I wanted to ask what you think about the method of idealism that Moshe Rat supports,
The idealistic worldview he presents, argues broadly that all reality is mental, a product of human consciousnesses, which emanate themselves from the super-consciousness of God.
In other words, reality is a kind of dream that exists in the personal consciousness, only reality is a dream shared by all human beings, and not your own.
1. This is based, among other things, on studies from the quantum (probably related to the effect of the observation on the measurements, etc.).
2. And like physicists who declare that attempts to establish the real existence of matter have all failed, and if so the only reality that exists is consciousness. Mentally.
Also, in situations where brain activity decreases and is disabled - people experience much more extensive cognitive experiences than the normal state.
For example in cases of near-death experiences or under the influence of certain drugs. And thus it approaches the state of the original superconscious. ~ / One unity. And more.
4. Moreover, because there are lots of reasons for this approach, and it is also simple he argues that it should be trusted.
5. And the realistic worldview is naive. So instead of sticking with a medieval worldview, one can evolve to the advancement of idealism.
(I guess he has many more arguments but really not laid out in all of them).
Based on these approaches, there are already those who build all kinds of models to explain reality.
Suppose the brain, according to the Castrop method, is simply "the way our consciousness looks to the outside observer." The mind and consciousness are not two different things, but the mind is a visual and tangible representation of consciousness.
Rabbi Moshe Rat is a former student and I definitely appreciate him. I do not share many of his perceptions and in particular his tendency to fantasy and idealism. The arguments you wrote here in his name (I do not know their details. I did not read) seem to me completely unfounded, including their scientific basis.
The claim that reality is a dream that exists in the personal consciousness seems to me really contradictory. My personal consciousness Who? My? I mean I do exist? Only I exist? Why assume that only I exist and all the others do not? And the rest of reality does not either? And God also exists? How does he know?
And as for the "scientific" basis, I did not understand what the connection to quantum was. The effect of measurement on reality is a difficult question, but opinions are divided about it, and it is quite clear today that "measurement" does not require human cognition (even measurement by a computer crashes the wave function), contrary to what is accepted in popular literature. And the fantastic.
I'm no longer in all his claims, only from what I went through very briefly about them. He has a few more claims on his narrative site.
Of course he assumes other people exist. But just as in a dream anyone can dream like this in our world the consciousnesses dream together in a conscious medium. It seems to me that an example of a kind of computer game can illustrate his words in a good way. I also tend to think it's more of a metaphysical approach to reality and it's a coherent approach.
What's a little difficult for me on this subject, is how do you think you're supposed to discuss this subject? Or on such matters?
How exactly can parties be brought here or there? And consider the conclusions and make a decision.
After all, it is clear to everyone that according to Kant there is no evidence for the existence of a real universe with the thing itself (Nuumana). But we always meet only with the phenomenon (except for our very existence)… But then why double things and not assume that only the phenomenon works? (Like a kind of Oakham razor if it belongs here at all)
I have seen that your question is from a slippery slope regarding general skepticism has risen, and perhaps the closet;).
But, it is not clear that it is supposed to come up here because it is not a skeptical approach, but a metaphysical interpretation of reality.
Maybe I will ask the opposite, why does the rabbi assume dualism and that other people exist and that G ‐ d exists?
I guess that's how it "looks" to him. And there is no reason to doubt it and in general his understandings and feelings no? But the idea of the phenomenon that provides a full explanation for these things is not necessarily skeptical because it seems more like a * interpretive * / alternative alternative. Or does it not seem to you that this is a correct claim (because it finally contradicts the assumptions that there is a table in front of us)?
I also thought that it may have been Bohrs that you mentioned in column 383 quite difficult to put this interpretation into practice, because it is a language without nouns (except for other people) but only with verbs and their inflections. But on the other hand, it seems that even in a computer game we treat objects as existing. And if so again the compromise seems to be compatible and coherent.
So instead of mumbling words, he would step over a high roof railing and drop himself to his death and then wake up from the dream. Or he would take care of canceling gravity in his dream and open us dream cars floating in the air.
Do not understand these words, and certainly do not know how to discuss them (nor see any point in doing so).
Sorry for the delay I was just very busy and wanted to comment.
I did not understand the number of points in this line.
1. First towards the misunderstanding of the words.
Can the rabbi understand the idea that because all we know is only our "perception" and not the thing itself. So it can be said that in fact everything that exists except for other people, is only in "our" perception. And we do not need to add to the hypothesis the existence of the thing per se. ~ Like a dream. Only here that it is a shared dream.
2. So right now we have two options to explain reality.
A. I see a table and indeed there is "such material" external to me.
B. I see a table, but in fact it is only in my consciousness and not outside. He is assimilated there by a factor that coordinates this let’s say Gd. And coordinator so that more people will see it too. A kind of collaborative war game on a computer.
If so, how can the "right" explanation be chosen?
After all, it will be according to certain etuities that say for A. that such a world does exist. And for B. that we have never encountered this world per se but have always encountered it through perception.
It seems reasonable to choose the simple explanation if it explains the same data and if so it is worth choosing B. But it is not clear to me that this is ontally correct in this case. And at most methodologically. But here most people think like A.
And if so, I ask how appropriate and reasonable it is to discuss this issue.
On the contrary, if the rabbi does not know how to discuss it, then why does he think that Rabbi Moshe is wrong and he is right ??
3. Why do you see no point in this discussion? Is it because of an inability to discuss it (and if so, then how can one talk about the “mistake” of this approach). Or because there is no NFKM (but even that is not accurate, there is a lot on the existentialist and philosophical level, as the proponents of this method claim)
4. Physically, it is possible to bring all kinds of evidence as the main material is actually fields, and that they behave in a strange way (such as faster than the speed of light, and infinite speed, conservation of charge that shows laws external to nature, etc.). And they do not exist as real objects but only as "potential" or field. And yet they do have effects in reality. I think there are those who find God in this. Which constitutes the fields or the laws of nature per se.
Only here take one more step forward as part of a shared consciousness.
Forgive the delay, but it's hard to discuss, especially since you are repeating things I explained. I will answer briefly.
1. I explained that I did not understand the words. If nothing exists then neither do I. So my existence is in whose imagination? My? And if you say I exist and only all the others do not exist, then what have you gained? If you already assume that something exists there is no reason not to add that other things also exist. After all, this is our intuition.
2. The correct explanation is what seems to me intuitive.
3. Indeed, it cannot be discussed. This is not to say that there is no truth here. This idealism is not true in my opinion, and cannot be discussed. So is the law of causality in my opinion and it is still impossible to discuss it or prove to those who do not accept it.
4. Nothing to do with physics. Physics does not say that things do not exist, but that they are not necessarily what we perceive them to be (nor is it accurate).
These quibbles are not very interesting and I see no point in this discussion.
OK thank you.
1. This is not entirely true because yes do agree that other people exist, and the mistake is only in our interpretation of the objective existence of external things that are not consciousness.
2. I understand, only this name is also built on additional claims and that if so improve the initial initiation. As a kind of philosophical evidence and exposing to Gd.
3. Discuss if you mean the ability to draw conclusions and check whether there is integrity and coherence in ignorance? But if so, what do you think about your claim that you do indeed see an interest in rhetoric. And in general discussions…
4. Okay, this is an interesting topic that comes up a lot in the popular literature and here on this site it also comes up from time to time, it is also used by religious people in another direction, and idealists in another direction, but Narali needs expansion in question in itself.
1. Based on what you claim there are other people? And that about them you have direct information, as opposed to the objective existence of tables?
3. I have explained in many places what rhetoric is all about. These are claims that there is no way to examine, because whoever fortifies them will reject any argument in the same way (maybe this is just my illusion). Therefore I see no point in this discussion.
1. I think it can be argued mostly based on intuition. But if so, say that the table that really exists is like that.
So get. Do you see anything better?
2-3. Thanks. now I get it.
4. As I mentioned regarding the relationship between modern science and science and philosophy and theology, I would love to ask, only I would rather go over a drop on the subject first. Because it is very common in literature and popular literature. While your statements here are quite surprising (modern physics may even show that the things we perceive are indeed such). If I did not completely take out your intention in the maybe round 🙂
Honestly I think this is a big enough topic for the column in particular that you are a doctor in it.
Please login or Sign up to submit your answer