Idealism and Identity

[Dancing David]

On a number of threads, immaterialists have pointed out that they feel materialism should not allow for seperate identity of the individuals having awareness.

But I really thing this is more of an issue for idealism! So how, do you define seperate awareness in the philosphical sense.

It seems to me that if you say all things are part of mind then all minds would be the same. Not a point taken by the materialists.

Thanks for enlightening me!

[Upchurch]

Interesting thread topic, DD. I'm interested in hearing an immaterialist's reply to it.

(note: I would have PM'd this as to avoid the appearence of baiting, but DD turned off his PM.)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Dancing David
On a number of threads, immaterialists have pointed out that they feel materialism should not allow for seperate identity of the individuals having awareness.

But I really thing this is more of an issue for idealism! So how, do you define seperate awareness in the philosphical sense.

It seems to me that if you say all things are part of mind then all minds would be the same. Not a point taken by the materialists.

Thanks for enlightening me!

If you aren't aware of anything other than the inputs from your own senses then you are individually aware. What is the problem?

It is quite obvious that under normal cirumstances our minds operate as those of individuals, even under an idealist metaphysic where all minds are ultimately one. As for how you get from individual awareness to "cosmic awareness" - well that has been the primary subject-matter for 3000-years-worth of mysticism. The relationship between individuality and unity is a central theme in the whole of idealistic and mystical philosophy.

I don't really understand what you are asking, DD.

:)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by JustGeoff

As for how you get from individual awareness to "cosmic awareness" - well that has been the primary subject-matter for 3000-years-worth of mysticism. The relationship between individuality and unity is a central theme in the whole of idealistic and mystical philosophy.I believe this is what he is asking. (or at the very least, I would like to know) Could you summerize the current thinking behind it and/or why immaterialism would be preferable or more probable to materialism?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


If you aren't aware of anything other than the inputs from your own senses then you are individually aware. What is the problem?

Ah, dear respondant, I have read that that is materialist circular logic. How do you know that you aren'y infuenced by someone else's immaterial? (Just answering while waiting, I am a materialist)

It is quite obvious that under normal cirumstances our minds operate as those of individuals, even under an idealist metaphysic where all minds are ultimately one.
But that is not obvious , which is why I asked the question.

As for how you get from individual awareness to "cosmic awareness" - well that has been the primary subject-matter for 3000-years-worth of mysticism.
It wouls seem that idealism goes the otherw ay from cosmic muffin to individual crumbs.
The relationship between individuality and unity is a central theme in the whole of idealistic and mystical philosophy.

I don't really understand what you are asking, DD.

:)

Well, I was hoping an idealist who believes in the immaterial nature of mind would answer.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I believe this is what he is asking. (or at the very least, I would like to know) Could you summerize the current thinking behind it and/or why immaterialism would be preferable or more probable to materialism?

Preferable? Probable?

The fact that we a born with an individual viewpoint on the world is a given fact - a starting point. From it we can deduce nothing about ontology since both materialism and idealism developed quite happily with everybody accepting the fact that normal human consciousness is individual, not collective. It isn't relevant.

[Dancing David]

I can point you to a number of discussion where it seems relevant to some people. There is currently a thread discussing how materialism can not distinguish between two brains.

Right here! (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27551)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I can point you to a number of discussion where it seems relevant to some people. There is currently a thread discussing how materialism can not distinguish between two brains.

Right here! (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27551)

OK. I didn't realise the context of the question. I will stcik to its context within this thread. There is no point in repeating the stuff going on in the other one.

[Loki]

Dancing Dave,

But I really thing this is more of an issue for idealism!
I was about to post something similar For Ian in (one of) the 'duplicate mind' threads.

Materialism states that 'one mind' is *always* linked to 'one brain' - no exceptions. 'Minds' cannot interact directly with each other because they are linked to brains, which are always separate.

Ian's Idealism state that 'one mind' is *frequently* linked to 'one brain', but not always. Occasionally during physically stressful events our minds want a better view of proceedings, so they jump to the ceiling to watch (NDE's). At other times, the mind decides to "get some fresh air" and wander the countryside (Astral projection). After we die, some 'minds' like to hang around where their body used to live, and scare young children. Other disembodied minds like to sit in on TV talk shows and play charades by sending cryptic clues to their relatives. If Titus is correct, then after we die (and presumably once our mind has spent long enough in the waiting line) we get to attach to another brain (not necessarily human) so we can 'learn' some more.

Given the Idealist mind's ability to traverse, observe, and even interact with the material world while "disembodied" I'm sort of confused as to why the body is even needed at all.

And there's something very similar to the Christian Trinity going on with the claim that we are both "unique and individual" and "part of a single whole".

By the way, Hi Geoff!

[Dancing David]

Pardon me Hi Geoff, are you really the infamous UCE?

[c4ts]

That's funny. I work on a new Franko comic and all the woo woos start coming back. It's like they could sense it or something...

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Pardon me Hi Geoff, are you really the infamous UCE?

Yes, that'll be me. But I'm only on a social visit. :)

[hammegk]

DD, are you acquainted with the Atman/Brahman concept?

Is any part of infinity also infinite? Or not?


We are at the "if it can be spoken/written/thought that is not the way" stage, imo. :)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk
DD, are you acquainted with the Atman/Brahman concept?

Is any part of infinity also infinite? Or not?


We are at the "if it can be spoken/written/thought that is not the way" stage, imo. :)

Yes I am somewhat familiar with the concept of atman and the concept of Trimurti, Bramha being a trinity. Unless you mean brahmin? Which is the upper-est caste in the indian system.

On infinity: depends on how large a part of the infinity. Is it an infinite oart or a finite part.

The word that can not be spoken, the thought that can not be thought. Back to the dao.

[Dancing David]

So how does idealism allow for seperate identities?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Dancing David
So how does idealism allow for seperate identities?


I think that would be up to science under an idealistic framework to find out. Under Idealism, separate consciousnesses would actually be part of the same single realm of consciousness. How they appear to be separate might then be the question. Just like physical things appear to be separate but actually are not under materialism.
Its a tricky one :(

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Yes I am somewhat familiar with the concept of atman and the concept of Trimurti, Bramha being a trinity.

Umm, if you say so.
fyi: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/ATMAN.HTM



RE: Individuality: First, are *you* your id/ego/etc (or however you care to think of it)?

It would appear all bags-o-bones=*me*'s (id/ego/etc) are "individual"; no problem there, huh? Different stimuli including genetics to provide each specific *bag-o-bones* different wiring.

But is there a Real, unchanging, *you*, the part that an idealist could term the *I* that "thinks". And are *you* & *I* "different"? I'd say 'the same'. ;)

[Loki]

davidsmith73,

Just like physical things appear to be separate but actually are not under materialism.
Hmmm... I suppose it depends upon why you mean by "separate". Two physical "things" are separate in terms of their properties and attributes even if they "share" interactions. Are you using "separate" to mean "never, under any conditions, interacts with anything else"?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Loki
davidsmith73,


Hmmm... I suppose it depends upon why you mean by "separate". Two physical "things" are separate in terms of their properties and attributes even if they "share" interactions. Are you using "separate" to mean "never, under any conditions, interacts with anything else"?

It's a question of how one punctuates their reality. What gets grouped together in order to make thought processes easier to carry out and predict future states of experience.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

Umm, if you say so.
fyi: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/ATMAN.HTM

Well that is certainly one monotheistic trait attributed to Bramha, but the conventeion portrayal is three faced, strangely enough. And I think that a good case could also be made for the interpretation of atman in a less than universal sense. As the 'self' that is ubject to reincarnation, etc..

Cool thing about historic religions I can look at them and find polytheism, someone else can look and find monotheism. Sivites would want Shiwa to take the place that Bramha held for the Bramahites/Vishnites.




RE: Individuality: First, are *you* your id/ego/etc (or however you care to think of it)?

It would appear all bags-o-bones=*me*'s (id/ego/etc) are "individual"; no problem there, huh? Different stimuli including genetics to provide each specific *bag-o-bones* different wiring.

But is there a Real, unchanging, *you*, the part that an idealist could term the *I* that "thinks". And are *you* & *I* "different"? I'd say 'the same'. ;)

Depends on the shape of the room and the furniture of the room where the lamp is lit. My personal beliefs come from materialism and relearned spirituality. In the past I did believe in the more universal aspects of human nature, but the more *I* listen to other people the more I hear an underlying uniqueness to the experiences of the various *I*s and have come to believe in a wide variety of *I*s.

So perhaps the meat machines manifest different aspects of the universal mind, each given thier own portion?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I believe this is what he is asking. (or at the very least, I would like to know) Could you summerize the current thinking behind it and/or why immaterialism would be preferable or more probable to materialism?

Immaterialism supports a theistic God-mind easily, giving any kind of belief in a certain monotheistic religion a philosophical starting point.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Loki
davidsmith73,


Hmmm... I suppose it depends upon why you mean by "separate". Two physical "things" are separate in terms of their properties and attributes even if they "share" interactions. Are you using "separate" to mean "never, under any conditions, interacts with anything else"?


A "things" properties and attributes depends upon what you demarkate as the "thing" in the first place. For example one could consider the properties and attributes of a single atom. From your reasoning you could then conclude that an atom is a separate thing. However, we know that atoms consist of interacting parts, namely protons, neutrons etc, so what you initially conclude to be a separate thing turns out not to be. In fact using your reasoning, one could classify the planets of our solar system as separate "things" if we could describe the properties and attributes of each and aslo still maintain that they "share" interactions (gravitational attraction etc).

So by separate, I suppose I don't really mean anything in an objective sense! Such a concept cannot truly exist according to materialism. If we were to conceive of an entity that never under any conditions interacted with anything else, we would never be able to know about its existence. In effect this entity would be a separate universe. Perhaps this is the only way for separate to have an objective meaning.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by davidsmith73



A "things" properties and attributes depends upon what you demarkate as the "thing" in the first place. For example one could consider the properties and attributes of a single atom. From your reasoning you could then conclude that an atom is a separate thing. However, we know that atoms consist of interacting parts, namely protons, neutrons etc, so what you initially conclude to be a separate thing turns out not to be. In fact using your reasoning, one could classify the planets of our solar system as separate "things" if we could describe the properties and attributes of each and aslo still maintain that they "share" interactions (gravitational attraction etc).

So by separate, I suppose I don't really mean anything in an objective sense! Such a concept cannot truly exist according to materialism. If we were to conceive of an entity that never under any conditions interacted with anything else, we would never be able to know about its existence. In effect this entity would be a separate universe. Perhaps this is the only way for separate to have an objective meaning.

Sorry. maybe I rode the short bus to work today, but aren't Jupiter and saturn different things? They seemed to have clearly marked boundaries. You can also set up an atom trap to have just one atom in it.

You can have seperation and still interact, saturn and Jupiter are not the same as the sun, while they do all sit in the galaxies gravity well.

By your theory, particle accelerators should not work, because the magnets could not acclerate a proton with out accelerating the coils.

Could you rediagram this, please?

[Loki]

davidsmith73,

DancingDavid has pretty much given my reply!

In fact using your reasoning, one could classify the planets of our solar system as separate "things" if we could describe the properties and attributes of each and aslo still maintain that they "share" interactions (gravitational attraction etc).
Yes.

Perhaps this is the only way for separate to have an objective meaning.
Perhaps I agree, perhaps I don't! If by "objective meaning of the term 'separate'" you are going for "a definiton that applies at all times to all physical things" then I think I agree. Although, as you say, this simply means that "separate" has no meaning at all in the physical realm. Again, I'd say that "separate" is a contextual term that must be used in relation to a physical object. Once you determine the object you are referring to (atoms, planets) then you *can* define an objective meaning for "separate".

On other words, "planets" are separate/separated from each other by a different boundary to the one which separates "atoms". The "planet boundary" is objectively measurable, as is the "atom boundary" - the boundaries are different because they are expressed in terms of the attributes and properties of the things being "separated".

It seems like you want to push the conversation down to the ontological level of "what separates one element of the 'substance of matter' from any other"? I'm not sure that question has meaning, or is answerable (ontology does seem rather pointless).