- Theories of Reality/Consciousness: Parsimony vs Explanatory Power -
Integral Emergentism - Sword & The Stone Challenge - YouTube
First off, there is a big difference between metaphysical idealism and panpsychism. They both claim consciousness is fundamental, but idealism thinks everything (reality) is like a shared dream, and panpsychism thinks that the materials (energy particles) are real, but the materials are conscious.
I've always been puzzled as to why metaphysical idealism-based philosophies seem attractive to anyone (consciousness essence is the foundation of reality - everything is a big dream; not real). David Long seems to make a pretty clear argument for emergentism (in the YouTube video above) that I find myself in agreement with (consciousness naturally emerges from the evolution of real materials).
The most attractive thing about idealism seems to be its parsimony. Parsimony is a preference for using less factors (simpler explanation) to explain a phenomenon. Occam's razor is a useful philosophic organon that encourages us to appeal to parsimony, all else being equal. The problem with parsimony is when all else isn't equal. Parsimony should never be preferred at the sacrifice of explanatory power.
Hard problem of consciousness: How can we explain the existence of consciousness?
Epiphenomenal Emergentism = reality (energy particles) + a miracle of consciousness [evolved]
Metaphysical Idealism = a miracle [of a web] of consciousness
Panpsychism = reality (energy particles) * [elemental] consciousness
Since emergentism requires a two-step process, idealism and panpsychism can be viewed as more parsimonious theories that shrink this two-step phenomenon into one step. Idealism is perhaps more parsimonious than panpsychism, since panpsychism claims a duality (materials*consciousness) within its first step, rather than a monism (consciousness). But a deeper look at idealism begs a question for how multiple conscious entities spawn into this interconnected dream. If one claims that each conscious unit is a separate miracle, idealism might be the least parsimonious theory, since it is forced to posit that an infinite number of miracles are spawning into this interconnected dream (Metaphysical Idealism = a miracle of consciousness^[# of conscious entities]).
I think idealists get sucked into Plato's cave / Descartes / Brain in a vat / Simulation theory / Matrix analogies and lose track of reality. Descartes applied extreme skepticism to reality. Perhaps idealists find extreme skepticism justified and hence reduce everything to "I think therefore I am" as base reality? But this extreme skepticism fails to rebuild reality upon a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning.
We know that our consciousness is correlated with materials like a brain and a nervous system. We can infer that all creatures that contain brains and nervous systems are conscious like us. Through communication, we can each intersubjectively unite our perspectives in a way that gives us a corroborated verification of reality. When we build up our reality based on this method, we find that we can learn lots of things about reality that are unrelated to our consciousness. We can also find patterns about the relationship between reality, brains, and consciousness. We can measure the quality of our theories of reality based on how accurately they match these patterns. If a theory of reality has predictive value, then it is more likely to be correct. The ability of a theory to match patterns of reality and make verifiable predictions gives it explanatory power.
Which theory of gravity is preferrable?
Newtonian Theory of Gravity: = math + laws of physics
Primordial Flat Earther Theory of Gravity: = magic
Regarding gravity, yes, magic might be a more parsimonious explanation than Newton's theory (magic is simpler), but the formalized law of gravity (equations) has more explanatory power (predictive power), hence the Newtonian theory of gravity is preferable to a more parsimonious theory of magic.
Which theory of gravity is preferrable?
Einstein's Theory of Gravity: = better math + laws of physics
Santa's Theory of Gravity: = better math + laws of physics + magic
Einstein's theory is preferable since it has the same explanatory power with less factors (parsimony).
Again, parsimony should never be preferred at the sacrifice of explanatory power. I think idealism sacrifices explanatory power, which is why it should not be preferred, despite its supposed parsimony. Ontological intersubjectively verifiable objective consistency (real objects that can be verified from multiple perspectives by multiple subjective agents) is something that is foundational to emergentism/panpsychism, but not foundational to idealism. If objects are real (emergentism/panpsychism) we can expect them to be predicably consistent. If objects are imagined (idealism), then there is nothing grounding them to any predictably fixed state (just as dream objects are not reliably consistent). Idealism must add in metaphysical laws to its framework to produce this consistency - but by adding in metaphysical laws, at a minimum idealism becomes less parsimonious; at a maximum, adding these metaphysical laws adds an element of reality to idealism, hence it is no longer idealism, in that the objects are no longer arbitrary ideas, but are now real manifestations metaphysical laws - a domain of reality, not imagination.
An example of a metaphysical law is the law of gravity. Idealism does not include a law of gravity by default. This law must be added into idealism. By adding this law into idealism, it could be argued that idealism is no longer idealism.
Dream-state consciousness (when we sleep) doesn't really follow any laws of nature. We know this every time we learn how to fly in our dreams - the laws of gravity go out the window. Why would metaphysical idealism contain laws of nature like gravity? If consciousness is fundamental in this dream-like way, why would fundamental consciousness have a system of order, yet our brain's dream-like consciousness not have such order? Is our consciousness a lower form of consciousness than fundamental consciousness? Adding in the natural laws would be ontological baggage that doesn't add explanatory power, but merely solves an explanatory gap. The gap between the consistency of nature and the consistency of our mental states is so large that to me it doesn't seem reasonable to categorize them as one and the same. Within our consciousness, we forget details all the time, we can confabulate memories, add/or delete details from experiences, yet nature doesn't do anything like that. Nature acts like it is real, not imagined.
David Long (YouTube video above) aptly claims that the fact that science works is evidence that reality is real, not imagined. Science works because the laws of nature are stable and predictable. If the laws of nature could be randomly broken in magical ways (like in dreams), then science would be unable to predict anything.
Science is about making predictions, testing, measuring, verifying patterns, retesting from different perspectives, reverifying consistency. If systems of consistency are able to be verified, then an element of reality has been verified. If reality is verified, then there is an objective reality (emergentism/panpsychism). If reality is unable to be verified because it is arbitrary, then perhaps idealism would be a better explanation for the universe. We don't live in a universe where science doesn't work, so idealism isn't the best explanation.
One telescope that looks into space is one measurement of the consistency of the patterns of star movement. Multiple telescopes all looking into space produce a "system of consistency", in that the system of multiple measurements can verify each other's objective conclusions about the reality of star movement. Idealism has no such consistency by default.
<Link to Facebook Discussion on Idealism>
Panpsychism is immune to most of this critique of metaphysical idealism because panpsychism accepts the base reality of energy particles. Panpsychism makes an additional claim that these energy particles are fundamentally conscious. My discussion on the hard problem of consciousness explains why I feel that this is not a justified claim to make: "Cosmic Consciousness" Analogy (Hard Problem of Consciousness) | TranscendentPhilosop
Related:
Additional Resources:
The Mind and Consciousness, Part 1: Substance Dualism and Property Dualism - YouTube
RELATED: