Idealism vs. Dualism
I heard that the rabbi claims that he believes in dualism (materiality and consciousness)
I would like to know, according to Occam’s razor, one must assume that there is a material reality outside of consciousness.
It is enough to assume that there is only consciousness and that it is one (and matter is one type of experience among all types: thoughts, emotions, and physical objects)
It is important to emphasize that I do not adopt Berkeley’s method, which thinks that God forms objects when no one is looking at them, but that reality itself is simply consciousness.
I would like to know what the Rabbi thinks about the idea that if there is only consciousness as I mentioned, then in fact the consciousness of a singular and plural is only part of consciousness and therefore there is only one consciousness in truth and it is something like God.
There are common mistakes in using the razor principle. This principle does not determine what is true but rather selects between equivalent possibilities. It is simpler that there is only an electric field and no magnetic field, but what can be done when the facts say otherwise. It is simpler that there is no God than that there is, but what can be done when logic says otherwise. It is much simpler that what I see does not exist, but what can be done when I see that it does exist.
Similarly, when you are considering idealism versus dualism, you must first decide which seems more reasonable or logical to you. If you find that both options are equivalent, then and only then can you use the razor principle. To me, it is simply not equivalent.
I hope it's clear to you that you're talking to yourself here. The answers you received here came from you yourself.
"I hope it's clear to you that you're talking to yourself here. The answers you got here came from yourself." – I didn't understand what that means.
I don't accept the interpretation of the razor principle,
The principle says "There is no need to assume a thing from outside that is given to you as a reason, unless it is obvious from itself, or known from experience.."
Because there is no reason to assume the existence of matter outside of consciousness, that is, in my opinion it does not contribute to any explanatory ability, and for me it is really not obvious and also by definition not known from experience.
That is, according to the principle there is no need to assume the existence of matter
Thank you,
You have no reason to assume that I exist. So the correspondence here is probably with yourself.
What you brought about the razor principle does not contradict what I said about it. I (sorry: you yourself) remind you of the examples you brought.
Is the rabbi implying that I am claiming solipsism?
I fully believe that other people have their own internal consciousness and I am not the only one, God forbid.
I do claim that just as blue and green are two different types of possible consciousness, so are you and I. (And that is, in my opinion, the whole point of breaking the ego. Buddhists separate the experience of the self as a type of thought/experience from the very essence of being, Judaism also speaks of different levels of the self and of a collective self in the style of Carl Jung.)
I claim that there is no need to assume that there is an entity that exists in some form called matter. But to treat matter as a useful abstraction in different contexts (for example, when doing science, they assume that atoms, quantum fields, forces, etc. exist, and this is not just a model, or when they say that a person is material, they mean that he is attracted to “low” manifestations of consciousness)
But for me, claiming that matter really exists sounds absurd, the only existence we know is that which can be perceived and identified as existing within the field of our experience. Matter is a useful abstraction that we invented to describe part of the world of phenomena.
For example, when we dream a dream about a table, no one will say that this table is made of matter/atoms. For me, the same applies to the table in reality when we are awake.
Thank you,
I am not implying, I am saying. Just as there is no reason to assume the existence of the table you see, there is no reason to assume the existence of the person you are talking to. Everything is nothing but a collection of phenomena in your mind, that is, you are talking to yourself.
Well, I have exhausted the matter.
It's a shame you're fighting a straw man, I was expecting a more serious answer.
I didn't say that the table doesn't exist outside my private consciousness, it clearly exists because we both see it.
It exists as part of another conscious reality that is expressed in my consciousness as a table. Same with you.
So far you haven't found any flaw in my arguments, compared to the claim that abstract ideas exist outside of consciousness without any proof.
I can't even understand your words. I hope you can. I explained my position well, and that's it.
It seems you don't want to understand either.
Thanks for your time
It seems to me that what noama was trying to say is that the existence of something outside my private consciousness does not indicate its existence outside consciousness at all, completely independently.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
