Objective Realism vs Subjective Idealism - Part 1

[Imagynuity]

It's Barry from Storage Wars.

[sailornaruto39]

no wonder why no one really studies philosophy, doesn't really do anything :/

[sferguson88]

Man I hate idealism, purely because it's so damn difficult to argue against!

[JamesJTraitz]

@TheThumper49 I don't disagree here. Not all reality; one's personal reality is self co-created

[JamesJTraitz]

@TheThumper49 Do you dismiss the history of philosophical thought ? I did not invent the 'debate' between subjective idealism and objective realism. The debate is: "is man the source of all things or is he the passive observer of an independently exsisting reality? " Without consciousness, the tree not only makes no noise, it neither falls nor stands ,but, rather ,exists in all states at once 'awaiting' an observer to become physically manifest (Schrodinger wave function)

[Mick0722MX]

@JamesJTraitz Oh please. The Schroedinger wave function refers to conditions in the quantum states. A tree falling in a forest is not an example of quantum state conditions. Can you give any more of an irrelevant argument?

[JamesJTraitz]

@Mick0722MX all physical events are composed of the same sub-atomic entities and therfore Schroedinger applies; Bell's theorem establishes that what happens on the quantum level applies on the macro level

[Mick0722MX]

@JamesJTraitz They do not apply anywhere near to the extent you're asserting.

[JamesJTraitz]

@Mick0722MX They totally apply

[langengro]

Next time I wish to project authority, I'll assemble my audience in front of a grand piano ;-)

[JamesJTraitz]

I see that you have focused upon what you find important

[langengro]

I focused on what I found new and original, and original it is.

[JohnPurchaseArt]

Of course it makes a noise. Soundwaves are physical.

[JamesJTraitz]

nothing is physical

[IslandRyno]

then how did you type that statement.

[umrahsahab]

@JamesJTraitz

freakin aye I am starting to see idealism as much more viable than I imagined. Now I dont know how many types of Idealism there are, but the one that made most sense was how James Jeans explains it. I think he may partially agree with Liebniz monads. Any help?

[BigBen81]

Be serious man...

When a person looks through a microscope and asks their assistant "do you see IT"....

Answer this...

WTF IS "IT"?

There would have to be an "it" existing OUTSIDE OF THE MIND FOR THE OTHER PERSON TO SEE OR THEIR MINDS HAVE TO BE LINKED TOGETHER IN ORDER TO AGREE...

I will take the simpler of the two...

You can take whichever one you would like or give additional options to explain this "phenomenon"

[JamesJTraitz]

They are 'seeing' a projection from their own consciousness

[BigBen81]

Wouldn't their "consciousness" have to be linked together with each other but every other being with eyes that work?

option b...

[JamesJTraitz]

Yes all consciousness is linked...we each project our energy in co-creating our experience

[JamesJTraitz]

Nothing exists outside of consciousness

[happyseaurchin]

there is something external to us :)

and we are a type of source

in that we perceive things...

but then again so can animals and plants

what distinguishes us

is this discussion

[JamesJTraitz]

Agreed !

[robheusd]

And also to assume that the world exists in subjective form (as is the way we perceive it) can only be so because the world also exists in objective form. Without an objective world, neither there is a subjective world.

[robheusd]

Idealism in whatever form makes no sense, since to not assume the external world is a reality onto itself, and basically is a substance we call matter which exist without further reason and indepedent of anything else (minds, or whatever) is the only way to make sense of the world, for the reason that mind or processing of information as well as information itself, does not exist onto itself, but only as an aspect of some physical reality.

[JamesJTraitz]

This and more

[JamesJTraitz]

Ther IS something out there,but it is not the finished and complete world you perceive.What (physically)exists is an unfinished field of potentiality and probable reality 'waiting' for us to actualize objects and events to manifest.

[JamesJTraitz]

Your own logic best makes the point that any conclusion that soul,God or non-physical consciousness doesn't exist is likewise "incredibly naive" as you have said:"(just because)we can't really prove that it does(exist)it does not follow that it doesn't"

[JamesJTraitz]

You're getting there.The 'particles that are being 'observed' in QM are in fact not there!There are no true particles,interrelating fields comes closer.Science's instruments only have efficacy within the reality in which they,themselves have their existance.Berkeley establisher,irrefutably that you,nor science ,can prove the existance of an objective reality.

[JamesJTraitz]

What is to say everything is objective in your proof.

[ultrakool]

"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;

I Am always about in the quad.

And that's why the tree

Will continue to be

Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."

Ronald Knox

[ultrakool]

There was a young man who said "God

Must find it exceedingly odd

To think that the tree

Should continue to be

When there's no one about in the quad"

[JamesJTraitz]

A classic limmerick that demonstrates that,without an observer ,physical reality vanishes!

[kamikrazi123]

very thought-provoking =) this will be very handy for my essay (might even quote you if you'll allow). thanks.

[JamesJTraitz]

You are welcome

[usaericm16er]

hey james j can u answer me this, if a tree falls and nobodys around to hear it, but a deaf person saw it fall then does it make a sound........??????????

[JamesJTraitz]

Very good! Yes it makes a noise because the deaf person is still "an observer" who's participation in our collective belief system "collapses" the wave function therby co-creating the tree,and the entire forest for that matter,into a 'finished' physical event.

[estranged233]

hey man, how are the sophistis different from plato and socrates?

[JamesJTraitz]

Socrates and Plato argued that 'the truth' was the highest principal while the sophists said it was 'the Good'; Soc. and Plato were fighting for the future mind of man, and they prevailed ,which led to the birth of the idea of an objective reality 'out there' which could then be scientifically verified in a true/false dichotomy.That was imp. at that 'time' during the budding infancy of man's early ego-we now must evolve to the next state of spiritual evolution-beyond simple true and false!

[estranged233]

thanks alot man.

[xlartanislx]

wow man please ill anwser the reason why they stop teaching philosophy is because i would never sit through one of your classes. ZZzzzZZZZ

[JamesJTraitz]

Sorry,but often what is worthwile requires a little effort...Oh well,I guess very few slackers become enlightened

[xlartanislx]

your ugly and i donkey punched your mother

[JamesJTraitz]

I thought of deleting your classless comment,but decided to leave it so that the other readers can appreciate how easy it was to control your reaction...your mom and dad must be so proud

[xlartanislx]

if you think you're way better than me than you shouldn't have talked about my parents idiot just shows how classless you are. Smart move by someone who acts as if they are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[xlartanislx]

And the reason why I commented on this video in the first place was because I am taking a philosophy course and seeing as people like the guy talking in the video was boring in my point of view that I thought that this is the main reason why philosophy isn't taken anymore. Honestly if you were in the shoes of a teen who would want to listen to this guy right in the morning? And this is why they created freedom of speech... you seem to be taking this very defensively...

[justanotherbum007]

you're talking about him nutsack.

[MonsterEatsKids]

bishop george berkeley is genius. John Locke actually abondoned metaphysics because of his theory. however, Berkeley's subjective idealism freaks me out. he gives a good argument for the theory. i'll all about the fact that we do not know the causality of objects within the universe. David Hume took Berkeley's theory and simply took the God component out of it. For Hume, he believed we can't know anything else exist other than our thoughts.

[JamesJTraitz]

Exactly right! Bishop Berkeley proves via air-tight logic that we cannot prove that matter exists or that any object exists ..we can only prove that our soul exists and that God exists!

[Exanimoveritas]

quote all the physical laws you want, you'll never understand a desert by counting the grains of sand. all is mind, and we are one another,with matter, space, and time dreamed up for the sake of differentiation. and there is no "wrong" nor "right" only difference, so stop trying to rupture each other's surface tension.

[JamesJTraitz]

I agree to some extent...All acts are mental!We are in a 'physical'experience for a reason.We are not to 'run' from our 'present' life, but, rather to embrace it. "wrong" and "right" are value judgements.Behavior is always important in all dimensions of reality.

[Egg09Seed]

The whole philosophical stance of this is reductive idealism, it's very weak.

For a much more developed philosophy that actually gets it's physics right try watching.

"WHO IS THE MASTER? (ROBERT ANTON WILSON)" right here on YouTube.

[JamesJTraitz]

I am not a physicist,but my physics is quite right.You might want to ask yourself why you feel so threatened by my ideas.

[Jaysnipes]

You are so wise! I'm watching all of your videos!

[Egg09Seed]

Your philosophical stance is overly simplistic.

"Does a tree falling without an observer make a noise?"

Noise requires an observer, as it is a percept, so therefore a falling tree makes no 'noise'.

But it is clear that it still falls nevertheless.

The argument that macro scale objects, such as a tree exist only as a quantum superpositions is a non-sequitur and as false as trying to deal with quantum scale events in a newtonian fashion.

[JamesJTraitz]

Wrong! There is no tree without the observer!

[robheusd]

The tree is there, although not in perceived form.

[JamesJTraitz]

You are wrong. Bell's theorum demonstrates that quantum physics applies to macro events.A tree neither falls nor stands,existing in all states at once, until an observer 'collapses it's wave function!

[robheusd]

But the tree IS observed, since it is always in contact with the rest of the universe.

Our minds do not 'collapse' wave functions, since also the perception and cognition itself is a material process and nothing else.

So to the tree it is a matter of indifferent wether it has effects in some neurons in our brains or on other trees or the air/the grass, etc.

And there is not "anything" that observes our brain states, we "are" our brain states.

[Straighttalker83]

@robheusd -I could not agree with you more on your remark in response to the comment made by JamesJTraitz. It is worthy to note that I do not have a background in philosophy. However, I think it is of utmost importance to get back to basics- the fundamental laws of the universe are best described by the models within the academic disciplines of Mathematics, physics, as well as chemistry. What our mind perceives is a “Macro event" is also a function of our brain

[Straighttalker83]

@robheusd -I could not agree with you more on your remark in response to the comment made by JamesJTraitz.  However, I think it is of utmost importance to get back to basics- the fundamental laws of the universe are best described by the models within the academic disciplines of Mathematics, physics, as well as chemistry. What our mind perceives is a “Macro event" is also a function of our brain (electrical signals are transmitted, chemical reactions take place, ect. within the brain).