Resolving of the eternal dispute between idealism and materialism, synthesis of idealism and materialism

[cpuproc68]

there is no way 'related to mind' can reconcile with absolutely independent of mind.

It is possible to combine the two into one.

[Belinda]

there is no way 'related to mind' can reconcile with absolutely independent of mind.

It is possible to combine the two into one.

They are both monisms. Spinoza synthesised materialism and idealism in his dual
aspect monism.

I recommend consulting Stamford 'Neutral monism'.

[Belinda]

There is also the question of the existence of other cosmoses. And they would be created by God.

cosmoi

[Belinda]

Neither idealism nor materialism address the question of eternity. Eternity however does not imply supernatural.

What we call supernatural can also be called natural.

Only if you want to disrupt the conversation

[Veritas Aequitas]

there is no way 'related to mind' [conditional] can reconcile with absolutely independent of mind.

It is possible to combine the two into one.

Note related [conditional] vs absolutely [unconditional] cannot be reconciled on a epistemological basis.

According to Kant they can only be reconciled on the basis of the common factor that both are mental thoughts, i.e. one can at the least think of them, just like one can think of Santa Claus or a Square-circle but they cannot be realized as real at all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

there is no way 'related to mind' can reconcile with absolutely independent of mind.

It is possible to combine the two into one.

They are both monisms. Spinoza synthesised materialism and idealism in his dual
aspect monism.

I recommend consulting Stamford 'Neutral monism'.

The main issue is between
1. Philosophical-realism - mind-independent materialism, monism
2. ANTI Philosophical-realism, non-mind_independent, Kantian idealism*.

ANTI Philosophical-realism, non-mind_independent in this case is mainly a negative claim with a side claim, i.e. reality is somehow related to the human mind or conditions.
* There are many types of idealism, the idealism relevant to 2 above is Kantian Critical Idealism [not Berkeley and others].

Spinoza's Neutral Monism;
"What distinguishes neutral monism from its monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature of ultimate reality is neither mental nor material but rather, in some sense, neutral between the two." SEP

In this case, Spinoza's Neutral Monism is still Philosophical-realism because it is fundamentally mind-independent monism. Thus it is not reconciled with 'idealism' [i.e. Kantian idealism].

[Belinda]

It is possible to combine the two into one.

They are both monisms. Spinoza synthesised materialism and idealism in his dual
aspect monism.

I recommend consulting Stamford 'Neutral monism'.

The main issue is between
1. Philosophical-realism - mind-independent materialism, monism
2. ANTI Philosophical-realism, non-mind_independent, Kantian idealism*.

ANTI Philosophical-realism, non-mind_independent in this case is mainly a negative claim with a side claim, i.e. reality is somehow related to the human mind or conditions.
* There are many types of idealism, the idealism relevant to 2 above is Kantian Critical Idealism [not Berkeley and others].

Spinoza's Neutral Monism;
"What distinguishes neutral monism from its monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature of ultimate reality is neither mental nor material but rather, in some sense, neutral between the two." SEP

In this case, Spinoza's Neutral Monism is still Philosophical-realism because it is fundamentally mind-independent monism. Thus it is not reconciled with 'idealism' [i.e. Kantian idealism].

Neutral monism is a theory about substance and is therefore ontological . The content of Spinoza's Ethics is reasoning as to how we may understand and is therefore epistemological.
I compared monism's derivatives: materialism, idealism and neutral monism and so was referring to theories of existence, not theories of how we can know.

It is well known that Spinoza who had studied Descartes was concerned to endorse monism instead of Cartesian dualism, both Cartesian dualism and monism are theories of existence, and idealism is one sort of monism but not the only monism.
Dual aspect monism encloses both materialism and idealism as dual aspects , i.e. the mental and physical aspect of the one substance which S refers to as God or Nature:"Deus sive Natura".

[Impenitent]

and we can't forget Jamaican Monism...

Hey mon, we be jammin'

-Imp

[cpuproc68]

Ideomaterialism is a form of dualism. It could be called monistic dualism.

[cpuproc68]

In my theory, one could speak of a combination of two concepts. The theory of the world as a simulation in the mind of God (the simulation theory, compare the shape of the microgrid of space which looks like the grids of computer simulations from the 1980s) and the theory of the world as an extension of God's body (the God's body theory). Probably the best solution is to combine these two theories, in a half to half.

[cpuproc68]

It is also possible that God's body occupies a larger portion than the simulation.

[cpuproc68]

The microgrid of space has the shape of a simulation because it was created in a conscious act (the act of creation of the cosmos) and this gave it a certain form.

[Phil8659]

Cosmical modeling can refer to idealism and materialism.

Fine example of gibberish.
Words seem to confuse you.

By grammatical fact, based on the intelligible binary used for all information processing, it has been know for a very, very, long time that we have two, and only two types of identity, each based on each member of our binary construct, commonly called in General Semantics, the Container,, noun and the contained, verb. The recognition of which goes back to the founder of formal grammar, Plato. Those identities, arithmetic and geometric, i.e., based on noun and verb, are paired to a biological fact, the intelligible and the perceptible. Or again, the immaterial and the material world. Or again, the Ideal and the Real.
Now, as a thing is comprised of both, the only thing you have done is further gibberize the pre-Socratics, which argued between the idea that everything is in motion or that everything stands still, which only amounts to an argument that a thing is only one of its elements, the noun or the verb.
You have done a mighty fine job trying to promote an historically long standing defense of the illiterate. I like the fancy touch of nonsense words you included.

Face it, you have two, and only two concepts to master, just ask your computer, and you just blew the hell out of it.

[Belinda]

Cosmical modeling can refer to idealism and materialism.

Fine example of gibberish.
Words seem to confuse you.

By grammatical fact, based on the intelligible binary used for all information processing, it has been know for a very, very, long time that we have two, and only two types of identity, each based on each member of our binary construct, commonly called in General Semantics, the Container,, noun and the contained, verb. The recognition of which goes back to the founder of formal grammar, Plato. Those identities, arithmetic and geometric, i.e., based on noun and verb, are paired to a biological fact, the intelligible and the perceptible. Or again, the immaterial and the material world. Or again, the Ideal and the Real.
Now, as a thing is comprised of both, the only thing you have done is further gibberize the pre-Socratics, which argued between the idea that everything is in motion or that everything stands still, which only amounts to an argument that a thing is only one of its elements, the noun or the verb.
You have done a mighty fine job trying to promote an historically long standing defense of the illiterate. I like the fancy touch of nonsense words you included.

Face it, you have two, and only two concepts to master, just ask your computer, and you just blew the hell out of it.

Sometimes the English verb 'to be' is intended to mean 'identical with' , and at other times is intended to refer to 'predicated of'. E.G. some church interiors have the words on the wall "God Is Good"which is a tautology. But for example when I say I am doubtful" I mean that I predicate of myself "Am doubtful" a temporary condition.

Spanish has two verbs for 'to be'. 'Ser' is appropriate to permanent states such as am Belinda' , and 'Estar' is appropriate to temporary states such as am thirsty.

Euclid stated theorems (truths) which are all embedded within mathematics so mathematics amounts to one big theorem(one big truth) . Each of Euclid's theorems therefore is a tautology that Euclid proved to be tautological. None of Euclid's theorems deals in empirical , inductive proof.

The theory of existence called idealism, or in American English, immaterialism , is not about Platonic ideal Forms. Platonic ideal Forms apply to all theories of existence,or none at all. Platonic Ideal Forms belong with epistemology(how we can know ) , not with ontology (what exists).

[Phil8659]

Post by Belinda » Tue Mar 18, 2025 2:36

Lamo,

I wish I could believe that grammar is a theory of itself. I might even actually start doing drugs.
You cannot spot a self referential fallacy when it is biting you in the ass.