Philosophy Now Forum

Idealism is the view that there is no external reality composed of matter and energy. There are only ideas existing within minds. Idealism is the metaphysical view that associates reality to ideas in the mind rather than to material objects.


So where did the mind come from?

Your mind is in fact an ongoing construction of your brain, your body, and the surrounding world. In every moment, as you see, think, feel, and navigate the world around you, your perception of these things is built from three ingredients. One is the signals we receive from the outside world, called sense data. A second ingredient of your experience is sense data from events inside your body. A third ingredient is past experience. Without this, the sense data around and inside you would be meaningless noise.

This is how your brain makes your mind.
Your mind is in fact an ongoing construction of your brain, your body, and the surrounding world.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/0 ... nse%20data.

_______________




' Realism', in philosophy, is the viewpoint which accords to things which are known or perceived an existence or nature which is independent of whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving them. In other words; the MIND cannot exist without a body.


Idealism vs. Realism

In order for us to be able to differentiate between idealism and realism, we must first have a thorough understanding of the two terms. Idealism is when you envision or see things in an ideal or perfect manner. Realism, on the other hand, tends toward a more pragmatic and actual view of a situation. The two concepts can, in layman’s terms, be deemed different in perspectives; with idealism focusing on ‘what could be’, and realism focusing on ‘what actually is.’

These commonly accepted definitions of the words are rooted in the philosophical uses of the terms. In philosophy, when discussing the issues of perception, idealism is a theory that states that our reality is shaped by our thoughts and ideas. Realism, on the other hand, deals with the fact that reality has an absolute existence independent from our thoughts, ideas and even consciousness.



Read more: Difference Between Idealism and Realism | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/miscel ... z7sQoHcXqt

The article gives a too simplistic dichotomy between Idealism vs Realism.

See:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
  In philosophy, the term idealism identifies and describes metaphysical perspectives which assert that reality is indistinguishable and inseparable from perception and understanding; that reality is a mental construct closely connected to ideas.

There are many types of idealism; see the above link.
Idealism is not about reality IN-the-mind but rather "reality is indistinguishable and inseparable from" the human conditions [including the mind].

Realism is as per this;

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder

In addition, certain idealist [Transcendental Idealism] can also be realist [Empirical Realist] in different sense.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 9:59 am Idealism is the view that there is no external reality composed of matter and energy. There are only ideas existing within minds. Idealism is the metaphysical view that associates reality to ideas in the mind rather than to material objects.

There are two main idealisms and then a common speech version of idealism. Below when you talk about

Idealism is when you envision or see things in an ideal or perfect manner.

that's not a philosophical position of idealism, but more an attitude some people have. Those people may not be idealists philophically. You could be a realist about ontology and a realist about epistemology but an idealist when it comes to politics or the future or humanity, etc.

The two types of idealism in philosophy are epistemologial: everything we know about reality is enmeshed with thoughts; and ontological idealism: would be that the fundamental makeup of reality is thought or spirit or something immaterial, like Berkley's immaterialism.

So where did the mind come from?

That would depend on the idealist. But they are saying that only the mental exists. What is called brain is an abstraction from a mass of experiences, each of these mental.

' Realism', in philosophy, is the viewpoint which accords to things which are known or perceived an existence or nature which is independent of whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving them. In other words; the MIND cannot exist without a body.

Hm, I would have said that first sentences means that things exist without perceivers. I don't think the second sentence, beginning 'in other words' is a paraphrase of the first, though both tend to be in realisms, certainly physical ones.

But non-duality has a lot of charateristics of idealism. In fact it can be a kind of idealism. Or not, depending. But it's not a realism.
https://1zeast.wordpress.com/2014/04/22 ... to-monism/

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 9:35 am
But non-duality has a lot of charateristics of idealism. In fact it can be a kind of idealism. Or not, depending. But it's not a realism.
https://1zeast.wordpress.com/2014/04/22 ... to-monism/

Whether I am an idealist or a realist, the I AM is both. Considering reality is a single, infinite and indivisible whole, whose nature is consciousness whose activity is perceived, from a localised perspective, as the universe.

The finite mind – that is, each of our minds or whatever other minds may exist – is that localised perspective. In other words, I would suggest that the finite mind is a localisation of infinite consciousness, within infinite consciousness, through whose agency infinite consciousness perceives itself as the universe.

This view satisfies the criterion of idealism, that reality is of the nature of consciousness or Mind, as well as the criterion of realism, that reality is extended beyond the limits of the finite mind. Thus, this view does away with the need to place idealism and realism in opposition to one another.

The perennial philosophy, also referred to as perennialism and perennial wisdom, is a perspective in philosophy and spirituality that views all of the world's religious traditions as sharing a single, metaphysical truth or origin from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge and doctrine has grown.

Non-duality is not an ism it's that which does away with all isms.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:21 pm Whether I am an idealist or a realist, the I AM is both. Considering reality is a single, infinite and indivisible whole, whose nature is consciousness whose activity is perceived, from a localised perspective, as the universe.

I could have completely misunderstood the OP. Here you say that the nature of this whole thing is consciousness - that's a kind of idealism.

The finite mind – that is, each of our minds or whatever other minds may exist – is that localised perspective. In other words, I would suggest that the finite mind is a localisation of infinite consciousness, within infinite consciousness, through whose agency infinite consciousness perceives itself as the universe.

And that seems like a kind of idealism also. Or a clarification of the first paragraph and is still idealism-like.

This view satisfies the criterion of idealism

Oh, OK, great. Then we're on the same page. My sense of what you are saying here seems to be what you are saying here.

, that reality is of the nature of consciousness or Mind, as well as the criterion of realism, that reality is extended beyond the limits of the finite mind. Thus, this view does away with the need to place idealism and realism in opposition to one another.

Interesting. I don't think that realism and idealism can't work together. Generally, however, realism is materialistic, but I don't think that it has to be. I think I get what you are saying about localized consciousnesses that are a part of the whole.

Non-duality is not an ism it's that which does away with all isms.

It seems like I misread the first post as saying that there were brains which is what makes for minds, so it can't all be mind, hence idealism is wrong. That's what I thought you were saying. Here it seems you see no contradiction between realism and idealism. The idea that there are brains 'out there' is pretty much realism. Objects of perception by subjects. That's realism.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 9:49 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 5:21 pm Whether I am an idealist or a realist, the I AM is both. Considering reality is a single, infinite and indivisible whole, whose nature is consciousness whose activity is perceived, from a localised perspective, as the universe.

I could have completely misunderstood the OP. Here you say that the nature of this whole thing is consciousness - that's a kind of idealism.

The finite mind – that is, each of our minds or whatever other minds may exist – is that localised perspective. In other words, I would suggest that the finite mind is a localisation of infinite consciousness, within infinite consciousness, through whose agency infinite consciousness perceives itself as the universe.

And that seems like a kind of idealism also. Or a clarification of the first paragraph and is still idealism-like.

This view satisfies the criterion of idealism

Oh, OK, great. Then we're on the same page. My sense of what you are saying here seems to be what you are saying here.

, that reality is of the nature of consciousness or Mind, as well as the criterion of realism, that reality is extended beyond the limits of the finite mind. Thus, this view does away with the need to place idealism and realism in opposition to one another.

Interesting. I don't think that realism and idealism can't work together. Generally, however, realism is materialistic, but I don't think that it has to be. I think I get what you are saying about localized consciousnesses that are a part of the whole.

Non-duality is not an ism it's that which does away with all isms.

It seems like I misread the first post as saying that there were brains which is what makes for minds, so it can't all be mind, hence idealism is wrong. That's what I thought you were saying. Here it seems you see no contradiction between realism and idealism. The idea that there are brains 'out there' is pretty much realism. Objects of perception by subjects. That's realism.

If you say so, and saying it, will be your understanding there.

I cannot be your understanding there, I can only be my understanding here. And Never the twain shall meet. No two minds have EVER MET

It's all story anyway. An unwritten never ending story inscribed as watercolour paint upon a flowing river...like dreams within dreams within dream, ad infintum.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 8:46 am It's all story anyway. An unwritten never ending story inscribed as watercolour paint upon a flowing river...like dreams within dreams within dream, ad infintum.

Yep, seems so. Wishing you sweet dreams.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 8:49 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 8:46 am It's all story anyway. An unwritten never ending story inscribed as watercolour paint upon a flowing river...like dreams within dreams within dream, ad infintum.

Yep, seems so. Wishing you sweet dreams.

Same to you Lacy.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 8:46 am I cannot be your understanding there, I can only be my understanding here. And Never the twain shall meet. No two minds have EVER MET

So, much for non-duality. But I actually disagree. I think we can share single minds. I've experienced that with others - rarely, but nevertheless - and they have also.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:41 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 8:46 am I cannot be your understanding there, I can only be my understanding here. And Never the twain shall meet. No two minds have EVER MET

So, much for non-duality. But I actually disagree. I think we can share single minds. I've experienced that with others - rarely, but nevertheless - and they have also.

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

There is no such thing as Non-duality because Non-duality is not a thing. Non-duality is no thing and every no thing. There is no room in everything for two everythings.

But, yes, it takes ONE TO KNOW ONE

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:52 am Then we will have to agree to disagree.

Peachy.

There is no such thing as Non-duality because Non-duality is not a thing

I never thought it was a thing. Hell, I don't even think things are things.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 11:22 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 10:52 am Then we will have to agree to disagree.

Peachy.

There is no such thing as Non-duality because Non-duality is not a thing

I never thought it was a thing. Hell, I don't even think things are things.

'You' or 'I' do not think. 'You' or 'I' is a thought. Thoughts are appearances, thoughts happen, and 'no thought thing' makes what happens happen, and 'no thought thing' can make what happens unhappen.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 11:33 am 'You' or 'I' do not think. '

Wait, we can agree and disagree and agree to disagree but we don't think? Or we can say I love, but when you say I think it needs correction? or 'I accept' or 'I am making or not making plans' 'I like' 'I would like''? (from your posts)

And understand, I understand this thought of yours. But here we are speaking in English. If you think we should communicate without subjects in sentences or without attributing thoughts/cognition to subjects, show us the way first.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 11:51 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 11:33 am 'You' or 'I' do not think. '

Wait, we can agree and disagree and agree to disagree but we don't think? Or we can say I love, but when you say I think it needs correction? or 'I accept' or 'I am making or not making plans' 'I like' 'I would like''? (from your posts)

And understand, I understand this thought of yours. But here we are speaking in English. If you think we should communicate without subjects in sentences or without attributing thoughts/cognition to subjects, show us the way first.

I understand what you are saying.

There is just what's happening, and can never not happen, or unhappen. Every word written, and read, or is understood, or not understood, is just what is happening, and can never not happen.