First of all, it is clear from multiple quotes that Inspiring Philosophy has affirmed subjective idealism (the view that our thoughts and perceptions held in conscious experience are all that exist.):
"A reality independent of observation doesn't exist."
"The existence of reality is dependent on there being an observer.""Reality is a mental construct, and doesn't exist independent of observation."
"Materialism would be that the universe is the only thing that exists and consciousness is an illusion of it. Idealism would be the opposite." (Notice that he is literally saying here that consciousness is the only thing in existence).
And it is also clear that he has contradicted this position several times:
"Independent of observation, particles exist in a state of a wave function"
"Of course something exists prior to observation. We would argue that would be information."
"Without an observer there is no qualia, but the information waiting to be loaded."
"memories or thoughts exist even when I am not perceiving them"
"I have never in definition identified as a monistic idealist in the strong sense" (By "strong sense", he is referring to subjective idealism.)
Inspiring Philosophy, Johanan Raatz, derezzed83, Animating Rebel, and all of Raatz's minions constantly use the term "information". Animating Rebel and derezzed83 prefer to simply leave the term undefined, which instantly exposes their empty position. Inspiring Philosophy and Raatz have been forced to offer definitions due to my persistent questioning. They have offered three basic definitions that are, of course, completely inconsistent:
1. Information is the semantic content of a sentence. I have already shown that this definition makes most of their claims regarding information incoherent.
2. Information is sense experience. Well, if that's the case, then why even call it information? This isn't what people ordinarily mean by information, so you're just being deliberately confusing for the sake of sounding computery. This also directly contradicts Inspiring Philosophy's claim that information exists prior to observation. 3. Information is the fundamental nature of reality. This is just hopelessly vague. And again, there is no need to call this stuff "information". It's not like that's what comes to anyone's mind when they think of information.
Inspiring Philosophy has taken numerous positions regarding information:
"Information itself, is contingent by definition. So it must be dependent on something."
Which is contradicted by -
"all reality is information"
He has also said that mind cannot exist without information:
"mind/consciousness has elements of interpreted information and cannot be without it."
And that mind can exist without information:
"The mind could exist without information."
As for what specific things Inspiring Philosophy considers to be information, so far his list includes qualia, personalities, memories, and unobserved physical objects (how he can even allow for unobserved physical objects is a mystery, since he has also claimed that the physical world is only qualia).
Then there's this quote from Inspiring Philosophy. I really have no idea how he thinks this makes sense:
"As an idealist of course consciousness is not independent of the brain."
And, regarding the "objective idealist" philosophers (Kant, Hegel, and Putnam) that Inspiring Philosophy tried to associate himself with:
Kant obviously disagreed with Inspiring Philosophy because he believed in the noumena, which is the objectively real world of "things-in-themselves" that exists beyond our perceptions.
Hegel's philosophy is obscured by a thick veil of indiscernible nonsense (or it might just be indiscernible nonsense), but the following sentence from SEP seems to conflict with Inspiring Philosophy: "The pantheistic legacy inherited by Hegel meant that he had no problem in considering an objective outer world beyond any particular subjective mind."
Putnam's internal realism has been criticized for being somewhat retarded, but there are also quotes that indicate it is inconsistent with Inspiring Philosophy's position: "I am not inclined to scoff at the idea of a noumenal ground behind the dualities of experience, even if all attempts to talk about it lead to antinomies", and "Today the notion of a noumenal world is perceived to be an unnecessary metaphysical element in Kant's thought. (But perhaps Kant is right: perhaps we can't help thinking that there is somehow a mind-independent 'ground' for our experience even if attempts to talk about it lead at once to nonsense.)"
'First of all, it is clear from multiple quotes that Inspiring Philosophy has affirmed subjective idealism (the view that our thoughts and perceptions held in conscious experience are all that exist.): "A reality independent of observation doesn't exist."'
ReplyDelete- He means *material* reality. Information is not material. If you take the analogy of Minecraft, there is no virtual Minecraft reality until you move your character such that he can observe the Minecraft world. However, there is still information there ready to turn observation into reality once the Minecraft character moves around and observes.
"Animating Rebel and derezzed83 prefer to simply leave the term undefined, which instantly exposes their empty position."
- You cannot even coherently define _matter_, you hypocrite. And this is not a tu quoque. I have told you that information is analagous to thoughts. It is contingent on the mind, and is in a sense, how the mind communicates.
"1. Information is the semantic content of a sentence."
- It is *like* the semantic content of a sentence.
"2. Information is sense experience. Well, if that's the case, then why even call it information?"
- Because sense experience is really like your mind reading information, just like when you're reading a book. The book has information, but the information cannot manifest as meaning until someone is reading it.
"3. Information is the fundamental nature of reality." This is just hopelessly vague."
- No it's not. Just think Minecraft. Information is the fundamental nature of a virtual reality like a video game.
'Inspiring Philosophy has taken numerous positions regarding information:
"Information itself, is contingent by definition. So it must be dependent on something."
Which is contradicted by -
"all reality is information"'
- He means all *material* reality.
'He has also said that mind cannot exist without information:
"mind/consciousness has elements of interpreted information and cannot be without it."'
- No. What he means is that information requires the mind to function.
"As for what specific things Inspiring Philosophy considers to be information, so far his list includes qualia, personalities, memories, and unobserved physical objects (how he can even allow for unobserved physical objects is a mystery, since he has also claimed that the physical world is only qualia)."
- He *doesn't* allow for unobserved physical objects.
'Then there's this quote from Inspiring Philosophy. I really have no idea how he thinks this makes sense:
"As an idealist of course consciousness is not independent of the brain."'
- It's *really* not that hard. By consciousness, he means awareness. And of course, awareness cannot function without specific information, which manifests as the brain upon observation.
"And, regarding the "objective idealist" philosophers (Kant, Hegel, and Putnam) that Inspiring Philosophy tried to associate himself with:"
- He never said he agreed with them 100%.
"Putnam's internal realism has been criticized for being somewhat retarded, but there are also quotes that indicate it is inconsistent with Inspiring Philosophy's position: "I am not inclined to scoff at the idea of a noumenal ground behind the dualities of experience, even if all attempts to talk about it lead to antinomies", and "Today the notion of a noumenal world is perceived to be an unnecessary metaphysical element in Kant's thought. (But perhaps Kant is right: perhaps we can't help thinking that there is somehow a mind-independent 'ground' for our experience even if attempts to talk about it lead at once to nonsense.)"
- I don't see how the hell you would think this contradicts IP's position. It's merely an idealist expressing some epistemic uncertainty.
Yeah, you posted this garbage on YouTube, where I quickly dismantled it.
DeleteAll your reaction was, was name-calling, and whining about why IP wasn't more specific.
DeleteNo, I pointed out that what you're saying doesn't count for shit because it's not what he said. If he meant "physical reality", he should have said it. It's not my fault that he didn't. And his quotes on the mind are clearly contradictory. He literally says that mind could exist without information, and mind cannot be without information. Your only way around that is to change the meaning of what he said, which is hilarious and pathetic. Then he says that consciousness is dependent on the brain, and you're so uncritical you agree with him! How did you not realize that is the antithesis of idealism? On idealism consciousness is fundamental. It is not dependent on the brain; the brain is just another piece of qualia.
DeleteYour Minecraft analogy is not even relevant to this discussion. I really wish you'd stop bringing it up.
IP has shown himself to be a dogmatic individual who is willing to ignore the problems within his own arguments and belief-set, even when they are contradictions, incoherent or are better explained by opposing conclusions. But I has always thought philosophy was a pursuit of the truth, no matter what the fact of the matter might entail. A method to refine one's own thinking. To better our framework for understanding the world and ourselves. Whatever IP is doing, it isn't intellectually honest.
ReplyDelete