I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

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...
Ahah! and you've come back with a longer and sharper pencil.
And thank you. Not quite the same as idealism, but close, and ultimately it fails for the same reason.
Click to expand...
It may be hung up with the same issues over a definition of consciousness, identification of the conscious aspect, and any kind of independent evidence. But it still has the same ontological basis as idealism and materialism and it is the glamour of physical material which generates the perception that materialism is the more likely reality.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Ahh, not bad, that one. One flaw, though: Human minds, and hence their abstractions, are part of the physical world.

Hans
Click to expand...
Well, they have a valid physical explanation, this does not preclude the involvement of other (unknown) materials, or a system of inspirational communication, or communion with entities in the other material.

Such things may be the case and we would be non the wiser.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Point well made.
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.
Click to expand...
With humility.
 
Belz... said:
Yes, and minds are also material, so there is no contradiction.
Click to expand...
Yes there is no contradiction, however you're confining of the mind to the electrochemical actions of the brain is confining the phenomena to its foundational basis, while ignoring its intellectual or experiential content.


Those materials would be material and physical. Again, no contradiction.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the existence of those materials is denied and dismissed by materialists, in the arrogance of stating that if a material has not been detected by a human, it does not exist and to even consider it, is at best folly and more likely woo woo.
 
Last edited:
Ron_Tomkins said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, oh and remind me what does materialism say about the basis of the existence we find ourselves in?
 
Hi Nonparei

Subjective and objective it is :)

All words require bodies/brains to be of the class of signs. A sign is a triad, it requires that it is about something and it is a "placeholder" for the process in the given brain. I.e. the letter A is a placeholder for the process in the brain and it is a sign itself, which is about something. What a sign can be about can be objective or subjective.
So in the absurd sense no words can be objective as not requiring brains, i.e. not words are independent of brains. All understanding of all words requires brains and the reason we can understand each other is because we can think alike. The structure in your brain if so is similar enough to other humans that we can understand each other, but that understanding is inter-subjective. It requires 2 or more subjects with a certain level of cognition and similar culture/language. That connects to such words as research, repeat and replicate and there are 3 words in play - subjective, inter-subjective and objective

Now for the words objective and subjective they cover different similar meanings, but there is a problem involved.
First a simple subject - object relationship. In short it has to do with cause and effect; i.e. you can't change how an object is by changing how you think. Your thinking can't cause a change in an object and words are not magical. "I command by the magical nature of words this apple, which is now red to become green" won't work, where as words can sometimes work in such a way in a subject - subject relation. "Be a dear and fetch me a cup of coffee". So a subject(s) -subject(s) relationship is in part inter-subjective, because it takes place between 2 or more subjects. I.e. humans and other relevant life forms, for which you have to look at them as individuals in part.
Now an object - subject relationship can make sense as how physical processes can influence the human world, where as an object - object relationship is universal so for all humans and involve physical processes, which are in the strong sense independent of all brains, when it comes to in part causation.

Now yesterday I read a book, which translates to the following title: Theories of science as relevant to practitioners within pedagogy.
In other words for the idea that you can explain everything based on observation(seeing through your eyes objects) and then test it, it breaks down for those of us, who work with humans as humans in toto, because we need to use all 3 kinds of science; natural, social and humane. We need to use several methodologies and be able to differentiate between based on evidence versus informed by evidence.
Now what goes on in a given brain is for some processes not objective, because as physical process they are what makes the thing - Homo Sapiens Sapiens - a subject and I can't help that you within natural science can't differentiate between subject and object across different methodologies, because you want to have the only methodology, so you can in effect try to control other humans, because only you understand truth.

With regards
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
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.
Click to expand...

When you look from another angle, then it becomes like this:

  • Natural science doesn't work at all!
  • Natural science is the only correct methodology, which produces real knowledge.
  • It is never that simple as being able to reduce it down to a binary set of positive and negative, but everybody can do that: I think in a good/right/true/correct manner and you don't.

Some of us, skeptics, have learn to accept irrational humans, because we work in a field of practice, where we have to treat them as humans, no matter how irrational they are.
Someone: You are irrational.
Me: Yes, but I am still a human and in the end, there is a price to pay, if you want to use the following ethical rule - "I don't like you, therefore you are totally irrelevant". That one works both ways; i.e. "I don't like how you think, so I don't have to listen to you at all" for which one answer is this: "Likewise!"

So try also to listen to them as humans and sometimes you can learn something new. :)

With regards
 
punshhh said:
Yes, oh and remind me what does materialism say about the basis of the existence we find ourselves in?
Click to expand...

It doesn't in the strong sense and neither can you!!! You can't explain the basis no matter what angle you claim, you can do that from. Materialism in short and in a brutal simple way says this: You can't think reality into being, but rather you think as a result of something else. If you don't like that, you don't have to accept that, though it is still so, if you test it and just because you have to use idealism/dualism to make sense of reality, won't stop those of us who can think differently. And no - magical thinking only works as a belief system, it doesn't work the moment you interact with the rest of reality. That is even so for solipsism.
 
punshhh said:
Yes there is no contradiction, however you're confining of the mind to the electrochemical actions of the brain is confining the phenomena to its foundational basis, while ignoring its intellectual or experiential content.
Click to expand...

No it's not. That's where you're wrong: just because it's physical doesn't remove anything of its perceived qualities. Just because there's no magic involved doesn't prevent you from finding it magical.

Yes, but the existence of those materials is denied and dismissed by materialists, in the arrogance of stating that if a material has not been detected by a human, it does not exist and to even consider it, is at best folly and more likely woo woo.
Click to expand...

It's not arrogance; it's pragmatism. If we considered every unproven thing potentially true, we'd be chasing our tails ceaselessly and science wouldn't progress. We focus on the things that we know are true based on current knowledge.

And let's not kid ourselves: people like you don't consider these hypotheses because you're looking at all the alternatives. You're doing it because you want them to be true.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
It doesn't in the strong sense and neither can you!!! You can't explain the basis no matter what angle you claim, you can do that from. Materialism in short and in a brutal simple way says this: You can't think reality into being, but rather you think as a result of something else. If you don't like that, you don't have to accept that, though it is still so, if you test it and just because you have to use idealism/dualism to make sense of reality, won't stop those of us who can think differently. And no - magical thinking only works as a belief system, it doesn't work the moment you interact with the rest of reality. That is even so for solipsism.
Click to expand...
Its only the materialists who are feigning an explanation for the existence of matter. I can't speak for idealists or Doron, but it seems the worst they have done is offer an alternative view.

This notion of magic is a straw man.
 
Belz... said:
No it's not. That's where you're wrong: just because it's physical doesn't remove anything of its perceived qualities. Just because there's no magic involved doesn't prevent you from finding it magical.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't take a scalpel to someone's brain to determine their preference for classical or country music.

Again magic is a straw man, I don't know why materialists bring it up.


It's not arrogance; it's pragmatism. If we considered every unproven thing potentially true, we'd be chasing our tails ceaselessly and science wouldn't progress. We focus on the things that we know are true based on current knowledge.
Click to expand...
The pragmatic view is irrelevant when ontology is embraced which is necessary for a philosophy to make ontological claims. Yes I know the line, there could be infinite ontologies, so we should stick to the one we know. But there is no knowing, there is no proven ontology, only speculation. With speculation all rationally derived avenues should be considered. The one with the strongest basis is idealism as it is extrapolated from the personal experience of existing.
And let's not kid ourselves: people like you don't consider these hypotheses because you're looking at all the alternatives. You're doing it because you want them to be true.
Click to expand...
I don't see a hypothesis from materialism.
I am more concerned with truth than hypothesis or belief.
 
punshhh said:
I wouldn't take a scalpel to someone's brain to determine their preference for classical or country music.
Click to expand...

No because scalpels can't do that. That's a job for a brain scanner. Or, if you are looking for something less invasive, you can ask the person. I don't know why you think this is relevant.

Again magic is a straw man, I don't know why materialists bring it up.
Click to expand...

Because that's what non-materialists propose, perhaps unknowingly. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want something that exists beyond the material, is ineffable, but somehow interacts with the physical universe. It interacts, but doesn't. That's magic.

The pragmatic view is irrelevant
Click to expand...

Read that to yourself again, and let it sink in. You are saying that the practical considerations are irrelevant. You are basically putting musings over fact.

Yes I know the line, there could be infinite ontologies, so we should stick to the one we know.
Click to expand...

No, we should stick to the one that works. Assuming that the world is material is the reason everything we have works.

I am more concerned with truth than hypothesis or belief.
Click to expand...

No, you're not.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
All that goes on in the real world is physical/material, but not all that goes on is independent of brains.
Click to expand...

Not all that goes on is independent of apples or crayfish, either.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
As to objective definitions of words it has a limit - look up linear A and B http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_A
Click to expand...

Indecipherable writing systems are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
the words are not exactly the same because apples don't require brains
Click to expand...

Yes it does.

I literally just went over this.

punshhh said:
Ahah! and you've come back with a longer and sharper pencil.
Click to expand...

If you say so.

punshhh said:
It may be hung up with the same issues over a definition of consciousness, identification of the conscious aspect, and any kind of independent evidence. But it still has the same ontological basis as idealism and materialism
Click to expand...

As idealism, yes. As materialism, no.

Idealism and neutral monism are assertions. Materialism is a conclusion.

punshhh said:
and it is the glamour of physical material which generates the perception that materialism is the more likely reality.
Click to expand...

No one claims that materialism is more likely. That's very nearly a nonsense question, and almost certainly one that we will never get the answer to.

What we claim - and what is undeniably true - is that materialism is the most rational.

punshhh said:
Yes there is no contradiction, however you're confining of the mind to the electrochemical actions of the brain is confining the phenomena to its foundational basis
Click to expand...

Confining the thing to what it is, you mean? I have no problem with doing this.

punshhh said:
while ignoring its intellectual or experiential content.
Click to expand...

I do not ignore this.

This is not separate from the electrochemical actions of the brain.

punshhh said:
Yes, but the existence of those materials is denied and dismissed by materialists, in the arrogance of stating that if a material has not been detected by a human, it does not exist and to even consider it, is at best folly and more likely woo woo.
Click to expand...

Considering it is fine.

Asserting it, and attempting to use it as the basis for an argument that you claim is rational, is another matter entirely.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
So in the absurd sense no words can be objective as not requiring brains, i.e. not words are independent of brains.
Click to expand...

That is not what "objective" means.

We've been over this.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
Now for the words objective and subjective they cover different similar meanings, but there is a problem involved.
First a simple subject - object relationship. In short it has to do with cause and effect; i.e. you can't change how an object is by changing how you think. Your thinking can't cause a change in an object and words are not magical. "I command by the magical nature of words this apple, which is now red to become green" won't work, where as words can sometimes work in such a way in a subject - subject relation. "Be a dear and fetch me a cup of coffee". So a subject(s) -subject(s) relationship is in part inter-subjective, because it takes place between 2 or more subjects. I.e. humans and other relevant life forms, for which you have to look at them as individuals in part.
Now an object - subject relationship can make sense as how physical processes can influence the human world, where as an object - object relationship is universal so for all humans and involve physical processes, which are in the strong sense independent of all brains, when it comes to in part causation.
Click to expand...

This is indecipherable. I have absolutely no idea what point this is meant to make, because it means nothing in English.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
In other words for the idea that you can explain everything based on observation(seeing through your eyes objects) and then test it, it breaks down for those of us, who work with humans as humans in toto, because we need to use all 3 kinds of science; natural, social and humane.
Click to expand...

Which are still based on observation and objective evidence.

What's your point?

Tommy Jeppesen said:
Now what goes on in a given brain is for some processes not objective
Click to expand...

Yes, they are.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
because as physical process they are what makes the thing - Homo Sapiens Sapiens - a subject
Click to expand...

You're equivocating between "subjective" and "subject".

Tommy Jeppesen said:
and I can't help that you within natural science can't differentiate between subject and object across different methodologies, because you want to have the only methodology, so you can in effect try to control other humans, because only you understand truth.
Click to expand...

Did... did I just get accused of supervillainy?

Is this a thing that just happened?
 
Hi Nonpareil
How does "I like the color green" look like? What kind of observation as through sight can you give for something you like?
Now the words - "the real world" - what does real look like and do you observe real?

Come on - what does "I like" look like - how do you see "I like"?
 
punshhh said:
Well, they have a valid physical explanation, this does not preclude the involvement of other (unknown) materials, or a system of inspirational communication, or communion with entities in the other material.

Such things may be the case and we would be non the wiser.
Click to expand...

We would also be entirely without any rational reason to assert it.

punshhh said:
Its only the materialists who are feigning an explanation for the existence of matter.
Click to expand...

Materialism doesn't claim to know why we have matter.

Just that we do.

punshhh said:
I wouldn't take a scalpel to someone's brain to determine their preference for classical or country music.
Click to expand...

No one said you should. Asking them is usually more than enough, but if you want to see it for yourself, you would need a rather advanced brain scanner, not a knife.

punshhh said:
But there is no knowing, there is no proven ontology, only speculation.
Click to expand...

"There is no proven ontology" is only true if you play some very serious word games with the definition of "proven".

The universe behaves in all instances exactly as if materialism is true. It is proven, by any reasonable standard. The only thing that prevents it from being absolutely ironclad is that rational skepticism - the system that bears it out - demands that we always be open to future evidence, which may (but probably won't) contradict it.

punshhh said:
With speculation all rationally derived avenues should be considered.
Click to expand...

There is only one rationally-derived ontology.

It is not idealism.

punshhh said:
The one with the strongest basis is idealism as it is extrapolated from the personal experience of existing.
Click to expand...

This is a childishly shallow view of rationality, and completely ignores literally everything that has ever happened in the history of the universe, ever.

Yes, I know what "literally" means, and yes, it applies here.

punshhh said:
I don't see a hypothesis from materialism.
I am more concerned with truth than hypothesis or belief.
Click to expand...

Then what's the problem with materialism not having one?

Nitpicks aside, materialism's "hypothesis" - which, again, is actually a conclusion - is that the universe is material in nature and that consciousness, including the observer's, is a product of matter behaving in certain ways.

It isn't complicated, and literally everything that has ever happened, ever, acts as evidence in its support. Idealism, on the other hand, must seek refuge in solipsism if it wants to have any basis at all, and solipsism collapses as soon as you have any functional definition of "exists".
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Hi Nonpareil
How does "I like the color green" look like? What kind of observation as through sight can you give for something you like?
Now the words - "the real world" - what does real look like and do you observe real?

Come on - what does "I like" look like - how do you see "I like"?
Click to expand...

Brain scanner.

This has been talked about in countless other threads. I am not a neurologist and don't pretend to be one, but we are already at the point where we can read basic thoughts given advanced enough equipment. We can determine what colors someone is thinking of, what emotions certain images give rise to, whose face a subject is imagining. There is absolutely no reason to believe that, given enough time and resources, we can't completely map the brain and produce a scanner which has perfect fidelity.

Thought processes are not easily described or quantified by laymen.

This does not mean that they cannot be quantified.
 
Apathia said:
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.
Click to expand...
As you can see Apathia, the moderators of this forum have their own view of the discussed subject, which actually does not allow to provide an alternative that actually shows that materiel\mental objective\subjective etc. are naturally bounded, changeable and multiple aspects of a common foundation that is naturally invariant, unbounded and non-composed, as very simply was demonstrated by my unbounded 1-dimesional element diagram, which is naturally remains unchanged among its expressions, which are expressed in this diagram as wave forms of the 1-dimesional unbounded and non-composed element, such that the martial aspect is simply the convex aspect of a given wave, where the mental aspect is simply the concave aspect of that given wave, where both acpects are totally depend on the Unity of the 1-dimesional unbounded and non-composed element.

I suggest an harmonious solution to the materialism\idealism multiplicity that is naturally derived from the Unity among them, where, again, Unity by its vary own nature, is not one_of_many thing.

As long as someone count Unity as one_of_many thing, he\she actually misses the vary nature of Unity, and can't use it as the invariant foundation among the naturally changeable multiplicity, where materiel\mental objective\subjective etc. are some example of the naturally changeable and bounded multiplicity.
 
Last edited:
Nonpareil said:
Brain scanner.

This has been talked about in countless other threads. I am not a neurologist and don't pretend to be one, but we are already at the point where we can read basic thoughts given advanced enough equipment. We can determine what colors someone is thinking of, what emotions certain images give rise to, whose face a subject is imagining. There is absolutely no reason to believe that, given enough time and resources, we can't completely map the brain and produce a scanner which has perfect fidelity.

Thought processes are not easily described or quantified by laymen.

This does not mean that they cannot be quantified.
Click to expand...

But they feel special to me !
 
doronshadmi said:
As you can see Apathia, the moderators of this forum have their own view of the discussed subject, which actually does not allow to provide an alternative
Click to expand...

Stop right there. If that's true then ALL of your posts should be in AAH. They are not, therefore you are wrong. Or is that just "my" logic ?
 
doronshadmi said:
As you can see Apathia, the moderators of this forum have their own view of the discussed subject, which actually does not allow to provide an alternative that actually shows that materiel\mental objective\subjective etc. are naturally bounded, changeable and multiple aspects of a common foundation that is naturally invariant, unbounded and non-composed, as very simply was demonstrated by my unbounded 1-dimesional element diagram, which is naturally remains unchanged among its expressions, which are expressed in this diagram as wave forms of the 1-dimesional unbounded and non-composed element, such that the martial aspect is simply the convex aspect of a given wave, where the mental aspect is simply the concave aspect of that given wave, where both acpects are totally depend on the Unity of the 1-dimesional unbounded and non-composed element.

I suggest an harmonious solution to the materialism\idealism multiplicity that is naturally derived from the Unity among them, where, again, Unity by its vary own nature, is not one_of_many thing.

As long as someone count Unity as one_of_many thing, he\she actually misses the vary nature of Unity, and can't use it as the invariant foundation among the naturally changeable multiplicity, where materiel\mental objective\subjective etc. are some example of the naturally changeable and bounded multiplicity.
Click to expand...

For those who have come in late, quite a lot of posts were just moved to AAH. They were not exclusively doronshadmi's posts.

That aside, this new post is gibberish.
 
Belz... said:
Stop right there. If that's true then ALL of your posts should be in AAH. They are not, therefore you are wrong. Or is that just "my" logic ?
Click to expand...
Take a bird and cut the feathers that allow it to fly, you do not eliminating it, but you prevent its natural ability to fly.
 
Nonpareil said:
Brain scanner.

This has been talked about in countless other threads. I am not a neurologist and don't pretend to be one, but we are already at the point where we can read basic thoughts given advanced enough equipment. We can determine what colors someone is thinking of, what emotions certain images give rise to, whose face a subject is imagining. There is absolutely no reason to believe that, given enough time and resources, we can't completely map the brain and produce a scanner which has perfect fidelity.

Thought processes are not easily described or quantified by laymen.

This does not mean that they cannot be quantified.
Click to expand...

So, when you get up in the morning you get your brain scanned, because otherwise you don't know how you think and feel and before brain scanning humans couldn't know what the sentence "I like the color green" meant. You only know how you think and feel by looking at a brain scanner?!!
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
So, when you get up in the morning you get your brain scanned, because otherwise you don't know how you think and feel and before brain scanning humans couldn't know what the sentence "I like the color green" meant. You only know how you think and feel by looking at a brain scanner?!!
Click to expand...

We both know this is not what I am arguing, and it does not follow from any of my posts. What is your point?
 
doronshadmi said:
Take a bird and cut the feathers that allow it to fly, you do not eliminating it, but you prevent its natural ability to fly.
Click to expand...

And that's you in a nutshell: style over substance; rhetoric over content. Instead of actually addressing my point, such as agreeing with it or countering with a logical, rational response, you go with nice-sounding platitudes.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
So, when you get up in the morning you get your brain scanned, because otherwise you don't know how you think and feel and before brain scanning humans couldn't know what the sentence "I like the color green" meant. You only know how you think and feel by looking at a brain scanner?!!
Click to expand...

Your brain IS a brain scanner.
 
Belz... said:
But they feel special to me !
Click to expand...

Cut it out, Belz... ;) :D If you feel something, it is not the same as seeing and you don't experience the world only through sight! It is a straw man to claim that because I claim that feelings are real, that I claim they are special. Your line of thinking is as bad as:
P1: Science can't explain all aspect of reality.
C: God!!!

P1: Feelings as feelings about processes in a given brain and body are real. (Not to be confused with emotions.)
C: They are special.

P2 in the latter deduction BTW is that any claim to feeling is woo! That is not sound! :)

I hope you can do better than that, because in short your thinking is in part an induction error and bad judgment of what makes a skeptic a skeptic. Not all of us skeptics are scientific skeptics.
P1: I am a scientific skeptic.
C: All skeptics are scientific skeptics or they are really woo-believers.

With regards
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Hi Nonpareil
How does "I like the color green" look like?
Click to expand...

It looks like neurins conncting the experience of green with something preferable.

What kind of observation as through sight can you give for something you like?
Click to expand...

What is that supposed to mean?

Now the words - "the real world" - what does real look like and do you observe real?
Click to expand...

Yes. Using proper observation methods, we observe real and only that.

Come on - what does "I like" look like - how do you see "I like"?
Click to expand...

Are you in doubt about how you observe that you like something?

Hans
 
Belz... said:
Your brain IS a brain scanner.
Click to expand...

No, your brain is also a brain scanner, but not just a brain scanner. Stop doing binary true and false for everything.

You: Is the brain only a brain scanner; yes or no! If you answer in any other way, you are a woo-believer, because I say so!
Me: Could you learn to think otherwise???
 
MRC_Hans said:
Yes. Using proper observation methods, we observe real and only that.

Hans
Click to expand...

So how do you observe that? You have made a subjective rule for the word real, because all versions of real is abstract and not observable through observation.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Anybody claimed it was?

Hans
Click to expand...

I don't really know, because you are not the rest of the "gang", but try answer this.
Are all version of empiricism observation through sight and testing? Have you checked?

BTW we can observe, doesn't hold for 1st person, because you are not a we for all aspects of reality :)
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
You don't understand all of reality only through objective observation and objective testing.
Click to expand...

You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Objective observation" is the only kind of observation there is. If something does not have objective existence, you cannot observe it, by definition. It does not exist. Your interpretation of what you observe may be subjective depending on the way the question is framed, but the observation itself happens. It is objective.

"Objective testing" is redundant. "Subjective testing" is a nonsense phrase. Your interpretation of the test may be subjective depending on the way the question is framed, but the test itself happens. It is objective.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
No, your brain is also a brain scanner, but not just a brain scanner. Stop doing binary true and false for everything.
Click to expand...

No one is doing that. Stop trying to tell other people what they are arguing when you do not understand the definitions being used.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
So how do you observe that?
Click to expand...

The same way you observe literally anything else.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
You have made a subjective rule for the word real
Click to expand...

You not understanding the definition of "real" is not the same thing as making up rules.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
because all versions of real is abstract
Click to expand...

This is wrong.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
I don't really know, because you are not the rest of the "gang", but try answer this.
Are all version of empiricism observation through sight and testing? Have you checked?
Click to expand...

You are not really confusing 'sight' and 'observation' are you?

All empiricism is through observation and testing. I don't have to check, because that is the definition of empiricism. If it ain't through observation and testing, it ain't empiricism.

BTW we can observe, doesn't hold for 1st person, because you are not a we for all aspects of reality :)
Click to expand...

No, I often have to trust the observations of others. That's the reason we have invented the system of peer reviewed publishing and independent confirmation.

Hans
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
You don't understand all of reality only through objective observation and objective testing.
Click to expand...


I do.

I don't experience all of reality through objective observation and objective testing. In fact, I don't experience anything that way. I experience everything by experiencing it, subjectively.

But objective testing and objective observation (which includes observation of others' accounts of what they have observed and tested) is the only way to understand any of the things I'm experiencing. "Pure experiencing" can have value but by itself it does not lead to understanding.

Experiencing thunder results in something like, "Loud noise! Danger! Run away!" which might have some survival value under primitive conditions.

With a small amount of understanding, we learn, "Thunder means danger of lightning. Hide away in places less exposed to lightning." That's more valuable knowledge, but you can only get there via objective testing of questions such as "Is the occurrence of lightning correlated to the occurrence of thunder?" and "Does thunder ever cause harm in the absence of nearby lightning?"

More advanced objective testing and observation leads to the deeper understanding that thunder is the sound generated by lightning, lightning is atmospheric electrical discharges, and structures can be protected from lightning using pointy metal rods.

There are experiences we don't yet understand, such as the experience of the divine. "Divine presence! Awesome! Worship!" But in that case, all attempts at objective observation and testing (e.g. the entirety of theology) have failed to produce any consistent understanding (hence, a million different religions), probably because we've been observing and testing the wrong things (e.g. the nature and wishes of the entity-that-is-present in the divine-presence experience, which will not be productive if there is no such entity). At that point, we can either denigrate understanding and be satisfied with the non-understanding of the pure experience (putting a good face on cowering from thunder), or engage yet deeper and more advanced objective testing and observation (such as brain scans).
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Cut it out, Belz...
Click to expand...

No. I will continue to point out nonsense.

If you feel something, it is not the same as seeing and you don't experience the world only through sight!
Click to expand...

How is that even a reply to what I said ? Here's my point: we are increasingly capable of explaining the entire process of consciousness, both as a mechanism, and in our ability to detect and decypher its numerous processes. This should help us conclude that there is nothing to consciousness but physical processes in material things. The insistence that there must be something else is emotion-based, nothing else.

It is a straw man to claim that because I claim that feelings are real, that I claim they are special.
Click to expand...

It's a strawman to claim that this is what I've been doing.

I hope you can do better than that, because in short your thinking is in part an induction error and bad judgment of what makes a skeptic a skeptic.
Click to expand...

No, because you, once again, do not understand what others are telling you.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
You don't understand all of reality only through objective observation and objective testing.
Click to expand...

Tommy Jeppesen said:
No, your brain is also a brain scanner, but not just a brain scanner. Stop doing binary true and false for everything.
Click to expand...

Where did I say it is ONLY a brain scanner ? STOP adding content to my posts.

I also notice you've used the opportunity to dodge my point AGAIN. The point which was that you actually DO only know about your feelings and perceptions via scanning your brain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom