Idealist Epistemology

.

Epistemology studies the questions, what do we know, how do we know it, and ultimately, do we really know anything?

Idealism (the philosophy) sets out to answer those questions, by beginning with the one incontrovertible observation we all make:  we are conscious.  The only thing we truly know is that we are conscious, and therefore, that consciousness exists.  All else is secondary knowledge at best.  Some say that beyond being conscious of our consciousness, there is nothing further that we can say with certainty.

This would be all well and fine were it not for this thing called physical reality, which some Idealists contend does not exist except as an illusion, a fabrication of our consciousness (or of a collective or spiritual consciousness).  But wait.  All is not well and fine, at least not once we get hungry.  You cannot eat abstractions, or illusions, or ideas. 

Try it.

But wait again.  We cannot glibly dismiss Idealism either.  Physics itself teaches us that physical reality is not what our five senses tell us it is.  Solid objects are not solid, they are mostly empty space. 

Quantum physics shows us that subatomic objects are not solid particles, but rather, probability waves.  Not being a physicist myself, I will oversimplify here.  The exact location of a photon cannot be known whenever its velocity is known, and vice versa.  In other words, physics is counter-intuitive.  Moreover, there are profound mysteries of physical science which remain unsolved.

Nature obeys physical laws, but physical laws are not solid objects, rather, they are abstractions.  Our conscious minds observe how objects behave, and then, using the abstraction called mathematics, we derive formulas to explain those observations, and then to predict what further observations are expected to be made.

There is no physicalist way to explain why natural laws are what they are.  Indeed, the natural laws which make our universe a suitable home for living, civilized, technological creatures (i.e., us) are infinitely unlikely.  They must be consciously designed.  As I have detailed elsewhere, attempted explanations, such as a multi-verse, do not make our universe more likely, but less.

Therefore, the debate between physicalism and Idealism cannot be won by physicalism.  We must look to Idealism for answers.

The danger in doing that, however, is that many Idealists regard the evidence of their physical senses as illusory.  Some go so far as to dismiss physical reality as a dream.

Monist Idealism is too rigid.  While it makes the valid point that reality is not bifurcated into two separate realms (physical and mental), it dismisses physical reality altogether. 

Instead, a better paradigm (I think) is to regard consciousness as a foundation of physical reality.  This in no way diminishes the role of consciousness, while at the same time, regards physical reality with the principle of practicality, avoiding having to explain away our five senses.

Physics is leaning toward an explanation of material reality as being composed of information, which in physics, is an abstraction that defines the states of a perceived object.

Rather than proposing an all or nothing monism, Idealism does better to regard reality as a hierarchy of realities, a web, a continuum from top to bottom, from basic foundation to outward manifestation.

In that continuum, our conscious minds detect physical reality through our five senses, receive inputs, and evaluate them to form an image, a picture, of what is “out there,” in a form that is “in here.”  It is not an entirely objective picture, because like a blueprint, the image has a limited purpose (for example, getting food).

We don’t know exactly what things are, but when we get hungry, we know what food is in practical terms.  Neither our hunger nor our food is an illusion.

We just do the best we can.

.
.