The main axis of the metaphysical dispute idealism-materialism, solution through synthesis

[wise47]

Cosmical modeling can refer to idealism and materialism. In the geocentric model, matter has a significant advantage over mind. The sun next to the Earth in this model has some significance. This model corresponds to materialism and realism with the addition of idealism. And in the heliocentric model, mind has a significant advantage over matter. A big advantage, because the Earth plays a certain, albeit small, role in this model. The Bishop G.Berkeley system, which was a Copernican revolution in philosophy is not fully compatible with the heliocentric model because it does not take into account the Earth orbiting the Sun. The heliocentric model corresponds to idealism with a slight admixture of materialism and realism, where the Sun represents the subject and the Earth the object. The heliocentric model is subordinate to the Galactic Model 2 (other than the model presented in my text New horizons in physics - http://sresearch.scienceontheweb.net/perspectives.php), in which all the stars in the galaxy (subjects) orbit a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy. Galactic Model 2 corresponds to the idealism and realism, where dominant is cosmical space (black hole) with the primeval body which was beginning of the cosmos (singularity inside the black hole).
It seems that the best solution to the materialism-idealism and realism-idealism problem is adoption of all three models, geocentric, heliocentric and galactic model 2 in my new positions of ideomaterialism and ideorealism. In the position of ideomaterialism, I assume a balance between mind and matter. They share reality in half. In the position of ideorealism, I assume a between mental existence and mentally independent existence. They share reality in half.
The eternal dispute between idealism and realism finds a solution in the synthesis of these positions, which is my ideomaterialism and ideorealism.
Microscopic phenomena are mental-material phenomena. They are in half mental processes and therefore depend on the mind of the observer, as suggested by quantum mechanics.
It is worth noting that the concept of matter should be revised. The smallest particles are formed directly from space (a square microgrid of space of the order of 10^-65 m) then combine to form heavier matter. So matter is essentially space.
My theory of ideomaterialism and ideorealism is to some extent related to the concepts of Comte and Mach, who also sought a third way to idealism and materialism (above part of this pargraph is from year 2024).
The structure of the brain and its division into two equal hemispheres may provide some clues to the validity of the proposed concept. The structure of the brain may reflect the hidden structure of reality or impose on us the structure of the theory and the division of 50-50, half idealism and half materialism. However, the structure of the brain did not emerge from nowhere, it concerns its origin, its source, and therefore may reflect the hidden nature of reality (above part of this paragraph is from year 2025).

Gregory Podgorniak, Poland

about the author, My name is Gregory Podgorniak (brn. 01.1977, Szczecinek, West Pomerania, Poland). I am working on field of natural as well as social sciences. During philosophical studies at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan (1996-1999) I was actively act in student scientific organisation, got a scientific scholarship, and one from my articles titled Circulus vitiosus and fourfold petitio principii in the system of Descartes was published in Humanistic Drafts of Publishing House of Humaniora Foundation in Poznan, no. 6, 1998. Unfortunately certain fate events made impossible to me continuing studies to master's and later doctor's degree. Thence I was forced to be content only with a title of bachelor.
Thanks to deep and penetrating researchings I was able to establish indisputably some number of my past incarnations reaching of ancient period, these data are certain, these incarnations are: Auguste Comte (1798-1857) French philosopher and sociologist, Edme Mariotte (1620-1684) French physicist and meteorologist, Aenesidemus (1 st century BC) Greek sceptical philosopher, Arcesilaus (315-241 BC) Greek sceptical philosopher, Gorgias (485-380 BC) Greek sophist.

email contact: podgorniakgre@gmail.com

above text is a part of a bigger work Philosophical research which is available here: http://sresearch.scienceontheweb.net/philosophy.php
my other works are available here: http://sresearch.scienceontheweb.net/map_of_texts.php

[spot]

I walked yesterday past a memorial of many crosses outside Fort 6 in Kaunas and noted a head-scarfed woman in her late twenties at prayer before a Madonna statue. She was deeply engaged in psychological exercise and I have no doubt she did it often and gained mental and emotional strength by the process. But no language I can apply offers any insight into the actual nature of the universe from her behaviour.

You gain satisfaction from your framework - from its symmetrical pattern perhaps, from a perception of completeness, from metaphorical insights it offers. But as in my example it tells nothing about whether ideomaterialism describes reality. You have offered a model, which is fine. But there is no evidence for or against - it is untested, it is perhaps untestable, but its sole content is modelling. Perhaps it is a productive model, I can't tell. If it is then it predicts aspects of reality which can be tested for truth, but nowhere in any of your posts do you attempt to do this or even find the lack relevant. Your model is at best self-consistent, I congratulate you on your achievement.

I have no idea what the woman and the Madonna statue are doing. Within her mind she is making changes, clearly. Beyond that setting she is being influenced by and influencing her culture. The Madonna didn't walk or talk. I saw no angelic host swooping down from heaven to carry her home. Neither satisfaction nor subjective experience offer any metaphysical truth about reality's structure.

Perhaps you have an insight into why the immaterial within your model is so completely silent when it comes to independently reproducible phenomena by which it can be better understood? I note the physically immaterial has no such reservation.

[wise47]

...it tells nothing about whether ideomaterialism describes reality. You have offered a model, which is fine. But there is no evidence for or against - it is untested, it is perhaps untestable, but its sole content is modelling. Perhaps it is a productive model, I can't tell. If it is then it predicts aspects of reality which can be tested for truth, but nowhere in any of your posts do you attempt to do this or even find the lack relevant. Your model is at best self-consistent, I congratulate you on your achievement.

Thank you for congratulations. Indeed, it would be a big problem to verify my theory empirically, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility.

[wise47]

I have added a part:

"To those who lean more toward idealism, I would reply that the only reasonable possibility would be a system like Berkeley's, with a Father perceiving everything. While the Father, the guardian of the cosmos, does exist, he doesn't have the power to sustain everything in real time; he simply doesn't possess such immense power. Therefore, it remains to assume that matter, understood in one way or another, exists (though it would, in fact, be condensed space). However, an excessive leaning toward materialism doesn't seem justified either. The participation of the mental factor exists, and it simply can't be less than the material factor."

[spot]

It seems never to have occurred to people that Bishop Berkeley was a rider of hobby-horses, a delver into bottomless pits of speculation with no anchor to his mind? Someone prepared to slaughter an entire nation with Tar Water rather than actually test its effects in a blind trial on a small sample? I do not believe anything he did improved the lot of humanity, and that includes his philosophical speculations. He was an enthusiast. He was a promoter. He was Trump in a cassock.

[wise47]

and he was probably the greatest philosopher in history.

[spot]

It's a broad category. Philosophy can focus on society or instead on the nature of the universe. They have little in common. The philosophy of society was speculative until the arrival of Game Theory at which point it developed a testable vocabulary instead of sleight of hand changes in meanings between postulate and conclusion. Before Game Theory the philosophy of society was conjuring around castles in Spain, it was sit back while I tell you a story about those castles you can't actually see because they're so far off, all you get is my descriptions of them.

The philosophy of the nature of the universe has been, one would hope, abandoned for the far more powerful and productive mechanism of science.

[wise47]

The philosophy of the nature of the universe has been, one would hope, abandoned for the far more powerful and productive mechanism of science.

This is largely true, but not entirely. Natural philosophy, as well as certain varieties of metaphysics, can still lead to fruitful research (as my text from the first post in this thread shows), and can provide metaphysical and philosophical preconceptions for empirical scientific research, which is important. Every scientific theory presupposes certain metaphysical preconceptions.

[spot]

If you imply a paradigm then yes, that's the overarching assumption which informs the science. And I agree they are infinite in variety, and that the science is entirely subject to it while drawing its boundaries experimentally. And each is as powerful as its consequent analysis achieves.

Since we've been negotiating vocabulary, I also agree your foundational model is such a paradigm.