(1) is false, or at least questionable, because it depends a further argument, namely, that mind is something that only exists by virtue of the evolution of H Sapiens.

But I don't think you will find, anywhere in the writings of various forms of idealism, the statement that 'idealism consists of the belief that reality is all in the human mind'. Idealist philosophy generally understands 'mind' in a different way. For that matter, so does phenomenology and 'embodied cognition'. None of them have a representationalist model of consciousness.

I do understand the difficulty inherent in this question, which is that you are starting from the assumption that mind is the byproduct of brain (which has been discussed ad infinitum in other threads).

Of course it is dead simple if you adopt the argument that H Sapiens just happened to evolve and the brain just happened to develop in such a way that it appears to produce a mind. Within this framework the basic notions of idealism are completely unintelligible. But I find traditional Western philosophy asks questions which that narrative has no answer for.

I don't know if that will help but at least I am trying to answer the question directly.

...of course, this is an holistic Dialectic approach, and the direction of Time is not important...

...something is in such a way today because something will be in that way tomorrow when the observer look at it...

And what's your reason for thinking that, whatever that means?

Are you joking ??? ...lets travel back in Time:

...if Minds have a Cause to become in the Future, then that cause also implies an observation in that future, with causal concordance, between what they will observe and what the observed thing will show...its a WEB !

...besides, if there were no Minds, or even a 1 less grain of sand in the galaxy, the entire causal process would be different (butterfly effect) and probably Moon as an X would be Moon as an Y, or even not be...

...now the awkward idea is that of yours of independence...how can it be that something is independent if it is contaminated with the WEB of CAUSE from the very beginning to start with ???

...now the awkward idea is that of yours of independence...how can it be that something is independent if it is contaminated with the WEB of CAUSE from the very beginning to start with ???

Alright, let's flesh some of this out. You know, for the rest of us, that may not understand what you're saying.


Dialectic approach:

1. Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time (this idea is not accepted by some dialecticians).
   
2. Everything is made out of opposing forces/opposing sides (contradictions).
   
3. Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one force overcomes the other (quantitative change leads to qualitative change).
   
4. Change moves in spirals (or helices), not circles. (Sometimes referred to as "negation of the negation")
   

+

Holism:

The idea that all the properties of a given system (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by its component parts alone.

=

Fil. Albuquerque's view

Your belief is that everything in the world has an effect on everything else. Is this correct?

So, like, right now, as I'm eating my breakfast, I could be, oh I don't know, changing the composition of an asteroid outside the skirts of the Milky Way? That asteroid would not have been the same had I not existed?

---------- Post added 03-01-2010 at 09:47 AM ----------

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost, and for want of a shoe, the horse was lost, and for want of a horse, the rider was lost, and for want of a rider, the battle was lost, and for want of a battle, the kingdom was lost, and all for the want of a horseshoe nail!

Oh, I see. So because things can be imagined to be different, your theory is true?

Well, that seems as good a reason as any at this point.

its like if every variable in reality Knows the actual state of the entire group there is...fully informed !....

I've read this a few times, but I don't understand. First, why did you capitalize "know"? And what are you saying is knowing again?

...The variable has entangled information of the others in itself... so knows how to behave accordingly...it cause, when the variable is born, implies this sort of "DNA" heritage...what causes it also tells it the state of reality in a given time space\frame...or from all times...which is even awkward...its holistic...

---------- Post added 03-01-2010 at 10:22 AM ----------

...could this be what we account for energy ??? when we say that a particle may have a huge amount of potential energy ? (just a thought)

---------- Post added 03-01-2010 at 10:26 AM ----------

...one can even guess that this particle, what it is, is the result of a full dynamic vectorisation of Reality in that given point...from the energy (information) arises matter...

So many thoughts just pouring out of that mind of yours. Perhaps you should write a book.

Does science exist outside of human minds? Yes, or no.

And, do you require the physical sciences to prove that the moon existed before people?

-