Arigatou.

zannennagara said:

To us, however, reality must be coexistent with the mental experience; it's impossible for us to imagine the reality "beyond," as that imagining would be within it. If we can propose a reality beyond mental imagination, there is not only no verifiability or measure of credulity but no limit to what reality could be, and the idea of "reality" at all seems completely dissolved.

---

To be precise, the realist view, i.e. mine, states that not only is there a universe out there but we can know it.  Our perception is reality is one thing; reality is another.  All historical theories from the Big Bang to Evolution contain the fact that, for most of time, humans did not exist.  Thus, "reality" isn't "beyond," it is outside.

Quote:

In letting the mental experience act as equivalent to reality, we do leave the door open to various theoretical creation myths - the mental experience is caused by ideas, the mental experience is all mine, etc., both as contradictorily backwards as Creationism in that the theoretician poses a version of himself or his ideas as the source of his experience, from which he derives concepts of both in the first place. And supposing these unverifiable notions are "true," what does either matter? - this is the ultimate reason to reject idealism or solipsism; their fundamental concepts do not match real experience and they are functionally useless.

---

Quote:

If it's all generated by one's own mind, one still has to deal with the most highly-developed simulations/manifestations of independent will and action, so the basic assumption is dissonant with experience. Or, to make solipsism more "true," the definition of mind must be expanded to encompass all these other entities so that "solipsism" becomes functionally indistinct from several contradictory ontological views. The conundrums are solved by making their putative exclusive conceptions moot points.

---

Quote:

I think that very few take the time to fully grasp the concepts of either, put off by bastard- and bowdlerizations of both. Each is so easily dismissed as shallow or missing the deeper truths and realities that a lack of mutual understanding is perpetuated. I have your love for the deep thought of philosophy, but also think that many "materialists" (who would not think of themselves dualistically or pejoratively) hold a parallel deep thought that should be explored and synthesized with philosophical pursuit, the love of wisdom encompassing the love of scientific pursuit and the material view encompassing all a philosopher is or speaks of.

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:

To be precise, the realist view, i.e. mine, states that not only is there a universe out there but we can know it.  Our perception is reality is one thing; reality is another.  All historical theories from the Big Bang to Evolution contain the fact that, for most of time, humans did not exist.  Thus, "reality" isn't "beyond," it is outside.

---

Quote:

Yes, by accepting that mental experience equates to reality, we open the door to error.  How would you know Idealism or solipsism is functionally useless if they were true?  Isn't the acceptance a violation of parsimony?

---

Quote:

Please explain the dissonance because I don't see it.  To which contradictory ontological views are you referring and how to they contradict one another?

---

Quote:

Nowadays fields of inquiry exist as isolated pockets with little serious regard for, or knowledge of, another field unless it agrees with their a priori existential, e.g. ontological, epistemological, or psychological, i.e. philosophical notions--a philosophical error of the nth degree. Honest philosophers are excluded of course. Your love of philosophy is abundantly apparent in this dialogue.  Having said that, I do not think "materialists" as a group have much respect for anything that threatens their tiny, introspective worldview.  Should empirical facts uncovered by them be explored philosophically?  The answer is axiomatic, my dear Watson.  Moreover, they are--just not so much within the confines of academic philosophy.  That is another reason, i.e. the philosopher's, or philosophy's, fault, things are in the mess they are in.  When I say deep thought I am talking about the philosophical ramifications of one's empirical or philosophic view, not the taxonomy that takes place within an empirical (if one could call it that) field such as quantum mechanics.  Half the time theoretical physicists are doing bad philosophy without knowing it.  As an aside, I view the love of wisdom and the love of knowledge to be not only analytically distinct, but ontologically distinct as well.  Materialists easily love one and hate the other, particularly if it stands as an impediment to some prejudice they hold dear.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Which part of decay, entropy, brain injury, aging, Alzheimer's was not explanatory enough?

---