Quetzalcotal,
This is a really interesting discussion indeed, thanks for this. In the interests of brevity I will identify the main issues in the discussion and respond to them, rather than respond to each quote piecemeal.
Let’s begin with the cup:
I think what we are discussing here is realism, and I must say you are giving some very stong arguments, which are causing me to think. The arguments you are advancing is the latest philosophical position argued by realists, called critical realism. That is that an object can exist on a continuum of reality(atoms, subatomic particles, forces, quantum etc) Critical realists also accept that mind also affects our reality, but not absolutely, there is still real objects out there, like cups, which have objective properties we can examine.
However, if this continuum goes beyond physical into the non physical realm, “sensory data, thought patterns, waves of possibility in a consciousness field, pure consciousness” then realism no longer holds. If it is true that everything really is fundamentally pure consciousness, then idealism is the truth.
As you may have guessed already I am an idealist, so I am going to argue for idealism. The main reason that realists argue that things are real is because thing seem to be separate from us, such as the cup. We idealists do not deny this, but just because something is separate and external from us does not mean it is made out of a physical stuff. Even in a dream, we see things as separate and external from us, such as dreaming of an elephant, does this mean the dream elephant is a real thing made out of physical stuff. No, of course not. Similary, we have no more reason to believe that things in our waking consciousness are anymore real or physical.
What do we know about things in our waking consciousness? We know that whatever we see in our waking consciousness takes place only after we receive sensory data from an external source which is then arranged by our mind into a coherent whole. So what can we say at most about waking reality? It would be perfectly valid to say it is a sensory reality. But what about the external source? Do we have any valid reason to believe it is made out of something different than our sensory reality(mind basically) No, and here are two reasons why:
- The dream is also an external reality where we have body and world but it is mental, not physical.
- If the external reality is made out of a different substance from our mind then it would be impossible for them to interact without having a common substance to interact though.
Therefore monism is the only satisfactory answer of which both substances are made of. There are two kinds of monism materialism and idealism. Materialism creates several logical problems: How do you reduce mind to a material process? If say a mental process is because of neurons firing in the brain, why is it not felt as as neurons firing in the brain, but as an experience? Secondly, if we are all a resultant of processes in the brain, why are we aware of the brain, can access it, dissect it and impair it. Thirdly, how can any sum of physical substances and processes combine in any way to create anything non physical. Fourthy, even the very notion of “physical” is not tenable because whatever we call physical even charge, mass, momentum is sensory. In fact our entire world is sensory. Fifthly, there would no be perception of any world without consciousness, so consciousness is obviously more fundamental.
So materiaism ends up being logically very problematic and the entire notion of a “physical” is unfounded. On the other there are no such problems with idealism because it simply takes as its premise what is given, and that is reality is sensory made out of sensory qualia(forms, tastes, hearing, smell, touch) It exists across a spectrum: waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep. So whatever your state of consciousness, that defines what reality you access.
Now another argument. You know that you have a mind because you experience your mind. However, do you have proof other external bodies out there have minds? No, you simply assume that because their external behaviour seems to be similar to yours. Does this mean what does not have your behaviour has no mind(a paralysed person, an animal) ?
If we go with what is given here then we must conclude that either you are the only one that has a mind or that everything has mind. Your senses gives you external data of everything and the mind gives you interal data of everything. Now, it is also logical to conclude that the mind is more fundamental because it is inner.
So whichever way we look at it idealism is the most logical worldview and requires the least assumptions. Materialism on the other hand requires a host of assumptions and gives rise to several logical problems.
What do you mean with “split”? I know that my nose is not my toe, so there is a difference between my nose and my toe. If that is a split, then I see a split. But I also know that my nose is not existing unconnected to my toe, so yes, there is a continuum.
The split I am taking about here is the split between mind and matter. Where we model the world as minds interacting in a separate world of matter. The part that creates this split is the “me” Here is a good way to describe it used in the Upanishads. If you had a series of glass tumblers and you turned them upside down and suppose those glass tumbers became self-conscious. It would seem to them that the space inside them is unique and different to the space outside them. Until the glass shatters and the space inside and the space outside merge into one another. Similarly, you are under a mistaken assumption that the consciousenss inside you is different to what is outside you because of your false notion of me.
The me part as you admit yourself is just fleeting perceptions, cognitions, thought patterns and other activity which change from moment to moment. Now you argue because it has a common set of characteristics and because other people observe continuity that means there is a “me” However, when all the characteristics are changing perceptions, thought patterns, activities then how can a coherent enduring substance be created out of this? Every moment there woud be a new you and the old you destroyed and thus no continuity. It is logically imposible then for to be an enduring “me” The “me” then is just a practical fiction we adopt, but does not really exist.
Nonetheless, it is still something to say that we can create a practical fiction and thus give this incoherent cluster “me-ness” so there must be something possessed of the nature of self which can endure from moment to moment, but this cannot be any changing characteristic, it has to be something transcendent and the inverse of the empirical.
The “me” only has its being insofar as it is given by the transcendental self. That is the cosciousness of the self becomes associated with the “me” giving the “me” coherence, just like we can associate our consciousness with an inanimate object such as a car and give it personality, even though it doesn’t have any. Now you can also understand why the “cup” has a coherent form. It itself is not coherent but ceasless motion of matter and consists of mosty empty space at the atomic level, and at the quantum level pure information, but it appears solid only because our consciousness becomes associated with it, giving it coherence. It is just like how a movie projector projects frames on the screen, but the movement is not present in the frames, but is given by our own minds. Likewise, the solid world of forms is not solid at all, but only appears to be solids due to our mind imposing itself on it.
Is it no longer standing in front of you?? Keep your eyes closed and reach out with your hand. You feel the monitor, it’s still there. Keep your eyes closed and your hands to yourself. Ask someone else: What is standing right in front of me? They will say: It’s a cup.