Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
"Rationality"
You're the one who is resorting to just calling everything that doesn't align with your beliefs "nonsense" and "woo-woo". That's about as far as rationality as you can get. You don't have to like philosophy but then don't start arguing about it, especially if you don't know how to recognize logical fallacies in your own arguments.
You clearly don't even know what a logical fallacy is as your posts are full of them.
You’re asserting consciousness is ontologically prior, so the burden of proof lies with you; however your posts commit several errors: burden‑of‑proof reversal, begging the question / circular reasoning, equivocation (private perception vs intersubjective measurement), category error (treating epistemology as ontology), special pleading / unfalsifiability, straw man of scientific practice, and a false analogy to scripture.
You accuse me of fallacies, but let’s be clear:
Burden-of-proof reversal: You demand I prove consciousness is fundamental while assuming matter is - without proving matter exists outside consciousness. That’s the very circularity I’m highlighting.
Begging the question: Claiming ‘rocks existed before brains’ assumes a materialist timeline, which is the premise in dispute. Your "evidence" is just experience within consciousness.
False analogy: You dismiss idealism as "unfalsifiable woo," but your own materialist assumptions are equally unfalsifiable.
I’m not reversing the burden; I’m exposing the symmetry: neither of us can prove our starting point without circularity. But I can point to the fact that to say anything about the world, you need consciousness first.
I’m not begging the question; I’m asking you to justify your assumption that matter is independent of observation.
My analogy isn’t false, it’s precise: You’re demanding I disprove your framework using your framework. That’s not logic; it’s a trap.
Feel free to explain how it’s not circular to insist that a challenge to materialism must be proven within materialism.
Burden‑of‑proof reversal
Begging the question / Circular reasoning
False analogy / Irrelevant comparison
Tu quoque / Defensive turn
Begging the question (repeated)
Equivocation
Appeal to ignorance / Appeal to unfalsifiability
Rhetorical trap / Straw‑man implication
Special pleading (implicit)
Please don’t take this the wrong way. But you are pattern matching what bsit saying to woowoo stuff you’ve heard in the past, but this is causing you to misunderstand what he’s actually saying. So you’re talking past one another.
Why don’t you try to summarize, in your own words, what bsit is trying to say, so we can see clearly where the misunderstanding occurred?
I really don't see why I'm the one that's been asked to explain this quackery, my standpoint is the default scientific position.
From what I can tell it's just poorly worded idealism. They think consciousness can exist without matter (or worse consciousness somehow creates matter) with no proof or reasoning, then just repeating "Prove me wrong." without addressing any of my counter points.
There are fringe ideas in this space that do merit some thought as other have suggested such as panpsychism and IIT but that is not what this person is floating.
I'm not asking you to explain it, I'm just asking you describe what you think his position is, just so we can make sure that we're all on the same page.
Well I described it as best I could but to be frank their position was pretty incoherent and changed over the course of the thread in an attempt to avoid scrutiny.
Are we on the same page now?
Unfortunately I don’t think so.
This is the issue I think. Bsit was making coherent philosophical arguments about the mind’s relationship to matter. As I read it (or she) was saying something along the lines of:
That is, I think, a charitable interpretation of Bsit’s arguments.
The pattern recognition I was talking about was, basically, you say talk about consciousness that sounded vaguely new-age, and you saw Bsit was saying this isn’t a scientific matter, and you thought, ah, here we have another anti-intellectual crank who must be making some logical errors (at least that’s how it seems, judging by your comments).
But that’s not a fair characterization. Because reason why it’s not a scientific matter is not because Bsit is an anti-intellectual, but because he/she is dealing with a metaphysical matter, one that examines the fundamental assumptions of science itself (this is not the same as questioning the scientific method; it is just examining what we take for granted we perform experiments and construct theories etc). Maybe you don’t think we should question these assumptions and so you don’t like metaphysics. That’s fine. But you at least have to admit that the arguments are complex enough to warrant more than a simple dismissal
Well this is a shame as we seemed to be in agreement on the comment thread above. I didn't even pick you up of the fact that none of the papers you linked were evidence for panpsychism, just exploring where consciousness is located in the brain and potential mathematical frameworks for it.
bsit wasn't making coherent arguments, they were putting out unfalsifiable theories and then linking things like the Hard Problem of Consciousness which doesn't support their point, it's just an ongoing problem yet to be explained by science. You mentioned yourself that one possible way to do this would be via further research into IIT.
I see no paths to evidence for idealism myself and asked for some but received none. So yes, I'm afraid I will dismiss a theory which doesn't make any predictions and can't be proved/disproved. Doubly so if the advocate starts comparing my scientific understanding to the Bible then starts abusing logical fallacies.
To address your extremely charitable interpretation... What does matter being an interpretation of consciousness even mean to you? To me it would mean that we are some kind of Boltzmann brain imagining the universe into existence. If that's the the case then it's basically solipsism which bsit flat out rejected multiple times.
I didn't use the word anti-intellectual but if we can't agree on definitions and the fundamental axioms of a shared reality then we really are in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Hey I'm still all for the good vibes here. We're still on the same page, I shouldn't have phrased it like that. I'm just saying that our understanding of what Bsit was saying differs. I would also like to add, for the sake of goodwill, that I've really enjoyed chatting with you here.
I know, I wasn't trying to provide evidence for panpsychism, I was just trying to show that IIT makes predictions (something that the guy I was talking to was denying).
This is I think where the fundamental disagreement lies. Bsit was making a philosophical claim, so the apparatus of science doesn't really work here. We can't really prove or disprove the idea using experiments, we can only discuss how coherent the idea is. In this sense philosophy is more like math than science.
I think this is the fundamental issue. It's easy to miss, but you're framing of it is still implicitly putting matter first by assuming that, in order for there to be experience, there would need to be Boltzmann brains. But in idealism, everything, even Boltzmann brains, would be happening within consciousness. Consciousness comes first, brains come second (the two happen to be coupled, but even this experience of them being coupled is happening within consciousness). Consciousness is like a giant container that contains everything else within it. Consciousness is like a canvas, and the material world is like the paint on that canvas. We construct stories about how the changes in the brain cause changes in consciousness, and those stories are true (there are clear correlations here), but they themselves are happening on the canvas.
A good way to think of this is like 3D space, or extension. Except for a point, every shape is within space (ie it has length, width, height). and is within space. It doesn't make sense to ask which of the shapes cause space (is it the spheres? the trapezoids?), or which shapes come before space (maybe its the cubes), because shapes by necessity cannot exist unless they are immersed in space. In the same way, under idealism it wouldn't make sense to think about Boltzmann brains (or any kind of brains) causing experience; that would be like asking which shapes cause space. Instead, consciousness is just the dimension brains and all other physical objects exist within. They cannot exist without objects in the same way that shapes cannot exist without three-dimensional space.
I did offer support, several times. Just because you keep skipping over it doesn't mean I didn't. My support is: to say anything about the world, you have to be conscious first. Feel free to refute the fact. Once you do, I'll respond.
I'm presenting an axiom. Every "proof" you offer for matter is itself an experience appearing within consciousness. I'm not assuming the conclusion; I'm highlighting the only medium through which "evidence" is even possible.
Materialism and Idealism are equally "unfalsifiable" at the foundational level. Science measures the behavior of things (phenomena), but it cannot prove the nature of the "thing-in-itself" (noumena) exists without a witness.
It is not a fallacy to point out that you're guilty of the very "unfounded belief" you accuse me of. It is a valid critique of Scientism (the mistaken belief that the scientific method can solve metaphysical questions)
I'm not "blurring" terms; I'm defining them more precisely. For an Idealist, "to exist" is synonymous with "to be experienced". You are assuming a secondary, unobservable definition of "existence" outside of experience.
Materialism relies on indirect inference. Every "fact" about matter is an appearance within consciousness. Not only that, it's a thing filtered through language. Idealism relies on direct evidence: the immediate, undeniable fact of experience itself (before labels, words, concepts, map-to-the-territory) There is zero evidence for matter existing independently of an observer. To claim that matter exists when no one is experiencing it is an unfalsifiable leap of faith, not a scientific "fact".
I did explain, but well... you don't read. You just want to prove yourself right.
I'm pointing at the Hard Problem of Consciousness. It is actually "special pleading" to claim matter is the only thing that doesn't need a witness to be "real".
Consciousness isn’t just the starting line, it’s the entire field. Without it, there’s no game, no players, no 'matter.' You’re arguing about the rules of a game while standing on the field and pretending the field doesn’t exist. Matter is the "Guess": You only assume physical things (like rocks or brains) exist "out there" because your awareness shows them to you as images, sounds, or feelings. In short: You don't have to prove you are aware, but you do have to prove that the "outside world" exists when you aren't looking at it
Just in case there's someone else reading this at this point and is actually interested, go read these (because the person I'm responding to won't and there's little point in continuing to argue with someone like that):
https://philarchive.org/rec/KASAIA-3 Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology, Bernardo Kastrup
This is a recent philosophical look into Idealism
Some useful wikipedia links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation
If you treat the claim as an axiom, say so explicitly and accept it as metaphysics; otherwise, provide one concrete empirical or explanatory consequence that would favor idealism over materialism and define which sense of exist you mean (phenomenal vs. ontological).
If it wasn't obvious from the subject matter, I'm pretty sure he made clear that he was making a metaphysical/philosophical claim rather than a scientific one with this comment:
Fair enough it's controversial I'll give them that.
But so is my goldfish's belief that the grass is blue and the sky is green.