Patenzihad – Moshe Rat

Thanks,
I calculate that the strongest evidence is the combination:
First of all, we can see things in our imagination that we assume do not exist. For example, we can dream of a person with a body. = From here we know at least one method that we know works and knows how to rain images and it is – “consciousness”.
Secondly, the various options that explain how consciousness works, whether it is emergentism from physics itself, or dualism, do not give a real alternative and fundamental explanation for things. But usually a vague explanation. While in his idealism there is a position on the familiar. Even if you claim that it does not explain better than the other options, at least it is the most elegant and therefore beyond it we can talk about the burden of proof as he mentions.
Third, we can never see things in themselves. And consciousness is always faced as a connecting factor. Then we can be satisfied with its nature anyway (whether what is shown actually exists physically outside or not and is created inside).
Fourth, the decisive arguments that show that the separation between reality and hallucination is not so sharp following the addition of the suffix.

I didn't understand where there is evidence here.
1. Does the fact that it can also be imagined mean that everything is imaginary? If I sleep at night, then I sleep all day long? If I have a cold one day, then I am sick all the time?
2. Idealism says that everything is abstract, and that is clearer than saying that there is a tangible and an abstract? Strange things indeed. Beyond that, we are talking about the existence of objects, not of people.
3. Indeed. Through the phenomenon, we conclude that there is a noumena.
In short, these are idle chatter that come to deny the tangible.

I understand very well what you are saying, that the usual perception is no less coherent and that these are not new claims at all.
I thought about it for a while and I think that in fact the strong evidence is the claim that he does make, that it is possible to imagine a person who always lives inside a cockpit or a flight tower with 360-degree screens as he mentions.
Then he has to decide whether what is outside exists in itself or is just part of the cockpit.
Now if we assume that we are always there and have never gone out of there, would we have reason to assume that things exist in themselves outside? After all, we have never been outside.

Now assuming that I “know” that things exist outside then great. But of course the question arises where that knowledge comes from… and you can never know it…?
And so assuming that we have *no* prior information and will never be able to receive external information to help us decide, in terms of the tabula rasa approach, only here is the baby in the cockpit, and we need to decide whether the things out there really exist or is it all just reflections like on a screen?
Add to this the claim that we know that dreams can produce characters, and therefore consciousness is already the position on the familiar. Add the above sections and a fundamental lack of familiarity with the material world itself.
And from this it can be said that the laws of doubt may already apply, like Occam's razor and so on…

What do you think? I think here it already sounds much more reasonable.
The question is of course if we assume that the material world exists, some justification for this knowledge is needed.

Okay. That's the usual argument of idealism. What's the point of opening it here? I know there's a world out there and that's it. My consciousness can always be doubted, and there's no shortage of skeptics. I see no point in discussing it. When I answer you, you can always doubt my logical reasoning as well. It seems to me there's no point in continuing.

I would be happy if you would answer one more comment to see your direction of thought on this.
Anyway, do you agree that on the side that a person is born tabula rasa in the above sense, then he is right? Or at least that is what is appropriate to think (for example, the politics of doubt and above).

Absolutely not. Even if I was born a virgin (and I probably wasn't born that way), when I see a world with my senses and with my mind's eye, and I know (consciously) that it exists, the burden of proof is on the fantasist who claims it's an illusion. That's all.

In the sense that you have a priori understandings of reality (and thus of yourself) and they came from outside and are probably correct.

But in a block of consciousness sitting in the cockpit (a real/”essential” tabula rasa) – lacking reason but only possessing cognitive representations, I don't think he will be able to decide that much.. especially since his thought wanders around in his mind from night to night and presents him with fantasies. There his argument is more reasonable.
I simply assume that you hold that you are simply not that kind of creature…
But I don't understand how a real tabula rasa, without a priori assumptions about reality but drawing everything from consciousness, can say that his mind's eyes/senses are reliable for that matter???
In any case, later it will be possible to ask the following question: why do you think you are not like that?

I think that from the fact that you said that at night we dream and are able to imagine people, you already distinguished between a dream and reality, right?

Rabbi, what do you think?

Adam,
Yes, but the idea is that following the explanation above, reality can also be explained as being created by a similar process. And this is a position on the familiar when we have no other external information and above all.

Rabbi Michi, it's nice that you call my opinions "illusions" and the like, when not only do you not contradict them but you apparently don't even understand them. I emphasized several times in the book that idealism does not claim that the world is an "illusion". The world is a reality for all intents and purposes, but it is a mental reality based on consciousness, not matter. To reject this by claiming "I simply see that the world exists" is like rejecting the Copernican view by claiming "I simply see that the sun is the one that rotates". Idealism explains all of reality in a simple and elegant way while basing itself on familiar phenomena, is compatible with the new experiments in quantum theory, and provides answers to questions such as the relationship between body and mind. The naive realism you advocate, on the other hand, is the one that lacks any foundation. Are you claiming that there is an entire universe outside of our minds, that we have no direct access to, that we have no idea what it looks like in itself, that we don't need it to explain anything, but that we "just know" that it exists? Congratulations, it seems to me that I'm not the "fantasist" here.

In my opinion, Michy formulated his argument here in a clumsy and misleading way, but his intentions are desirable. It is true that the idealism in question here does not speak of illusions but of a real mental subjective existence. But what Michy was probably trying to argue is that this very assumption is itself anchored in a mental subjective position. As such, it is subject to endless revision (it can be placed on the same subjectivity again and again). Thus, its truth value collapses from its own hands. This is a regression from which no modern idealist (Berkeley, Kant, Hegel..) will be able to escape.

Doron, I didn't understand your point. The argument of idealism is simple. We only know mental reality, it explains everything and we don't need to assume the existence of any real substance outside of it. What's the problem with that?

The problem is to provide an explanation that does not undermine itself. After all, according to the idealist's own rules, his explanation also stems from subjective evidence, and so does the explanation of the explanation... and so on. In the end, the position of a consistent idealist is the one that completely cancels itself out.
And to put it somewhat Heraclitically: if “everything flows” then the claim that everything flows is also like that, and then its truth value is lost.

The idealist is not concerned with the nature of explanations and whether they are subjective or not. He does not attack realism in the name of subjectivity. The question of subjectivity can be addressed to any position regardless of this discussion. What concerns the idealist is the nature of reality, and whether we have reason to assume that it exists outside our minds. He concludes that it does not, and therefore rejects realism. There is nothing here that undermines itself.

The question of the subjective does indeed lie at the threshold of every philosophical position, even clearly realist positions. If someone who holds a position is not interested in examining himself in this matter, he weakens his position a priori. You are essentially saying: I am not interested in examining the basic assumptions behind my position, and therefore I did not find any problem there... In my opinion, philosophical work without self-criticism, in this case, criticism of a central aspect of the background of (modern) idealism is bad work.

Contrary to what you say, the question of the nature and character of subjective explanation is a central issue for modern idealism, and it is precisely in its name that it attacks realism. See, for example, Kant and his criticism of "dogmatism"

Kant and his associates don't really interest me in this context, I rely mainly on contemporary thinkers like Castrop Wallense, who establish idealism from both the philosophical and scientific sides.
And I didn't say I wasn't interested in examining my own assumptions, but that's something everyone should do, it's not a specific criticism of idealism.

What matters is not whether it is a specific criticism or not, but whether it is justified. In my opinion, yes, and I explained why.

Rabbi Moshe, I do not know the details of your view and I have addressed what has come up here. You distinguish between an illusion and a mental reality. In my opinion, they are exactly the same thing. What do you think an illusion is? An internal feeling that has no external counterpart. Well, that is exactly what you are talking about. These are just word games.
And if your illusion is that there is an external world while everything exists within you, then you are talking to yourself and not to me (maybe I exist within you (and you within me? So we both exist in the objective world, each in terms of himself and not in terms of the other?). I do not see why I should address you. And please do not bring quantum theory into this. This is really populist nonsense.
All of this is truly a collection of baseless hallucinations. As stated, I am not referring to the book and your view, but to what is written here. If I did not understand you correctly, you are welcome to correct me.

To refer to my views with the words “His evidence is not evidence and his words are delusional”, or “A collection of baseless delusions”, without even reading the original, is a frivolous and inappropriate response. If you want to understand, you are welcome to read the relevant chapters in my book and not rely on partial quotes. I explain there in an orderly manner why mental reality is not an illusion, and why the assumption that real reality is only what exists “outside” is baseless and wrong.
Don't tell me not to mix quantum theory in here, because quite a few scientists come to conclusions similar to idealism precisely based on new findings in this field. You are invited to read Bernardo Castrop's new book, which consists entirely of peer-reviewed scientific articles published in journals, through which he reinforces his idealistic view, and I can refer you to other appropriate sources. In short, it wouldn't hurt to read a little more before reacting decisively.

Rabbi, I think his argument is that the outside is built on mental foundations. Yes, there is such a thing as a shared outside and also an inside that is personal.
It's a bit like a computer game, where there are many players on one platform. Only the intermediary here is consciousness.
For example, there is no such thing as a material thing like stone or gold. But it is represented in our head and in yours.

Another implication of my understanding is that the mental material is changeable by the mind of each person. That is, people and consciousness shape the rules of the game, and with us the laws of nature. For example, if a lot of people stop imagining the laws of attraction, then it will really stop, and so on. Of course, there is also the legislator and the superconsciousness of God, who is also in the game. And there is some kind of relationship between the power of our imagination and His power. For example, maybe this is how we can explain magic.

I did not claim that the laws of nature can be changed if people stop believing in them. The laws of nature are determined by God, not by conscious belief on our part (by the way, there are studies that show that babies under one year old already have a certain perception of the laws of physics, and they are surprised when something happens that seems to contradict them. Which shows that they are deeply embedded in us and it is difficult to change belief in them, if at all). The beliefs and desires of an individual may have some influence on the reality around them, but it will usually be negligible. To perform miracles or magic, more extraordinary means are needed.

You didn't say that the stronger the shared consciousness, the greater the change in the "physical" world. So let's say we are currently in a world with relatively strict natural laws compared to the past.

The common consciousness of all humans, not the consciousness of individuals. Nor can it consciously bring about changes (you can't simply tell everyone to believe that gravity doesn't exist and then it will disappear), but the beliefs embedded in the unconscious are what affect the reality we perceive.

This is quite similar to my understanding.
Rabbi, what do you think about these things?
Moshe Rat's approach seems to fit well with the change between the ancient world, such as the mythological period, with supernatural experiences of many people from different nations, and the modern fragmentation, as he says. In conjunction with his definition above.

Friends, I really don't see any point in this delusional discussion. A few comments on what has come up here.
1. It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, and I am really not impressed by the delusions of the various quantum interpreters (even those that have been criticized. I know of a lot of nonsense in this field that has been criticized, and certainly a lot of unnecessary interpretations that have been criticized, including even Nobel Prize winners like Josephson. Quantum theory twists the brains of many people and leads them to impressive hallucinations). When you show me that this is a necessary result of quantum mechanics, meaning that every physicist who knows quantum mechanics accepts it, or in other words that it is a scientific claim in physics, I will admit that it stems from quantum mechanics. Otherwise, these are just empty platitudes, and the name quantum is used in vain. This is pure nonsense. This theory is so strange and so incomprehensible to anyone that anyone can make whatever they want out of it. Especially laymen, but also experts.
2. I do not intend to read the things inside with apologies, and I also stated that I did not read them. All my reference here is solely to the claims as they were raised here. These are simply nonsense. There is not a single argument here that holds a drop of water. Maybe you yourself in the book have better, deeper, more precise and defined claims, perhaps. I am referring to what was raised here.
3. I did not get to understand the distinction between illusion and subjective reality, and apparently this depends only on me. In my opinion, it is exactly the same. Maybe in your book it is explained well, as I said, I did not read it.
4. I also do not understand what is the priority of recognizing the reality of other people and other consciousnesses (and also God) over the existence of objects in the world outside of us. Or do you mean that other people (and God) also exist only inside you, and then you believe in your spirit creatures, talk to yourself and build towers on your agreements with your spirit creatures. This is definitely a prescription for eternal and absolute peace. Bless you. Usually, people are hospitalized for things like this, but I definitely think that if it's not harmful, there's no reason or justification for hospitalization.

Rabbi, I think you didn't just address one point, what do you think about the idea that the "matter" or medium in which things exist is a mental reality.
A kind of computer game, to which every consciousness is connected. And the one who determines the rules of the game is God. There is no "matter".
The advantage of this thesis is that everything is explained by the human experience, which is first and foremost mental.
Naturally, this is his main intention, and from there he develops it into different realms.

Do you understand the words you said here? I don't. Try to formulate a neat argument and you'll see what nonsense comes out of it.