Hello EAllusion:
The study in question, which was oddly cited to support the rather banal observation that thinking causes measureable and potentially lasting changes in the brain, was in the service of the argument that this supports idealism, but provides some tension for physicalism.
I believe that is a correct assessment.
But it doesn't. On either account. The argument seemed to be that if brain states precede thoughts, then why is it that thoughts were shaping the brain?
It is supportive of our will. Our will is supportive of idealism. The argument is one of queerness which really all we can do. If you don't like the argument fine its a specific instance of the hard problem of qualia and consciousness in whatever form (perceptual awareness, intent, will, our subjective experience) seems intractable and seems to come top down rather than bottom up. It is evidence because of the explanatory gap of the experience of mental will (what the hell is that) is closed by idealism but seems intractable from physicalism. It doesn't defeat physicalism. Just like damage to the brain doesn't defeat idealism.
Idealists think mind is responsible for the perception of physical states (?!), egro point, idealism. In this revision of the argument, citing it doesn't even make any sense. It'd be like citing NASA to prove the oceans look blue, then saying this is consistent with idealism. Uh, ok? Unless you think that conscious thoughts being preceded by brains states (an established fact) refute idealism, which you don't and it doesn't, this is pointless.
Again, it offers a closing of the explanatory gap, any primitive is able to do that and it does it in a more parsimonious and seemingly understandable way. I was not making the riddle of if a bar of soap falls on the floor is the floor clean or soap dirty and only one answer would suffice?
Instead, here you are arguing that metaphysical parsimony favors idealism. That's a separate argument.
It is an example of parsimony when presented with the difficulties physicalism has.
First, I'd clarify what you mean by "idealism" here as there are a variety of idealist theories.
I have clarified to spotlight the theory I am partial to. I lean a lot toward Keith Ward's dual aspect idealism which I cited to DrW, the filter hypothesis is perfectly consistent with this form of idealism. I pointed this out up thread. But again I have pointed out from the beginning the pluralism favors what I am arguing for. Why choose physicalism unless it is bona fide verified from within this pluralistic spectrum when it is reductionistic of so much of experienced human reality?
Some essentially are "woo," others are much more respectable,
As is the case with physicalism and almost everything else.
but different idealist positions can mean entirely different things.
This thread hasn't got nearly this far. That is what your doing here is this discussion hasn't allowed a treatise to be written to check for all consistencies and so claim mud is just being thrown at the wall. The video of the OP demonstrates quantum mechanics is strongly favoring a non-materialistic universe. The Randi Challenge I have cited demonstrates the strength of this evidence against realism. Whether idealism is found idealistic and/or I haven't been afforded the text space to present the entire consistency of one particular strand of idealism is beside that point and much greater burden is on the physicalist right there. If physicalism seems less and less tenable by the year and realism more so, how is a proper response to that idealism has a plurality of positions. Physicalism has the problem. What is seemingly facing closer falsifications is physicalism not idealism. Unless you want to take on the Randi Challenge i posted as well.
The varying idealist positions are in many cases mutually exclusive and hostile to one another. To me, it looks like you're throwing what you can against the wall and seeing if it sticks.
At the rudimentary level of general materialism and idealism such as found in the video this is just looking ahead and knocking down what you think is there and failing to address the general problem. Physicalism has the same problems and I argue worse. Why choose it?
mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell.
-Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
