Q&A: Rabbi Moshe Rat's Idealism
Rabbi Moshe Rat's Idealism
Question
With God's help
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask what you think about the idealist approach that Moshe Rat supports.
The idealist worldview he presents basically claims that all of reality is mental, a product of human consciousnesses, which themselves stem from God's super-consciousness.
In other words, reality is like a kind of dream that exists in personal consciousness, except that reality is a dream shared by all human beings, not your private dream alone.
1. This is based, among other things, on quantum research (presumably connected to the effect of observation on measurements, etc.).
2. And on physicists who declare that all attempts to establish the real existence of matter have failed, and if so, the only reality that exists is consciousness. Mental reality.
3. Likewise, in situations where brain activity decreases or is shut down, people experience far broader conscious experiences than in the normal state.
For example, in near-death experiences or under the influence of certain drugs. In that way it approaches the state of the original super-consciousness / one unified oneness. And more.
4. Moreover, because there are many arguments for this approach, and it is also simple, he argues that it is worthy of being relied upon.
5. And the realist worldview is naive. So instead of remaining with a medieval worldview, one can advance to the progress of idealism.
(I assume he has many more arguments, but I'm really not familiar with all of them.)
Based on these approaches, there are already people building various models to explain reality.
For example, according to Kastrup's approach, the brain is simply "what our consciousness looks like to an outside observer." The brain and consciousness are not two different things; rather, the brain is a visual and tangible representation of consciousness.
Answer
Greetings.
Rabbi Moshe Rat is a former student of mine, and I certainly appreciate him. I do not share many of his views, and especially not his tendency toward fantasy and idealism. The arguments you wrote here in his name (I don't know the details; I haven't read them) seem to me completely unfounded, including their scientific basis.
The claim that reality is a dream that exists in personal consciousness seems to me outright self-contradictory. My personal consciousness of whom? Mine? Meaning I do exist? Only I exist? Why assume that only I exist and everyone else does not? And the rest of reality doesn't either? And the Holy One, blessed be He, also exists? How does he know that?
And regarding the "scientific" basis, I don't understand the connection to quantum theory. The effect of measurement on reality is a difficult question, but opinions are divided about it, and it is fairly clear today that "measurement" does not require human awareness (even measurement by a computer collapses the wave function), contrary to what is accepted in the popular literature. And the fantastical literature.
Discussion on Answer
So instead of mumbling words, let him walk past the railing of a high roof and drop himself to his death, and then wake up from the dream. Or let him make sure to cancel gravity in his dream and develop for us floating dream-cars in the air.
I don't understand these words, and certainly don't know how to discuss them (and I also don't see any point in doing so).
Sorry for the delay, I was just very busy and wanted to respond.
I didn't understand a few points in that line.
1. First, regarding not understanding the words.
Can the Rabbi understand the idea that because everything known to us is only "in our perception" and not the thing-in-itself, one can say that in fact everything that exists, aside from other people, exists only in "our" perception. And we do not need to add to the hypothesis the existence of the thing-in-itself. Like a kind of dream—only here it is a shared dream.
If so,
2. then at the moment there are two possibilities before us for explaining reality.
A. I see a table and indeed such "matter" exists externally to me.
B. I see a table, but in fact it exists only in my consciousness and not outside. It was implanted there by some coordinating factor, say God, who coordinates things so that other people will also see it. Like a collaborative war game on a computer.
If so, how can one choose the "correct" explanation?
After all, it will be based on certain intuitions: for A, that such a world really exists; and for B, that we never encountered that world in itself, but only through perception.
It seems reasonable to choose the simpler explanation if it explains the same data, and if so one should choose B. But it isn't clear to me that this is correct ontically in this case, and at most only methodologically. But here most people hold like A.
So I ask: how is it proper and reasonable to discuss this topic?
And conversely, if the Rabbi doesn't know how to discuss it, then why does he think Rabbi Moshe is wrong and he is right??
3. Why don't you see any point in this discussion? Is it because of an inability to discuss it (and if so, then how can one speak of this approach being "mistaken")? Or because there is no practical difference? (But that also isn't quite accurate—there actually is a great deal at the existentialist and philosophical level, as supporters of this method claim.)
4. From a physical standpoint, one actually can bring various proofs, such as that the essence of matter is really fields, and that they behave strangely (for example faster than the speed of light, and at infinite speed, conservation of charge showing laws external to nature, etc.). And they do not exist as actual objects but only as a "potential" or a field. Yet they do have effects in reality. I think there are those who find God in this—that He constitutes the fields or the laws of nature themselves.
Only here they take one further step forward as part of a shared consciousness.
I forgive the delay, but it's hard to discuss like this, especially when you're repeating things I already explained. I'll answer briefly.
1. I explained that I don't understand the words. If nothing exists, then I don't exist either. So my existence is in whose imagination? Mine? And if you say that I exist and only everyone else doesn't exist, then what have you gained? If you are already assuming that something exists, there is no reason not to add that other things exist too. And after all, that is our intuition.
2. The correct explanation is what seems right to me intuitively.
3. Indeed, it can't really be discussed. That doesn't mean there is no truth here. This idealism is not correct in my opinion, and it can't really be discussed. The same is true of the law of causality: it is correct in my opinion, and still it can't really be discussed or proven to someone who doesn't accept it.
4. No connection at all to physics. Physics does not say that things do not exist, only that they are not necessarily what we perceive them to be (and even that is not precise).
These hair-splittings are not very interesting, and I don't see any point in this discussion.
Okay, thank you very much.
1. That's not entirely correct, because they do agree that other people exist, and the mistake is only in our interpretation of the objective existence of external things that are not consciousnesses.
2. I understand, only there it is also built on additional claims, and if so they improve the initial intuition. Like philosophical proofs and exposures of God.
3. So by "discuss" you mean the ability to draw conclusions and test whether they are valid and coherent in the abstract? But if so, what do you think about your claim that you do see value in rhetoric, and in discussions in general…?
4. Okay, it's an interesting topic and one that comes up a lot in the popular literature, and here on the site too from time to time. Religious people use it in one direction, and idealists in another direction, but I think it needs to be expanded into a separate question.
1. On what basis do you claim that there are other people? Do you have direct information about them, unlike the objective existence of tables?
3. I've explained in many places what rhetoric is about. Here we're dealing with claims that there is no way at all to examine, because whoever digs in behind them will reject any argument in the same way (maybe that's just my illusion). Therefore I don't see any point in this discussion.
1. I think one can argue mainly on the basis of intuition. But then you'll say the same thing about the table really existing.
So fine, accepted. Do you see anything better?
2-3. Thanks. Now I understand.
4. As I mentioned regarding the relation between science and modern science on the one hand, and philosophy and theology on the other, I'd be happy to ask, but I'd prefer first to go over the topic a bit. Because it is very common in the literature and in popular literature. Whereas your statements here are rather surprising (modern physics perhaps even does show that the things we perceive really are such things). Unless I didn't fully get your intention in that roundabout way 🙂
Truthfully, I think this is a topic big enough for a full column, especially since you have a doctorate in it.
Again, I'm not really familiar with all his arguments, just from what I skimmed very briefly. I think he has a few more arguments on his site.
Of course he assumes that other people exist. But just as in a dream each person can dream, so too in our world the consciousnesses dream together in a medium of consciousness. It seems to me that the example of a kind of computer game could illustrate his point pretty well. I also tend to think this is more of a metaphysical approach to reality, and that it is a coherent approach.
But in any case,
what is a bit difficult for me here is: how do you think one is supposed to discuss this topic? Or topics like these?
How exactly can one bring arguments one way or the other, weigh the conclusions, and make a decision?
After all, it's clear to everyone that according to Kant there is no proof for the existence of a real universe with the thing-in-itself (noumenon). Rather, we always encounter only the phenomenon (apart from our own existence)… but if so, why multiply entities and assume that only the phenomenon operates? (Something like Occam's razor, if it even belongs here.)
By the way, I saw that in your question about the slippery slope regarding general skepticism that came up, and perhaps the irony ;).
But it's not clear that it should come up here, because this is not necessarily a skeptical approach, but rather a metaphysical interpretation of reality.
Maybe I'll ask the reverse: why does the Rabbi assume dualism, and that other people exist, and that God exists?
I assume because that's how it "seems" to him. And there is no reason to doubt that, or his understandings and feelings in general, right? But the idea of the phenomenon as providing a full explanation of these things is not necessarily skeptical, because it seems more like an alternative interpretive option. Or do you not think that is a valid claim (because in the end it contradicts the basic assumption that there is a table in front of us)?
I also thought that perhaps Buekhres, whom you mentioned in column 383, makes it quite hard to actually formulate this interpretation, because it is a language without nouns (except for other people), only verbs and their inflections. But on the other hand, it seems that even in a computer game we relate to objects as existing. And if so, again it seems that the interpretation fits and is coherent.