I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

Belz... said:
That doesn't make any sense. How can a belief in the non-existent be justified ?
Click to expand...

I thought my hippo example was good, but I'll offer some others.

Let us say I find a small bag of money. It's not richie-rich money, but it's significant. I should like to keep (and spend) the money, but I realize the rightful owner might step forward and claim it, leaving me with a substantial problem.

So, I put flyers out about finding the money, I put an ad in the paper, I inform the police about what I've found... ad nauseam. A few years go by and there is no response. As the time passes, my belief that there is no rightful owner for the money begins to grow. At some point, my belief in the non-existence of an owner (and remember, abandoned money also lacks an owner). Surely, by whatever exhaustive method I use, I eventually have a justified belief that there is no owner at all and I can keep the money?

Now, accepting that I have a justified belief in the non-existence of a rightful owner, I spend the money. Not only do I act on my belief, but the non-existent thing directly influences my actions. If an owner exists, I'm screwed. There are direct consequences of something that doesn't exist on me, and by extension, the world at large.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
I thought my hippo example was good, but I'll offer some others.

Let us say I find a small bag of money. It's not richie-rich money, but it's significant. I should like to keep (and spend) the money, but I realize the rightful owner might step forward and claim it, leaving me with a substantial problem.

So, I put flyers out about finding the money, I put an ad in the paper, I inform the police about what I've found... ad nauseam. A few years go by and there is no response. As the time passes, my belief that there is no rightful owner for the money begins to grow. At some point, my belief in the non-existence of an owner (and remember, abandoned money also lacks an owner). Surely, by whatever exhaustive method I use, I eventually have a justified belief that there is no owner at all and I can keep the money?

Now, accepting that I have a justified belief in the non-existence of a rightful owner, I spend the money. Not only do I act on my belief, but the non-existent thing directly influences my actions. If an owner exists, I'm screwed. There are direct consequences of something that doesn't exist on me, and by extension, the world at large.
Click to expand...

Again: what does this have to do with anything that I've said ? Beliefs are processes in the brain and as such they exist. The thing you believe in may not. What's your point ?
 
Belz... said:
Again: what does this have to do with anything that I've said ? Beliefs are processes in the brain and as such they exist. The thing you believe in may not. What's your point ?
Click to expand...

The question at hand was how the immaterial could ever affect the material, as if they were two different, mutually disconnected realms. So I was trying to show how the one might reach the other.

If beliefs are material things, then I'm proposing that beliefs can be about immaterial, non-existent things - and those beliefs can be both justified and have consequences. This offers a bridge between the immaterial (things that don't exist) and the material (my beliefs about those things).
 
marplots said:
The question at hand was how the immaterial could ever affect the material, as if they were two different, mutually disconnected realms. So I was trying to show how the one might reach the other.

If beliefs are material things, then I'm proposing that beliefs can be about immaterial, non-existent things - and those beliefs can be both justified and have consequences. This offers a bridge between the immaterial (things that don't exist) and the material (my beliefs about those things).
Click to expand...

Mathematicians struggle with the same thing:

Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same. In this point of view, there is really one sort of mathematics that can be discovered; triangles, for example, are real entities, not the creations of the human mind.

Many working mathematicians have been mathematical realists; they see themselves as discoverers of naturally occurring objects. Examples include Paul Erdős and Kurt Gödel. Gödel believed in an objective mathematical reality that could be perceived in a manner analogous to sense perception. Certain principles (e.g., for any two objects, there is a collection of objects consisting of precisely those two objects) could be directly seen to be true, but the continuum hypothesis conjecture might prove undecidable just on the basis of such principles. Gödel suggested that quasi-empirical methodology could be used to provide sufficient evidence to be able to reasonably assume such a conjecture.

Within realism, there are distinctions depending on what sort of existence one takes mathematical entities to have, and how we know about them. Major forms of mathematical realism include Platonism and empiricism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Major_themes

If a triangle (or any mathematical entity) exists outside the mind, how does it exist? Do numbers exist in the material world? In what sense?
 
Fudbucker said:
(much good stuff snipped)

If a triangle (or any mathematical entity) exists outside the mind, how does it exist? Do numbers exist in the material world? In what sense?
Click to expand...

Excellent post. I was holding this card back to play later.
 
marplots said:
The question at hand was how the immaterial could ever affect the material, as if they were two different, mutually disconnected realms. So I was trying to show how the one might reach the other.

If beliefs are material things, then I'm proposing that beliefs can be about immaterial, non-existent things - and those beliefs can be both justified and have consequences. This offers a bridge between the immaterial (things that don't exist) and the material (my beliefs about those things).
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. The thing that does the affecting is physical, entirely.
 
Fudbucker said:
Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same. In this point of view, there is really one sort of mathematics that can be discovered; triangles, for example, are real entities, not the creations of the human mind.
Click to expand...

Triangles are real entities. "Triangle" is a descriptor we give to a shape that fits a certain definition.

Mathematical realism does not hold that there is some mystic "true circle" that exists independently of all other matter. It's just the rather straightforward position that mathematics is constant.

Which it is, because mathematics is a description of the real world, which is constant.

Abstract representations are not a problem for materialism.
 
marplots said:
Certainly.
The desk I am using holds my computer, a keyboard and monitor, and various ephemera on it. There is no hippo on my desk. If there were a hippo on my desk, there would be no room for any of that other stuff.

I claim that I am justified in believing there is no hippo on my desk and that, in fact, the lack of a hippo is a necessary condition for me to be typing this.

The very non-existence of that hippo is not only justified, but critical - my desk could not function with a hippo on it, I am depending on there not being a hippo, and the non-existence of the hippo is required for me to use the desk.
Click to expand...

Why to you use the word belief, there? Obviously, you know there is no hippo on your desk, and you can prove it. (You cannot prove a negative, but you CAN prove absence)

Hans
 
If a triangle (or any mathematical entity) exists outside the mind, how does it exist? Do numbers exist in the material world? In what sense?
Click to expand...

Nonpareil already answered this nicely.

But to be very direct: A triangle exists as some triangular object or as the relative positions of three objects. Otherwise it doesn't exist. The matemathical rules for a triagle are simply invariant rules that have been found to apply to all triangles. Same with numbers, obviously.

Sure, it is interesting that sets of invariant rules exist and govern the universe. This might also be relevant in the other thread, about fine tuning.

In a universe without triangles, and nobody to know the rules, do the rules still exist? ;)

Hans
 
Nonpareil said:
Abstract representations are not a problem for materialism.
Click to expand...
They do affect the physical world though, such as the abstraction God. Any gods which exist out there may, or may not utilise abstraction to affect the world(via the human mind).
 
Belz... said:
Easy: if minds are not material, they cannot interact with the material world. If they DO interact, they are either material, or logic is wrong.
Click to expand...
Minds have an interaction with the material world all the time.

This line of reasoning does not preclude other materials(other than the one we know) interacting with the (known) material world and appearing to be immaterial influences.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
Minds have an interaction with the material world all the time.
Click to expand...

Yes, and minds are also material, so there is no contradiction.

This line of reasoning does not preclude other materials(other than the one we know) interacting with the (known) material world and appearing to be immaterial influences.
Click to expand...

Those materials would be material and physical. Again, no contradiction.
 
punshhh said:
They do affect the physical world though, such as the abstraction God. Any gods which exist out there may, or may not utilise abstraction to affect the world(via the human mind).
Click to expand...

I never said they didn't.

doronshadmi said:
Please suppoert your claim by detailed replies to http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10364025&postcount=277.

If you can't do that it will be clear to any poster here that your "I fully understand" does not hold water.
Click to expand...

I already did.

Your "theorem" is that both physical and mental phenomena - which you claim are fundamentally different without any actual evidence to support that - have a root in a third, "true" reality. You present no evidence for this claim.

You then claim that mental phenomena have their root in "Consciousness", which is always capitalized because you have a Fixation with this type of thing, and that it is consciousness' "meta aspect" that you are concerned with, despite the fact that you've already claimed that mental phenomena have the same root as physical ones and are now adding a whole new level of abstraction.

At no point are any of your terms defined or is evidence given to support any of your claims, and what follows is a nonsensical stream of pseudomath that doesn't support your claims and is only relevant if they can be shown to be true, and is thus ignored (except in that we can safely assume it's wrong, because you are demonstrably bad at math, and the system you are expounding upon has never actually been defined).

Essentially, you try to invoke Take A Third Option when asked to choose between materialism and idealism. What you fail to realize is that this still leaves you with all the problems idealism has, plus a slew of your own.

And we're still waiting on evidence.
 
doronshadmi said:
Not necessarily.
Click to expand...

Yes necessarily because it's the definition of the word.

If multiple things can interact, whether they are of the same type or not, it simply means that both of them are different aspects of a common source.
Click to expand...

There's that word salad again.

Your logic is simply the particular case of a common source among multiple things of the same type.
Click to expand...

It's not "my logic". It's LOGIC. Something you seem totally unfamilliar with.

My neutral monist logic is not restricted to your particular case.
Click to expand...

I'll say. It appears that it means whatever you want it to mean at that particular moment.
 
I think we've all had plenty of conversations like this thread . . . I know I've had 'em . . . with concepts such as physical, non physical, supernatural, God, and etc.

Most folks who use the term 'supernatural' (or I suppose Unity, or God) and etc. mean it as: non physical yet interacts with the physical. So, if one introduces and requires a definition of physical as: physical or interacts with the physical . . . it's a conversation stopper.

I'm going to propose a different definition, physical: bound by time/space, or subject to modification.

All our sensory perceptions ,all states of mind, emotive states, mental images and mental processes and beliefs; these are all physical. Observations via telescopes, microscopes and colliders are also physical.

If we were to posit a deity subject to a change of mind or heart, or subject to whims or fancies; or a deity that can appear as a snake, bush, blue man or dove, such a deity would also be physical.

So, regarding the non-physical, what am I missing, what's left?

What's left (non physical/supernatural/Unity) can't be experienced, is not a state of mind and can not be the content of a belief, though we can have a belief about the description. The non physical can not be measured and does not fall under the purview of science, but yet it interacts with the physical. I think this is where the concept of 'magic' comes to play.
 
punshhh said:
They do affect the physical world though, such as the abstraction God. Any gods which exist out there may, or may not utilise abstraction to affect the world(via the human mind).
Click to expand...

Ahh, not bad, that one. One flaw, though: Human minds, and hence their abstractions, are part of the physical world.

Hans
 
Apathia said:
How do we get Multiplicity from Unity?
Click to expand...

He's using the mathematical definitions.

Presumably, anyway. The fact that he keeps capitalizing mathematical Concepts is a bit of an indicator of his general mindset when it comes to this sort of thing, and may mean that he doesn't actually accept the general definition, or attaches some sort of additional, woo-centric value to it (in fact, I think this is highly likely given his general attitude).

That means "unity" is "one", and "multiplicity" is "the number of times a certain condition is true".

His "theorem" is actually not particularly complicated, except in that it appears self-contradictory at points and lacks an actual definition for most of its terms, so, when it is actually examined critically, it's just a string of gibberish.

Neutral monism is just the claim that materialism and idealism are both false, and the universe is made up of a third, usually unnamed "true" substance. It has all the problems that idealism has, plus a slew of its own, as it posits the same unwarranted distinction between material and mental phenomena that idealism does, then goes on to make an unwarranted claim for the existence of a third "supersubstance" that is never defined, given any sort of evidential support, or even shown to be a coherent idea.

Take doronshadmi's "theorem" and run it through a translator, and you get:

  1. Physical and mental phenomena are both just instantiations of consciousness. This is just the basic premise of neutral monism, where the posited supersubstance is designated "consciousness". This leaves the issue of the unwarranted distinction between physical and mental phenomena, but also raises two new questions: what is the definition of "consciousness" in this model, and what sort of mental phenomena are distinct from it? Beyond that, there's the standard issue with neutral monism: what evidence is there for consciousness being the "true" substance of reality?
  2. Consciousness' "meta aspect" is actually its single unit - a discrete instance of consciousness, like the Planck length is a discrete unit of space or an apple is a discrete unit of apple...

...and that's where it breaks down, more or less. "Meta aspect" is a nonsense term, "naturally unbounded by its multiple expressions" is a nonsense phrase, "beyond multiplicity" means nothing, and so forth.

What doronshadmi is trying to say is that all of reality is, in truth, just aspects of consciousness, which is limitless and is not defined solely by physical and mental phenomena, even assuming that they are separate. But he doesn't define his terms, he doesn't offer any evidence, and he doesn't understand math.

He tries anyway, though. He smashes a bunch of nonsense phrases together, slaps an arbitrary (and nonsensical) binary tree diagram on there, and pretends that it all means something.

Thus, the final result is word salad. Only its original premises, which are not doronshadmi's own reasoning, even border on coherence, and even those fail to define their terms or present any evidence for their claims. The entire thing falls apart even before factoring in his nonsense.

Yes, doronshadmi is demonstrably bad at constructing mathematical models of things like this, particularly when the concept of infinity is involved. Yes, everything in his "theorem" is demonstrably nonsense. But like I've said many, many times already, it doesn't actually matter.

Neutral monism doesn't need his help to collapse under the crippling weight of unjustified assertions. It does that perfectly well on its own.
 
Thank you, Pure Argent, you're managed to explain what the actual poster of theory couldn't. Seems you understand his ideas better than he does himself.

And it seems that idea is just the same as idealism.
 
Belz... said:
Thank you, Pure Argent, you're managed to explain what the actual poster of theory couldn't. Seems you understand his ideas better than he does himself.

And it seems that idea is just the same as idealism.
Click to expand...

Obligatory: for those who were not around during my initial time on the forums a few years back, my username was originally Pure Argent.

And thank you. Not quite the same as idealism, but close, and ultimately it fails for the same reason.
 
Nonpareil said:
He's using the mathematical definitions.

Presumably, anyway. ....
Click to expand...

Well, thanks for serving the chicken caesar instead of Doron.
I was hoping to get a little extra mayo from him.

And something to help me wash it down.
 
Last edited:
I deal with these arguments all of the time. Just recently, I had a small "argument" with one of my friends, who is now some sort of Astrologer, who believes in fairies. Like literally. His religion has a whole set of fairies related to different plants and such.

Guys.... lets just accept that it's pointless to try to argue these things. And mainly because of the first thing that they tell you when they defend their argument:

"It's not rational"

That's right. Their worldview is irrational, and they're admitting it right of the bat. Here's more or less how the discourse goes:

"See, it's not rational. You can't comprehend it rationally. Science has tried to understand it but they're too primitive. They're trying to understand it with the brain, and not with the soul. They have blinders on. They haven't opened their eyes to the spiritual world, and that's why they can't see it.

I can see it. I can feel it in my soul. I can just feel that it's true. I've experienced it directly and that's how I know it's real. See, science has gone out of date. Their tools are primitive. They can't see past their own judgement. They think that everything can be explained rationally and that's their first mistake. But the truth is that there is a metaphysical world. There's something out there. Something that can't be explained with science and with evidence and all these things you hold so dearly"



I'm not quoting anyone in specific. I just made that all up myself using as reference, the discourse from every single person that I've argued about religion, astrology, feng shui, the existence of a soul, clairvoyance, ancient aliens, reincarnation, etc.

The funny thing is that they think they're telling me something new, when I've already dealt with these same arguments thousands of times. And they all sound exactly the same.


So, trust me, I know: Your argument is irrational. It can't be proved scientifically. You experience it yourself. Fine then. But don't expect to be able to discuss it with me or anyone who just won't take your claim at face value.

So I don't need a best argument for materialism. I not only experience it myself, but I can prove that the pencil is real because if I stab you on the hand with it, it won't matter how much you believe in your mind and in your soul that that didn't happen. When you open your eyes, your hand will still be bleeding. Because both your hand and the pencil and the brain with which you so passionately believe Materlism isn't true, is all part of the Material world.
 
Last edited:
Nonpareil said:
Obligatory: for those who were not around during my initial time on the forums a few years back, my username was originally Pure Argent.
Click to expand...

Well, thanks for that, for a minute there I thought I was the one that was stoned. Thinking to myself "When the heck did Pure Argent get back and in on this"?
 
MRC_Hans said:
Why to you use the word belief, there? Obviously, you know there is no hippo on your desk, and you can prove it. (You cannot prove a negative, but you CAN prove absence)

Hans
Click to expand...

Because I like to believe things I can prove?
 
The Man said:
Well, thanks for that, for a minute there I thought I was the one that was stoned. Thinking to myself "When the heck did Pure Argent get back and in on this"?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I figured that would happen at some point. Might reinstate that line in my sig mentioning it.

Can't multiquote because phones are terrible, but Ron, I have no problem with people holding admittedly irrational beliefs.

My issue is when they try to tell me they're rational.
 
For clarity sake, there are a number of posters here at the ISF who meditate and have experienced this silence and unity I speak of and who don't make this subjective state of consciousness into a metaphysical substance or some kind of objective realm, spirit, or deity.
No metaphysical position necessarily follows from it, and to overlay one on it is to interrupt the silence with mental chatter.

When I'm up and talking again, I'd rather not argue over a supposed stuff, be it physical stuff or mental stuff, or some other stuff. My ideas arise from and are limited by the circumstances of how I experience the world. I can't say much beyond that, and I'm careful not impose my esoteric constructions upon reality.
Let it be. Let it show me its own behavior.

Remember when you were a child and barraged your parents with the question "why?"
There is only so far that why can be asked before asking it becomes stupid.
The same with "stuff." you can ask what atoms are made of, quarks are made of, but at a certain point made of ceases to be a useful question.
Especially when it comes to some metaphysical made of.
There are no objective answers to metaphysical questions.

Back to using Doron's analogy:
There are waves of experience. Some are material like, some are mental like. But notice that really it's not that cut and dried.We can't speak of ideas without physical analogs. Our languages are riddled with them. The words "unity, multiplicity, silence, are all rooted in our sensory experience. To make of them objective metaphysical substances is to commit what Alfred North Whitehead called "The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness."
 
Nonpareil said:
Triangles are real entities. "Triangle" is a descriptor we give to a shape that fits a certain definition.
Click to expand...

Descriptors are only possible if something is there to do the descripting. If triangles are independent of the mind, then triangles exist in universes where there are no minds.

How then, do they exist, if there's no one to give a description of them?
 
Fudbucker said:
Descriptors are only possible if something is there to do the descripting. If triangles are independent of the mind, then triangles exist in universes where there are no minds.

How then, do they exist, if there's no one to give a description of them?
Click to expand...

Apples exist whether or not there is someone to call them apples.
 
Fudbucker said:
There is a difference between apples and numbers and mathematical concepts. Do numbers exist in a universe without minds? If they do, how do they exist?
Click to expand...

Only for my pleasure, if you assert there is a difference between apples and numbers/mathematical concept, tell me why and how. Nonpariel gave a difference between descriptor and entities.

The map is not the territory and all.

I'd argue that entropy is a very good distinction if that helps you here.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
There is a difference between apples and numbers and mathematical concepts. Do numbers exist in a universe without minds? If they do, how do they exist?
Click to expand...

There are fewer differences than you think, and none of them are relevant to the point I am making.

"Apple" is, at its most basic level, an abstraction. It is a descriptor we apply to groups of atoms that fit certain qualifications. It is a descriptor. Remove observers from the universe and no one uses the descriptor, but the thing being described still remains and is unchanged.

"Triangle" is, at its most basic level, an abstraction. It is a descriptor we apply to groups of atoms (or points in space, et cetera) that fit certain qualifications. It is a descriptor. Remove observers from the universe and no one uses the descriptor, but the thing being described still remains and is unchanged.

"Three" is, at its most basic level, an abstraction. It is a descriptor we apply to groups of atoms (or apples, or triangles, et cetera) that fit certain qualifications. It is a descriptor. Remove observers from the universe and no one uses the descriptor, but the thing(s) being described still remains and is unchanged.

Numbers and shapes are abstractions, but they are abstractions with objective definitions - like almost every other descriptor we might apply to something.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
For clarity sake, there are a number of posters here at the ISF who meditate and have experienced this silence and unity I speak of and who don't make this subjective state of consciousness into a metaphysical substance or some kind of objective realm, spirit, or deity.
No metaphysical position necessarily follows from it, and to overlay one on it is to interrupt the silence with mental chatter.

When I'm up and talking again, I'd rather not argue over a supposed stuff, be it physical stuff or mental stuff, or some other stuff. My ideas arise from and are limited by the circumstances of how I experience the world. I can't say much beyond that, and I'm careful not impose my esoteric constructions upon reality.
Let it be. Let it show me its own behavior.

Remember when you were a child and barraged your parents with the question "why?"
There is only so far that why can be asked before asking it becomes stupid.
The same with "stuff." you can ask what atoms are made of, quarks are made of, but at a certain point made of ceases to be a useful question.
Especially when it comes to some metaphysical made of.
There are no objective answers to metaphysical questions.

Back to using Doron's analogy:
There are waves of experience. Some are material like, some are mental like. But notice that really it's not that cut and dried.We can't speak of ideas without physical analogs. Our languages are riddled with them. The words "unity, multiplicity, silence, are all rooted in our sensory experience. To make of them objective metaphysical substances is to commit what Alfred North Whitehead called "The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness."
Click to expand...

The above comments were made in context to a post I made which has been moved to Abandon All Hope. I therefore retract anything I've said here, and apologize for any offense.
 
Nonpareil said:
There are fewer differences than you think, and none of them are relevant to the point I am making.

"Apple" is, at its most basic level, an abstraction. It is a descriptor we apply to groups of atoms that fit certain qualifications. It is a descriptor. Remove observers from the universe and no one uses the descriptor, but the thing being described still remains and is unchanged.

"Triangle" is, at its most basic level, an abstraction. It is a descriptor we apply to groups of atoms (or points in space, et cetera) that fit certain qualifications. It is a descriptor. Remove observers from the universe and no one uses the descriptor, but the thing being described still remains and is unchanged.

"Three" is, at its most basic level, an abstraction. It is a descriptor we apply to groups of atoms (or apples, or triangles, et cetera) that fit certain qualifications. It is a descriptor. Remove observers from the universe and no one uses the descriptor, but the thing(s) being described still remains and is unchanged.

Numbers and shapes are abstractions, but they are abstractions with objective definitions - like almost every other descriptor we might apply to something.
Click to expand...

So a thing is things ;) Yes, I know, but there is point "hidden" behind words. All that goes on in the real world is physical/material, but not all that goes on is independent of brains. As to objective definitions of words it has a limit - look up linear A and B http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_A

All words requires subjects; i.e. brains or other physical computational systems. Without brains there would be no meaning, so when considering words you have to included those words which requires brains to be about something. The word apple is about something, which doesn't require brains, where as the word three requires a brain; i.e. a physical computational system. Now reality supports that you, if you can count, can count to 3 and use that in relationship to 3 apples, but the words are not exactly the same because apples don't require brains, 3 does. :)

With regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom