Is there any book that looks specifically at the history of idealism in philosophy? I'd say it started with Pythagoras, but I'd like it traced until German idealism and beyond if anyone endeavored to do this.
Please not general history of philosophy books like Russell's especially it's from a materialist perspective.
routledge.com
This is a good history of idealism with a bit of a focus on how idealism has related to and developed on scientific theories.
Looks good. Do you know anything about the authors?
There is a nuanced difference between panpyschism and idealism also.
I would say panpsychism is more correct.
rocks are not conscious, you fucking retard
There is a kind of internal mental life of matter, which can coalesce itself into certain material forms of varying complexity. All complex adaptive systems have a degree of consciousness.
Is someone who you ask for the time and that doesn't respond to you not conscious? Are you not conscious if asleep? Is your awareness of the attributes of a rock not conscious?
sublime object of ideology by zizek
>think of a rock
>thought of rock doesn't think itself
>therefore thought of rock isn't a thought
?
a plain rock
is
not
conscious
you have to be kinda voodoo mystical retard aussie to believe that automatons which react to stimuli without some kind of thinking happening in between are not conscious
your plants are not conscious
ants are somewhat conscious since they have a considerable number of neurons and not just deterministically bend toward light
The rock can come from consciousness even if not displaying it, and your observations of a part of someones mind are not grounds to judge the whole source.
Rocks lack metacognitive awareness, but they have a rudimentary form of consciousness/qualia.
>ants are somewhat conscious since they have a considerable number of neurons
Higher-order representations are created for minimizing "free energy principle", which does not require nervous system, and this indicates a degree of consciousness. Matter/energy fulfill the free energy principle, since they constitute a complex adaptive system, therefore the Universe is conscious.
>you have to be kinda voodoo mystical retard aussie to believe that automatons which react to stimuli without some kind of thinking happening in between are not conscious
>your plants are not conscious
>ants are somewhat conscious since they have a considerable number of neurons and not just deterministically bend toward light
All of those are made of the same matter, which we can say comes from a "Brahman" for simplicity's sake. The "ants" as individuals just dependently "posses" the matter to utilize it through some ineffable metacognitive process that is too esoteric for mere mortals but I digress. Positing that there are 2 worlds, a conscious world and an unconscious world where the conscious for some absurd reason has to depend on the unconscious one will always be silly.
>Are you not conscious if asleep?
Nope
>free energy principle
Unnecessary, pseudo-matter ("idea" or consciousness we perceive as matter) existing does not mean it is the only way pseudo-matter can exist, nor that any of it's behaviors are fundamental.
Goddamn you are fucking dumb.
Works in my dreams. Try doing more meditation
>source?
My dreams retard
All the matter we see in this world fulfill "free energy principle", which indicates we can infer all matter is conscious:
en.wikipedia.org
You're a piece of shit. Slit your throat.
>All the matter we see in this world fulfill "free energy principle", which indicates we can infer all matter is conscious:
All the matter/energy we see in this world follow "free energy principle", which indicates we can infer all matter/energy is conscious to varying degrees:***
en.wikipedia.org
You may have either really poor conceptions of what awareness and consciousness is or might not have even bothered paying even the slightest bit of attention to your sleeps.
>Is someone who you ask for the time and that doesn't respond to you not conscious?
He was conscious of the question but not aware of it.
>Are you not conscious if asleep?
In a modified mixed state which varies between full unconsciousness and consciousness of imaginative content. Consciousness is still responsive in a latent mode in sleep, which you can easily observe by shouting loudly in the ear of someone who sleeps. They wake up.
>Is your awareness of the attributes of a rock not conscious?
I can be either conscious of the attributes of the rocks through its perception, or conscious and aware of those attributes because I am intentionally positioned toward them. In both cases the rock doesn't need to be anything else than itself, a dumb rock with no mind and no consciousness, for it to happen.
>The rock can come from consciousness even if not displaying it, and your observations of a part of someones mind are not grounds to judge the whole source.
Yes it is. Every mind is a particular instance of Pure Consciousness, and we are all inter-subjectively linked, just not in the mystical bullshit way you asiatic minds wants us to believe.
Define consciousness
I mean, you are conscious when you sleep, just a modified state of consciousness, but why the fuck are we comparing sleep, a state which no non-living beings have ever been in, to being a fucking mineral?
not sure what this entails but I tend to think most objects we perceive are bundles of energy but our eyes perceive something physical because the forces of positive and negative energy give off the impression of something physical but beyond that its just not "there"
>He was conscious of the question but not aware of it.
And how do you know the supposed Brahman isn't responding because he doesn't care?
>In a modified mixed state which varies between full unconsciousness and consciousness
>full unconsciousness
Doesn't exist. Not being sentient and self aware doesn't make someone not conscious. Pay attention when you go to bed.
>I can be either conscious of the attributes of the rocks through its perception, or conscious and aware of those attributes because I am intentionally positioned toward them. In both cases the rock doesn't need to be anything else than itself, a dumb rock with no mind and no consciousness, for it to happen.
So why would, in a dimension that is not truly atomic but rather just a field (or series of fields) with disturbances, an object (rock) be fundamentally different than a cow? Wouldn't it just point to a supposed Brahman's "thought" that doesn't reciprocate you in a sapient manner?
>>The rock can come from consciousness even if not displaying it, and your observations of a part of someones mind are not grounds to judge the whole source.
>Yes it is. Every mind is a particular instance of Pure Consciousness, and we are all inter-subjectively linked, just not in the mystical bullshit way you asiatic minds wants us to believe.
Did you even read what you're replying to?
>universe is not conscious
>yes it is because you are observing only a part of it that isn't responding and think it isn't conscious
>no because muh new age everyone is connected stuff
Check out Diderot's D’Alembert’s Dream.
Diderot made specific arguments regarding the issue of alive and dead matter, and ultimately comes to a position where everything is alive in some sense, but its stronger, more overt emotional and intellectual capabilities can only come to the fore in specific structural interplay between "atoms" of matter - basically a nuanced panpsychist-vitalist-materialist position.
Basically, consciousness, emotion, thought, alive matter and dead matter, all need to be clearly looked into to see how these concepts relate to one another, as well as how they appear in the world.
This can become especially tricky for materialists regarding plants and crystals, as many definitions for some of these (consciousness, etc.) will include one or both of these in their sphere of applicability.
(reposted due to poor formatting before)
>bundles of energy
What is energy?
I think if you place the world/environment above all things as a first cause, you negate God and thus negate yourself
the most primal substance of existence, beyond atoms, fuck Democritus.
>primal substance of existence
Where do they come from, where do they go? Are they limited and conserved? Are individuals energy?
Acosmism is obviously wrong. That's another thing that separates panpsychism and idealism. Idealism can be acosmist whereas panpsychist cannot.
>Where do they come from, where do they go?
where did you come from Cotton Eye Joe?
but seriously, everything is energy. without energy, there is no existence. period.
>without energy
What if instead of "existing" I just imagined a consistent reality with rules and ideas, and pretend it is energy? How would I differentiate between the real thing and the fake?
>the history of idealism in philosophy?
A long time ago, in a Germany far far away, there was a Hegel. And he had a religious sect of a few likeminded fellas named Fichte, Schelling, etc. They all believed, that you are a product of some dog dreaming you up.
But then the 20th century came. And then came the 21st century. And no one cares anymore what these clowns thought. For they were absolutely parochial and unimportant.
Panpsychism: All energy is conscious.
Idealism: All energy exists as a projection of the mind.
Unironically, this Frenchie was more in the right direction than the German idealists.
rules and ideas aren't energy, they're rules and ideas. apples and oranges, etc
that would imply the desk I'm typing on is a living thing so no. or the chair I have my ass on has a mind.
>And no one cares anymore what these clowns thought
But we do care what the biggest clown thinks, that being the Demiurge, whose thoughts shape our every day here on Earth as if it holds any meaning beyond the thoughts cessation, and whom we end up obsessing over like Yea Forums does over a twitter screencap.
is scat porn conscious?
is poo conscious?
is semen mixed with poo conscious?
is 1 year old dried out semen conscious?
which is more conscious, 2 year old dried out semen or 1 year old dried out semen?
is black semen more conscious than aussie semen?
your theories are untestable and ridiculous and you should consider thinking harder
How does the mind differentiate between energy and non energy though?
>that would imply the desk I'm typing on is a living thing so no
But it still stems from something conscious, being the point. Your individual thoughts aren't conscious but they are consciousness and stem from it.
Those are ideas stemming from your consciousness you degenerate. But I would not imply you are not conscious, just retarded.
> Check [random ramblings of a mandman]
>This can become especially tricky for materialists regarding plants and crystals,
Its tricky for anyone with a goddamn reason. Its a particular indictment of your position that even materialists have the presence of mind to realize its wrong.
>And how do you know the supposed Brahman isn't responding because he doesn't care?
Because of the deep inter-subjective nature of consciousness. We lean how to be conscious by being exposed to other consciousnesses and non-consciousnesses, and we learn how other consciousnesses and non-consciousness are by ourselves being conscious. I know that there is a difference between being conscious and being attentive to your surroundings. I have myself operated modification of the state of my consciousness in which my awareness was fully turned toward internal, inactual, fictive content and which stopped me from being responsive to all the other content of my actual consciousness (daydreaming, deep thinking, being lost in thoughts, etc...). I also know that even in those states, a simple modification of my consciousness is always capable of repositioning me toward actual content. If you pinch me while I'm daydreaming I don't have a choice to keep on daydreaming.
>Doesn't exist.
It does. Even now in waking time you have micro-moments of unconsciousness. Doesn't really matter tho, for the matter at hand.
>So why would, in a dimension that is not truly atomic but rather just a field (or series of fields) with disturbances,
The fuck is this mongoloid speak? The mind is not a different dimension, it is not in a different dimension, please explain to me in very specific mathematical terms what the fuck is the relationship between the mind and transformations on platonic solids in higher dimensions? If you can't, shut the fuck up with this retardation.
>How does the mind differentiate between energy and non energy though?
through gaps between things, like thin air
>But it still stems from something conscious, being the point. Your individual thoughts aren't conscious but they are consciousness and stem from it.
then I would say that only living things are conscious, like plants, animals and humans
Oh shit, an actual schizo joined in
>>no because muh new age everyone is connected stuff
Kill yourself you illiterate cunt.
I literally can't understand what the fuck you're saying so have a (You) to inspire you to rewrite it.
All matter/energy is conscious, due to minimizing free energy, but only organisms can have metacognitive awareness which involves being aware of the higher-order representation.
how do you know nature isn't conscious?
Nature is conscious.
The Earth is obviously an organism.
> I can't understand what you write
> But I'm supposed to understand
">So why would, in a dimension that is not truly atomic but rather just a field (or series of fields) with disturbances, an object (rock) be fundamentally different than a cow? Wouldn't it just point to a supposed Brahman's "thought" that doesn't reciprocate you in a sapient manner?"
all things that are conscious must have a biological imperative, but energy is everywhere, either constructed by mankind or a biological organism
>through gaps between things, like thin air
Physical space/spacetime is, by all notions, "limited" but it is still expanding. I would not give it any special characteristic that cannot be discerned and mental. Energy in the atomic, quantitative notion is just consistency of field disturbance. What makes energy more special than the field?
not obviously
because atoms can be broken down further than what pre-Socratics like Democritus assumed
>>So why would, in a dimension that is not truly atomic but rather just a field (or series of fields) with disturbances, an object (rock) be fundamentally different than a cow? Wouldn't it just point to a supposed Brahman's "thought" that doesn't reciprocate you in a sapient manner?"
Reality isn't actually atomic, it's a giant field with disturbances. What makes a cow more special than a rock to be conscious in terms of matter? The post I replied to was making an implication that consciousness arises from the matter, thus a rock is not conscious, I implied that the necessitated consciousness of an individual is not truly dependent on the matter rather that the material world is itself, an individual. What are the exact mechanisms that lead to the codependence of the weak individual on the material world individual? I don't know.
Yes but those broken down atoms are still just disturbances of a field. What makes the disturbance more fundamental than the field? Shouldn't physical reality, in a philosophical discussion be seen as a field instead of as particles or energy?
>All matter/energy is conscious, due to minimizing free energy
Explain this specifically, with the appropriate maths and physics , please.
All living systems possess a kind of (high-level/abstract) model/representation that's involved in adapting to continue its existence, and these living systems and their environments become statistical models of each other over time. To quote from a website: "this means actively reducing the uncertainty or entropy of their Bayesian beliefs about what caused their sensory observations, either by changing the statistical models they embody, or by sampling the sensory observations expected under those models. For environments, this means accumulating traces of meaningful, goal-directed activity driven by their denizens. Under this view, living systems (and, implicitly, their environments), are fundamentally in the game of reducing sensory uncertainty and maximizing evidence for their own existence."
Increases in degree of complexity of adaptive systems correlate with more effective means of reducing free energy and maximizing marginal likelihood.
It is somewhat similar to how deep learning models minimize "loss function" by enforcing correspondence between feature maps (X, independent variable) and expected labels (Y, dependent variable) for forecasting future trends or classification.
The model at the highest level of representation also includes itself, which also includes its own negation.
Every complex adaptive system from coral reef to ecosystems are like this, not just the human brain. This would lead more to a kind of panpsychism or vitalism rather than idealism or physicalism.
Matter/energy constitute a complex adaptive system as many people argue, which means they're conscious (i.e., they have a high-level model).
>Reality isn't actually atomic, it's a giant field with disturbances.
We aren't micro-scale entities, and no non-local-scale entities have ever displayed any of the characteristics we associate with consciousness. I mean, fairyflies kinda are at a different scale, but they are still very close to us relatively.
they're still fundamental, moreso than atoms as the basical building blocks of reality, no energy = no atoms = no existence.
>All living systems possess a kind of (high-level/abstract) model/representation that's involved in adapting to continue its existence
Doubtful already.
>To quote from a website
lmao
> [quoted stuff] That's just PPM (Predictive Processing Model], which *is* the most accurate current general model of cognitive structuration we have. It's just a particular structural/functional model tho, it has nothing mystical about it. Our nervous system organizes its actions based on information maps it creates of different inputs, and constantly runs predictions and comparisons between actual inputs and the predictions. This is a particularly strong model since it means that inputs leading to outputs will always cause new inputs, and that neither inputs nor outputs have a chronological priority. This resolves one of the biggest problems of general cognitive theories based on reduction of errors, which was that they usually implied all living beings should seek absolute sensory deprivation and let themselves die (so as to produce the least amount of errors).
>The model at the highest level of representation also includes itself, which also includes its own negation.
Mongoloid speak.
>Every complex adaptive system from coral reef to ecosystems are like this, not just the human brain.
You have it the wrong way. Reducing free energy, or whatever, is a physical process available to any physical being. That we share its use between entities doesn't mean we share properties beyond being both physical.