the future...may view the "science" of today the same way we view the "sience" of a thousad years ago.

Same goes for physicians of that time.

Being comfortable with how little we may actually know about the REALITY of existence is someting for which we might well strive.
Click to expand...
What is there is no reality to existence? That is, what if there is no true world other than what we think it is.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Bottom line:

Scientists of a thousand years in the future...may view the "science" of today the same way we view the "sience" of a thousad years ago.

Same goes for physicians of that time.

Being comfortable with how little we may actually know about the REALITY of existence is someting for which we might well strive.
Click to expand...
Science has been wildly successful, particularly in fueling technological innovation. The inductive method of science is a watershed achievement for human knowledge. But I have always said that most laypersons don't appreciate how little science actually knows and explains.
 
Cypress said:
Science has been wildly successful, particularly in fueling technological innovation. But I have always said that most laypersons don't appreciate how little science actually knows.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is in science, not the layperson. Most people--even science literate--don't live their lives according to science.
 
Hume said:
What is there is no reality to existence? That is, what if there is no true world other than what we think it is.
Click to expand...
Could be.

I suspect (just a suspicion) that what we know about the REALITY is a mere scratch in the surface of an enormous iceberg, Hume. Gotta make do with that for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top