• leo
    882
    In his book The Idea of the World, Kastrup defends a version of idealism as superior to materialism (and also to panpsychism, but I will focus on materialism here). I think he makes interesting points.


    1. The existence of our perceptions and thoughts is more certain than the existence of matter, since the concept of matter is constructed from our perceptions and thoughts. (same goes with energy, invisible fields, superstrings, ...)

    2. We find regularities within our perceptions, which we summarize into scientific laws, but our perceptions do not include what other beings perceive, so our scientific laws model beings without their mind. Then postulating that these scientific laws govern a material world outside mind makes it impossible to explain how mind arises in that world. Mind cannot be reduced to explanatory abstractions that the mind creates (matter, energy, superstrings, ...)

    3. The concept of objective matter is useful because: we all seem to inhabit the same world, that world seems to behave according to laws we can't change, there are correlations between observed brain activity and reported inner life. But these observations can be explained without resorting to objective matter:

    a) If all is mind, then the material body is not the source of mind, it is how a mind appears to minds, and then what a mind experiences correlates with how it appears to minds. Then the world we see is an appearance of a greater mind we all belong to, which includes the whole world. When we explore the world, we are indirectly exploring that mind.

    b) How can there be different minds within a mind? Kastrup invokes as an analogy what is called dissociation in psychiatry, giving as an example the case of a German woman who had personalities who claimed to be blind while others could see normally. Electroencephalograms showed that when she had a blind personality there was no brain activity normally associated with sight, even though her eyes were open, while when her personality wasn't blind that brain activity returned. In another example, several personalities are simultaneously self-aware within a single mind.

    c) As to why we seemingly can't change the laws of nature, Kastrup invokes again dissociation: our minds which are part of the greater mind do not have control over the whole mind.

    d) Some other potential objections are addressed, such as Libet's experiments in which brain activity is recorded before a reported decision to act, by explaining that we are not aware of everything that goes on in our own mind, so there is no need to assume a primacy of brain over mind.

    There are other interesting insights in the book (for instance regarding brain activity during transcendent or psychedelic experiences), which can fit well with idealism while being hard to reconcile with materialism, but there's probably enough to focus on for now.


    What do you think?
  • SophistiCat
    2.2k
    1. The existence of our perceptions and thoughts is more certain than the existence of matter, since the concept of matter is constructed from our perceptions and thoughts. (same goes with energy, invisible fields, superstrings, ...)leo

    What do you think?leo

    I think that this line of thought is psychologically naive. No, perceptions, thoughts, a certain order and hierarchy of our mental architecture - these are not apodictic, a priori truths. They are very much products of an abstract, theory-laden, culturally indebted thought. I don't think it even makes sense to talk about some absolutely a priori concepts.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    The existence of our perceptions and thoughts is more certain than the existence of matter,leo

    "That rock that seems external to me is really just mental content I have" is anything but certain.

    Likewise with the notion that the rock is or must also be mental content in the first place, and
    likewise with "If I have mental content that I can be epistemically and metaphysically certain of, then all must be mental content."
  • Harry Hindu
    4.9k
    Then the world we see is an appearance of a greater mind we all belong to, which includes the whole world. When we explore the world, we are indirectly exploring that mind.leo

    I'm confused. When I read your post, am I accessing ideas in your mind or the greater mind? Your words exist out in this world that you call a greater mind, so how do I know that the scribbles on the screen are yours or this greater mind's words?
  • Gnomon
    3.5k
    In his book The Idea of the Worldleo

    LEO

    Kastrup's book is one of several recent attempts to reconcile Science and Religion. To do so, he had to bridge the gap between Realism and Idealism. Following Berkeley's arguments, he uses Quantum Theory and Information theory to show that Reality is just a Theory. Unfortunately for his ultimate religious goal, it also means that God is just a Theory. As a Deist, that conclusion is not a problem for me. So I have recently added a series of blog posts to discuss his astute ideas about Idealism *1. The blog is an extrapolation from my personal philosophical worldview : Enformationism *2.

    Here's a few comments on your observations :

    1. Descartes doubted the reality of everything around him, but the one thing he could not dispense with was the mind doing the doubting. Physical scientists simply take their minds for granted, and study the non-mind world as reality. But social scientists, and quantum physicists, have found that disregarding the observing mind can lead to mis-perceptions.
    2. Physicists originally assumed that “solid massy particles” (Atomism) were the fundamental reality. But Quantum Theory has dispelled that ancient notion. The foundation of reality is now viewed as fuzzy mathematical probabilities. So, how does immaterial mind emerge from such insubstantial stuff? I have a theory on that. *3
    3. For pragmatic scientific or mundane purposes, we take the material world to be the substance of reality. But for theoretical philosophical motives, we may explore the possibility that the mental realm is the true essence of all phenomena. So, I think we'd be wise to use both concepts, Realism and Idealism, where they are appropriate.
    3a. Actually, the immaterial mind emerges from the material body. That only makes sense if you understand that the body is made of mind-stuff. *4
    3b. Kastrup's notion of many alters in a single mind is good analogy, but not a good explanation for how it works in the universe.
    3c. Magical mind-over-matter doesn't work, because Nature has laws that govern both Mind and Matter.
    3d. Even Libet admitted that his experiment didn't disprove the agency of mind. (Blog post 87)

    *1 Blog Post 88 : Reality is Just a Theory http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page15.html
    Blog Post 89 : Reality is Ideality http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html

    *2 BothAnd Blog : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html

    *3 Mind from Matter – http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page26.html

    *4 Matter from Mind – http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html
  • tim wood
    8.7k
    Your first post? If you're a whackdoodle (which is always possible - please don't take offense; none is intended - more in the way of a welcome to our small kingdom of them, and wannabees) you're clearly a smart and discerning one. Question, though:
    because Nature has laws that govern both Mind and Matter.Gnomon
    What laws of nature govern mind?
  • Gnomon
    3.5k
    Tim

    I'm eccentric all right, but I hope not fanatical.

    What I meant by that cryptic phrase was that Magic is an attempt to circumvent the laws of nature. But, in reality, all magic works by hoodwinking the observer, not by the exercise of supernatural powers. :wink:
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment