I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

Myriad said:
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).
Click to expand...

You are expressing the dangers in the analysis of the contents of experience as there are plenty of opportunities to misdiagnose (ie a shadow for a ghost or a toy gun for a real gun), and opportunities to add value to an experience that may not be there (ie Divine). However, it is possible to look to the mechanics of "pure experience", even the non thunderous mundane experience like holding a pencil, and inquiring into that experience. For example, I pick up a pen, and figuratively putting that pen (content) aside, I ask What is the substance I am experiencing? I then pick up a banana, and again figuratively putting that content aside, What is the substance of my experience? I look to the trees outside . . . it's all the same substance and that substance is in awareness. I must confess Materialism is the most rational explanation for experience, but it is totally counter-intuitive.
 
Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...
Since your 0\1 excluded-middle reasoning gets anything that is not 0\1 excluded-middle as non-rational response, I'll give you a 0\1 reasoning example, that supports my claim about the moderators of this thread.

As you can see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10372026&postcount=424 was not moved to AHH where my answer to it was moved to AHH.

Let's look at the following part:
Nonpareil said:
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.
Click to expand...
In this part Nonpareil clearly demonstrates how he uses multiplicity as his fundamental substance in order to air his view of Neutral monism and Unity, as follows:

According to his Neutral monism view, Unity is a third thing in addition to Materialism and Idealism (which is exactly the multiplicity view that wrongly takes Unity as one_of_many thing, but Unity by its vary own nature is not one_of_many thing, otherwise it can't be considered as Unity, in the first place).

Moreover, according to Nonpareil multiplicity view of Neutral monism
Nonpareil said:
materialism and idealism are both false
Click to expand...
Well, according my view of Neutral monism Materialism and Idealism are definitely not false, they are simply the complement bounded and naturally changeable multiple aspects of Unity that are derived from the invariance nature of Unity, but not vise versa (as very simply explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10373669&postcount=457)

Moreover, the moderators moved also my reply to Apathia (the one with the diagram), which very simply demonstrates how multiplicity (where Materialism and Idealism are some aspects of it) is derived form Unity, but not vise versa.

Furthermore, the moderators did not move http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10372026&postcount=424 to AHH, in spite of the fact the it contains Nonpareil's remarks about my math abilities, but they did move to AHH my reply to Nonpareil, which clearly shows that his remarks about my math abilities have no basis what so ever, exactly because he used Dessi as his example of a person that understands the discussed subject about cardinality in the other thread.

In other words, the moderators of this forum have their own view of the discussed subject, which actually does not allow to provide an alternative that is based on Neutral monism and Unity as its substance.

Darat said:
There's a thread that is quite active I challenge you: your best argument for materialism that is - as you can probably guess - all about the best arguments for why materialism is "correct". There have been several members that have posted who have argued by assertion that there is an alternate to materialism that is as successful (or more so) at predicting and describing the reality we exist in.

Rather than derailing that thread I'd thought I'd start this one so they can put forward their alternate (or alternates).

Anyone willing to kick this thread off?
Click to expand...

Darat, the moderators of this thread do not allow Neutral monism and Unity as its substance to air its view as an alternative to materialism.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Since your 0\1 excluded-middle reasoning gets anything that is not 0\1 excluded-middle as non-rational response, I'll give you a 0\1 reasoning example, that supports my claim about the moderators of this thread.
Click to expand...

What in the blue hell are you talking about ? I am addressing your claim that you are being prevented from speaking out against the mainstream view, which is patently ridiculous since you've been here for 6 years doing nothing but that, and you are allowed to stay.

That some of your posts are sent to AAH is not evidence that you are being silenced, and the best evidence that you are NOT being silenced is that you are, actually, not being silenced.
 
doronshadmi said:
In this part Nonpareil clearly demonstrates how he uses multiplicity as his fundamental substance in order to air his view of Neutral monism and Unity, as follows:

According to his Neutral monism view
Click to expand...

"My view" of neutral monism is literally just the definition of neutral monism.

I even linked to a source that gives the same definition. You're just making things up now.

Unity is a third thing in addition to Materialism and Idealism (which is exactly the multiplicity view that wrongly takes Unity as one_of_many thing, but Unity by its vary own nature is not one_of_many thing, otherwise it can't be considered as Unity, in the first place).
Click to expand...

Meaningless waffle.

Moreover, according to Nonpareil multiplicity view of Neutral monism

Well, according my view of Neutral monism Materialism and Idealism are definitely not false, they are simply the complement bounded and naturally changeable multiple aspects of Unity that are derived from the invariance nature of Unity, but not vise versa (as very simply explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10373669&postcount=457)
Click to expand...

Which is nonsensical, self-contradictory, more undefined, meaningless waffle, and, perhaps most hilariously, not neutral monism.

You really need to define your terms.
 
Nonpareil said:
"My view" of neutral monism is literally just the definition of neutral monism.

I even linked to a source that gives the same definition. You're just making things up now.
Click to expand...

There is more than one version of Neutral monism according to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/ , so you have no case.

Moreover, here is the conclusion of this article:

The best strategy may be to disregard this tradition and to focus on the minimalist but very flexible framework afforded by the core claims of neutral monism. Falling far short of embodying a theory, these core claims provide only theory schema—a schema that can be filled in in quite diverse and unanticipated ways. Viewed from this perspective, neutral monism may still hold some promise, even if it should be true that the mainstream versions of the doctrine have been justly forgotten.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
There is more than one version of Neutral monism according to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/ , so you have no case.
Click to expand...

No. No, there isn't.

There are different formulations of neutral monism. There are differing schools of thought on what the substance it indicates is or how that conclusion is reached. But neutral monism is still defined as the metaphysical stance that reality is of one nature which is neither material nor idealistic.

You do not understand the philosophy you claim to espouse.

EDIT: There are many types of triangles. Some may be isoceles; some equilateral; some right. No one can deny that they are all fine triangles indeed.

But if you come to me with a square and try to pretend it's a triangle too, I will be forced to tell you otherwise.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I am talking about the fact that my Natural monist view of Unity was definitely silenced in this thread, as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10374107&postcount=482, which you simply ignore.
Click to expand...

Again, you are not making any sort of sense, since the post you linked to is still availabled. How are you being silenced if you are free to post whatever crazy idea you want ?

That we are not accepting your crazy idea isn't the same thing.
 
marplots said:
No, but the point was to show that immaterial things (concepts) have material consequences, not that there was any "truth" in the mix.
Click to expand...
But that's not true either. Instantiations of concepts - which are material things - have material consequences.

Concepts in and of themselves don't exist and have no effect on anything.
 
Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...
The only way to do that is to ask the person, which was my point.That the information "I like country music" is a subjective state of a conscious entity. The physical body of that entity is non the wiser.


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.
Click to expand...
Some may do so unknowingly, remember i said magic is straw, so it is a meaningless distinction anyway.
I don't know why you repeat the notion of something which both interacts and doesn't. Again, this is not problematic as a subtle material may interact, while being undetectable by humanity.


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.
Click to expand...
Philosophically it is irrelevant, as we are concerned with what can and cannot be said about existence intellectually. Physical material is unimportant in this, as it is a product of that existence, whatever that existence may be.


No, we should stick to the one that works. Assuming that the world is material is the reason everything we have works.
Click to expand...
But philosophical stances on existence are useless in the wider world, because the world resulting from them would be identical in either case.


No, you're not.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken, you have no idea where I am coming from, or of the basis of mysticism.

Let me enlighten you, mysticism is concerned with the truth of what exists, nothing else. You may come across people saying they are mystics and then coming out with all kinds of theories about the world and existence, this is little more than theorising, or religious dogma and is not actually mysticism. Mysticism leaves the mind and ego at the door and concerns itself with experience itself and what exists.
 
Last edited:
Nonpareil said:
As idealism, yes. As materialism, no.

Idealism and neutral monism are assertions. Materialism is a conclusion.
Click to expand...
I would appreciate it if we focus on only one or two points at a time as
I am pressed for time at the moment.

The only conclusion in materialism is what is dictated to it by science, as such you are delivering Scientism. To take materialism any further than this, i.e. Into the realms of a discussion on ontologies and broader philosophical questions is an assertion.


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.
Click to expand...
No idealism is the most rational*, materialism is the most practical and yet if it is based on Scientism, it is blinkered and is not a rounded philosophy anyway. It doesn't address the broader philosophical questions.


I do not ignore this.

This is not separate from the electrochemical actions of the brain.
Click to expand...
The subjective content of the mind may be dependent on the physical action of the brain, but it is an emergent individual phenomena with a subjective life of its own, so to speak. What you are suggesting is equivalent to studying the world of television by tabulating the transistors, diodes, capacitors etc to be found in the Television, rather than discussing the programmes shown on it.

*Idealism is the most rational because it only assumes the most direct aspect of existence, our personal experience of existing. While recognising that all else is peripheral phenomena of some kind, which we may not be in a position to fully understand.
 
PixyMisa said:
But that's not true either. Instantiations of concepts - which are material things - have material consequences.

Concepts in and of themselves don't exist and have no effect on anything.
Click to expand...

Nonpareil said:
No.

"Objective" means "true from every frame of reference". "Subjective" means "not true from every frame of reference". Talking about processes in brains being subjective is nonsensical; these processes have objective reality. The ideas that these processes represent might be only subjectively true, but that's all.

"Blue is a nice color for interior decorating", as a process within the brain, has objective reality. Given enough understanding of the brain, we can trace this idea from conception as it travels through the neural processors. From every frame of reference, this thought exists. It is objective.

The actual statement, however, is only subjectively true, as "blue is nice" is a normative statement. It is not true from every frame of reference.
Click to expand...

Here is how this works - no word what so ever has meaning in itself - all words are as words work as place-holders for nothing but physical processes in a given brain or brains.
So for "The actual statement, however, is only subjectively true, as "blue is nice" is a normative statement. It is not true from every frame of reference."; we then get in combination for the 2 quotes that all the words are nothing but objective physical processes in a brain including the words subjectively true. Subjectively true is an objective, physical process and true from every point of reference. I.e. in effect subjectively true is and is not true from every frame of reference.

With regards
 
Now I am not going to be nice or what ever.
So here is is for two different categories of words exemplified by the words "the yellow cat" and "the real world".
You can if you know do to do it trace yellow through natural science all the way to an international scientific measurement standard for yellow as a form of wavelength and how you calibrate relevant measurement devices for measuring wavelength. That connects to the words you, I, we and replicate.

So would you please explain to me what international scientific measurement standard and which relevant measurement devices I should use for the word real to I can replicate according to science the objective observation of a real world.

With regards
 
Let us play brain scanner - a scanner is a measurement device and the brain works a measurement device in part. I get that - now can some please explain objectively how I objectively according to a scientific measurement standard calibrate my brain.

We are playing nothing but in part this:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras.

So in practice for one of you as this we in "We fight for the truth", I can repeat/replicate that statement so it makes sense. The problem is that the statement is subjective, it is a normative statement and not a objective and scientific statement.
So all of this "we, objectively" is nothing but in part a physical, biological, cultural and so on statement within the population of Homo Sapiens Sapiens and if you really have to reduce this "we" down to biology it is a we versus them for the replication of the fittest genome as in part for the 4 F's - feed, fornication, fight and flight.
"We, the scientists" are not outside evolution and you don't an objective point of view, when it comes to being inside evolution.

In other words I get the you for "I don't like philosophy". Fair enough, but that is a feeling and I don't accept that your feelings are special, just because they are yours. I try to apply that to all humans including myself and I don't really care for your subjective individual feelings if you try to make them into a universal and normative rule for how we ought to think.
 
punshhh said:
The only way to do that is to ask the person, which was my point.
Click to expand...

But I just told you that it isn't. Why do you just ignore reality ? You keep saying that you're open-minded but you're not: you've already made up your mind long ago.

Some may do so unknowingly, remember i said magic is straw, so it is a meaningless distinction anyway.
Click to expand...

No, that does not follow.

I don't know why you repeat the notion of something which both interacts and doesn't.
Click to expand...

Because that's what you propose, silly. Otherwise there is no point to the distinction.

Again, this is not problematic as a subtle material may interact, while being undetectable by humanity.
Click to expand...

See, you're doing it again ! It interacts but in a way that doesn't move any particle. That's nonsense, Punshhh. That's magic.

Philosophically it is irrelevant, as we are concerned with what can and cannot be said about existence intellectually.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that's philosophy.

Physical material is unimportant in this, as it is a product of that existence, whatever that existence may be.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that make it relevant, then, since that's what the topic is ? :boggled:

You are mistaken, you have no idea where I am coming from, or of the basis of mysticism.
Click to expand...

I know this: you do not listen to reason or evidence or logic. You stick to mystic belief and yet deny that it's magic. You pretend to be open-minded and not a dualist but every post you make proves otherwise. It's clear that you are not interested in truth (i.e. reality), but confirmation of your own beliefs.

Let me enlighten you, mysticism is concerned with the truth of what exists
Click to expand...

And that doesn't even mean anything. "The truth of what exists" ?

Mysticism leaves the mind and ego at the door and concerns itself with experience itself and what exists.
Click to expand...

That's why it fails.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Let us play brain scanner - a scanner is a measurement device and the brain works a measurement device in part. I get that - now can some please explain objectively how I objectively according to a scientific measurement standard calibrate my brain.

We are playing nothing but in part this:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras.

So in practice for one of you as this we in "We fight for the truth", I can repeat/replicate that statement so it makes sense. The problem is that the statement is subjective, it is a normative statement and not a objective and scientific statement.
So all of this "we, objectively" is nothing but in part a physical, biological, cultural and so on statement within the population of Homo Sapiens Sapiens and if you really have to reduce this "we" down to biology it is a we versus them for the replication of the fittest genome as in part for the 4 F's - feed, fornication, fight and flight.
"We, the scientists" are not outside evolution and you don't an objective point of view, when it comes to being inside evolution.

In other words I get the you for "I don't like philosophy". Fair enough, but that is a feeling and I don't accept that your feelings are special, just because they are yours. I try to apply that to all humans including myself and I don't really care for your subjective individual feelings if you try to make them into a universal and normative rule for how we ought to think.
Click to expand...

Feelings are irrelevant.
 
BTW truth is not reality as such. Truth is a short cut to different cognitive and emotional states about how a given person understand the relationship humans as humans and/or humans and the rest of reality. ;) I.e. truth has everything to do with the ability to think, because we wouldn't have word truth without brains.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Yes, I know - that is a subjective feeling in part and a normative claim, because you confuse irrelevant to you with irrelevant to how reality in toto works. :)
Click to expand...

No, it's irrelevant: your feelings do not give you information about anything other than themselves. They cannot be used to conclude anything about the world about you. For instance, if you're afraid of tuna sandwitched, it doesn't tell you anything about the nature of tuna.

This isn't a matter of opinion.
 
What if matter is effect and energy is undefined by its very existence? By this I mean maybe this is the real difference between Newtonian Physics, which works on common sense reality (hard, physical fact - time-wise, the certain past as opposed to Quantum mechanics and the uncertain future: If this latter subject confuses you, it did me until an excellent BBC TV show recently made me realize why I hadn't got it...but then, maybe I'm fooling myself that I've got it now?).
 
Belz... said:
No, it's irrelevant: your feelings do not give you information about anything other than themselves. They cannot be used to conclude anything about the world about you. For instance, if you're afraid of tuna sandwitched, it doesn't tell you anything about the nature of tuna.

This isn't a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...

So objectivity is better than subjectivity and feelings and better is an objective better. I.e. there is an international scientific measurement standard for better.
 
Last edited:
Tommy Jeppesen said:
So objectivity is better than subjectivity and feelings is an objective better. I.e. there is an international scientific measurement standard for better.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with what I said.

I said you cannot reach conclusions about objective questions from your feelings about said question.
 
punshhh said:
The only way to do that is to ask the person, which was my point.
Click to expand...

And our point is that, while in the vast majority of situations, simply asking is more than ample evidence, you could actually verify it with a brain scanner.

punshhh said:
That the information "I like country music" is a subjective
Click to expand...

Objective. "X likes country music" is an objective statement.

punshhh said:
The physical body of that entity is non the wiser.
Click to expand...

No.

punshhh said:
Philosophically it is irrelevant, as we are concerned with what can and cannot be said about existence intellectually. Physical material is unimportant in this, as it is a product of that existence, whatever that existence may be.
Click to expand...

Assuming the conclusion.

punshhh said:
But philosophical stances on existence are useless in the wider world, because the world resulting from them would be identical in either case.
Click to expand...

Not without a series of impractical and unwarranted special clauses.

The universe behaves exactly as though it is material in nature. Any claim other than materialism has no reason for the universe to behave that way, or even any way at all; they often lack coherent definitions, and what definitions they do have don't actually show why the universe looks the way it does. We would, in fact, expect it not to act this way.

There's no reason for an idealist universe to look like a materialist one, except that idealists have such a fuzzily-defined position that they can have it say anything they want.

punshhh said:
I would appreciate it if we focus on only one or two points at a time as
I am pressed for time at the moment.
Click to expand...

It's a forum. You have all the time you want. The posts are not going anywhere.

punshhh said:
The only conclusion in materialism is what is dictated to it by science, as such you are delivering Scientism. To take materialism any further than this, i.e. Into the realms of a discussion on ontologies and broader philosophical questions is an assertion.
Click to expand...

This is wrong.

Materialism stands as follows:

  • The universe behaves in every way exactly as though it is material in nature. This is corroborated by science, yes.
  • Thus, the universe is material in nature. This isn't even really a leap. It's just the definition of "is".

Yes, it's that short, yes, it's that simple, and yes, it's that easy. And it remains that easy even when discussing ontology.

punshhh said:
No idealism is the most rational*
Click to expand...

Someone else - I believe it was PixyMisa - has pointed out in previous threads that ideas like idealism only meet the criteria for rationality when you first discard all notions of evidence. Which is entirely correct.

And as I have already pointed out in this thread, idealism is only rational if you try and hide behind solipsism to declare that nothing you experience can ever be used to draw any ontological conclusion.

And solipsism falls apart as soon as you have any functional definition of "exists".

punshhh said:
materialism is the most practical
Click to expand...

It is this also, yes.

punshhh said:
and yet if it is based on Scientism, it is blinkered and is not a rounded philosophy anyway. It doesn't address the broader philosophical questions.
Click to expand...

It addresses literally every question worth addressing on the matter, because it is correct.

It just might not do so in a way you like.

punshhh said:
The subjective content of the mind may be dependent on the physical action of the brain, but it is an emergent individual phenomena with a subjective life of its own, so to speak.
Click to expand...

That is not what "subjective" means.

punshhh said:
What you are suggesting is equivalent to studying the world of television by tabulating the transistors, diodes, capacitors etc to be found in the Television, rather than discussing the programmes shown on it.
Click to expand...

No, what I'm saying is that, given enough power, scanning speed, and a complete enough list of what all possible transmissions might mean, you can figure out what's showing on the telly by looking at the state of the circuitry.

Which is true. It's not always practical, and certainly not the only way to watch television, but that's not the point. What's relevant here is that it can be done.

punshhh said:
*Idealism is the most rational because it only assumes the most direct aspect of existence, our personal experience of existing. While recognising that all else is peripheral phenomena of some kind, which we may not be in a position to fully understand.
Click to expand...

Which is not a rational thing to do, because we can demonstrably understand it.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
I.e. in effect subjectively true is and is not true from every frame of reference.
Click to expand...

Statements about other statements can be objectively true, yes, even if the statement being referred to is only subjectively so. You just look at the truth value of each statement separately.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
Now I am not going to be nice or what ever.
Click to expand...

I'm terrified.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
So would you please explain to me what international scientific measurement standard and which relevant measurement devices I should use for the word real to I can replicate according to science the objective observation of a real world.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't trace the word "real" to find all brain states related to observing the real world (though you'd definitely want to be able to do it as part of that experiment). What you'd want is a full-brain scanner.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
Let us play brain scanner - a scanner is a measurement device and the brain works a measurement device in part. I get that - now can some please explain objectively how I objectively according to a scientific measurement standard calibrate my brain.
Click to expand...

Not every device constructed includes a means of calibration. In fact, the human brain not having one is one of the main problems with it. Have you never heard of mental illness?

Tommy Jeppesen said:
So in practice for one of you as this we in "We fight for the truth", I can repeat/replicate that statement so it makes sense. The problem is that the statement is subjective, it is a normative statement and not a objective and scientific statement.
Click to expand...

You don't understand what those words mean.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
So all of this "we, objectively" is nothing but in part a physical, biological, cultural and so on statement within the population of Homo Sapiens Sapiens and if you really have to reduce this "we" down to biology it is a we versus them for the replication of the fittest genome as in part for the 4 F's - feed, fornication, fight and flight.
"We, the scientists" are not outside evolution and you don't an objective point of view, when it comes to being inside evolution.
Click to expand...

Again, this is indecipherable. The words all make sense, but if you have a point, it's lost somewhere in there, and I can't get it out.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
In other words I get the you for "I don't like philosophy".
Click to expand...

No, actually, I quite like philosophy.

I dislike many philosophers, because they are demonstrably bad at their jobs.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
BTW truth is not reality as such.
Click to expand...

You don't understand what that word means either, then.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
So objectivity is better than subjectivity and feelings is an objective better. I.e. there is an international scientific measurement standard for better.
Click to expand...

Yes.

It's called "being right".
 
Belz... said:
That has nothing to do with what I said.

I said you cannot reach conclusions about objective questions from your feelings about said question.
Click to expand...

So you can refer to a peer-reviewed study that all human conditions are reducible to answers to objective questions?
I don't want philosophy BTW
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
So you can refer to a peer-reviewed study that all human conditions are reducible to answers to objective questions?
Click to expand...

Again, what does this have to do with what I said ? You seem to be fundamentally unable to understand my point: you CANNOT use your feelings as evidence of anything except that you have feelings. This has nothing to do with your post quoted here.

I don't want philosophy BTW
Click to expand...

Neither do I.
 
Nonpareil said:
...
It's called "being right".
Click to expand...

Being right is not science nor answerable objectively.

Let me explain - being right takes place in a given brain. If you scan 2 or more brains, you will find if the amount of scanning done is sufficient 2 or more contradictory versions of being right. You can't solve that objectively for being right, because there is no objective measurement standard or device for being right. I.e. the meaning of being right can only be subjectively true and never objectively true.
 
So you as scientists can solve this one without feelings and subjectivity:
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/101/2/366/
The moral domain is broader than the empathy and justice concerns assessed by existing measures of moral competence, and it is not just a subset of the values assessed by value inventories. To fill the need for reliable and theoretically grounded measurement of the full range of moral concerns, we developed the Moral Foundations Questionnaire on the basis of a theoretical model of 5 universally available (but variably developed) sets of moral intuitions: Harm/Care, Fairness/Reciprocity, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. We present evidence for the internal and external validity of the scale and the model, and in doing so we present new findings about morality: (a) Comparative model fitting of confirmatory factor analyses provides empirical justification for a 5-factor structure of moral concerns; (b) convergent/discriminant validity evidence suggests that moral concerns predict personality features and social group attitudes not previously considered morally relevant; and (c) we establish pragmatic validity of the measure in providing new knowledge and research opportunities concerning demographic and cultural differences in moral intuitions. These analyses provide evidence for the usefulness of Moral Foundations Theory in simultaneously increasing the scope and sharpening the resolution of psychological views of morality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved)
Click to expand...

You can in effect answer Harm/Care, Fairness/Reciprocity, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity without the use of any sort of feelings???
Please to refer to a peer reviewed study of how that is done?
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
So you as scientists can solve this one without feelings and subjectivity:
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/101/2/366/


You can in effect answer Harm/Care, Fairness/Reciprocity, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity without the use of any sort of feelings???
Please to refer to a peer reviewed study of how that is done?
Click to expand...

Tommy.

I'm going to say this again.

You do not understand what "objective", "subjective", or "normative" means. It is becoming more and more obvious that you have equally little understanding of "true", "false", "scientific", and "right". Your questions and assertions make little to no sense because of this. The questions you ask, when they have meaning at all, are so trivial that there was really no point in asking in the first place.

You even made a thread recently attempting to "call me out" on this very subject, and you weren't coherent then, either. I attempted to explain to you there what they meant, but apparently it didn't work.

Until you actually do understand what those words mean, you have no grounds to make any sort of argument like this. Your posts, like this one, are so incredibly wrong that the only answer I can give is "mu".

You're demanding an answer to a normative question, one that is necessarily defined by feelings, without the use of feelings. You then try to act as though you've scored some sort of point. Do you see the issue here?

Go and do some reading on truth values, objectivity and subjectivity. I'd explain it myself - again - but...

...No, that's just it. I'd be explaining it again.

And I'm getting tired of doing that.
 
Nonpareil said:
Tommy.

I'm going to say this again.

You do not understand what "objective", "subjective", or "normative" means. It is becoming more and more obvious that you have equally little understanding of "true", "false", "scientific", and "right". Your questions and assertions make little to no sense because of this. The questions you ask, when they have meaning at all, are so trivial that there was really no point in asking in the first place.

You even made a thread recently attempting to "call me out" on this very subject, and you weren't coherent then, either. I attempted to explain to you there what they meant, but apparently it didn't work.

Until you actually do understand what those words mean, you have no grounds to make any sort of argument like this. Your posts, like this one, are so incredibly wrong that the only answer I can give is "mu".

You're demanding an answer to a normative question, one that is necessarily defined by feelings, without the use of feelings. You then try to act as though you've scored some sort of point. Do you see the issue here?

Go and do some reading on truth values, objectivity and subjectivity. I'd explain it myself - again - but...

...No, that's just it. I'd be explaining it again.

And I'm getting tired of doing that.
Click to expand...

So the scientific method can't directly be used on normative questions, rather only when someone has defined right and wrong can he/she use science for the practical aspects of - how do I do it?!!

Yet some of you claim you (we, the scientists) only use knowledge based on a scientific methodology and natural science is the only form of knowledge, there is. And here you, Nonpareil, admit that is not possible for normative ethics, which all humans with a certain cognitive level use in practice every day.
So much for objective, subjective and "we, the scientists, can explain reality". Yet you can't produce a scientific law of normative ethics.
So everything in reality except normative ethics can be explained by science. So there is something we all do day in and day out which in practice works as real life falsification of "I can reduce everything down to a scientific explanation".

With regards

PS Keep that in mind next time you play "Everything is physical". In practice that has its limits. :)
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
So the scientific method can't directly be used on normative questions, rather only when someone has defined right and wrong can he/she use science for the practical aspects of - how do I do it?!!
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right. You can't use the scientific method on normative questions, because, by definition, normative questions are undefined. The only way you can get any answer to them is to make it up.

The moment you have a definition, you can use the scientific method and get an objectively true answer to whatever question you ask.

We have been here before.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
Yet some of you claim you (we, the scientists) only use knowledge based on a scientific methodology and natural science is the only form of knowledge, there is.
Click to expand...

People use "knowledge" gathered by non-scientific methods all the time.

It's called making things up.

Applied rational skepticism is the only way to get valid answers.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
And here you, Nonpareil, admit that is not possible for normative ethics, which all humans with a certain cognitive level use in practice every day.
Click to expand...

No. In fact, I say exactly the opposite of that, as shown above, but you insist on putting words in others' mouths because you don't understand what is actually being said to you.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
So much for objective, subjective and "we, the scientists, can explain reality". Yet you can't produce a scientific law of normative ethics.
Click to expand...

Because normative ethics is made up, Tommy. It is entirely arbitrary. That is what normative means.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
PS Keep that in mind next time you play "Everything is physical". In practice that has its limits. :)
Click to expand...

It actually doesn't. You just don't understand what's being said.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Being right is not science nor answerable objectively.

Let me explain - being right takes place in a given brain.
Click to expand...

OK, you officially have no clue about anything you discuss here.

Either make some effort to understand the topics and terms used, or stop trying to discuss these topics. You are in way over your head.

Can any of you point me to the scientific law of normative ethics?
Click to expand...

No, and yes.

As Nonpareil has said, you can't have science on normative questions because these questions are undefined -- or, as PixyMisa said, they make assumptions that are not revealed. "Should" is an "is" with hidden assumptions. Once all assumptions are defined and explained, then you can do science on normative questions.

For instance, if I ask "is murder wrong", you cannot answer unless you know what "wrong" means. Once the term is fully defined in an objective manner, then you can answer it. The answer, of course, is only within the context of your definition of "wrong". Under a different definition, the answer will be different.
 
Belz... said:
OK, you officially have no clue about anything you discuss here.

Either make some effort to understand the topics and terms used, or stop trying to discuss these topics. You are in way over your head.



No, and yes.

As Nonpareil has said, you can't have science on normative questions because these questions are undefined -- or, as PixyMisa said, they make assumptions that are not revealed. "Should" is an "is" with hidden assumptions. Once all assumptions are defined and explained, then you can do science on normative questions.

For instance, if I ask "is murder wrong", you cannot answer unless you know what "wrong" means. Once the term is fully defined in an objective manner, then you can answer it. The answer, of course, is only within the context of your definition of "wrong". Under a different definition, the answer will be different.
Click to expand...

So I subjectively define what wrong means objectively?!! :) I get it! :D BTW you can't objectively define something subjective, you can describe and hope that the person you are describing it to has the cognitive and emotional ability to understand you, but that is not a given.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
So I subjectively define what wrong means objectively?!! :) I get it! :D
Click to expand...

No you don't. You never do.

Think of moral values as variables in an equation. They don't have set values, and each one of us has a more-or-less unique set of values to the various moral variables. Once you know what those values are, you CAN do the equation, but the results will vary from one individual to the next.

BTW you can't objectively define something subjective
Click to expand...

Of course you can. Do me a favour and look for the definition of "subjective".
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Made up of what? Non-physical stuff, maybe?
Click to expand...

Either you don't understand the difference between "consisting of" and "arbitrary" or you are deliberately equivocating between the two in order to... make yourself look foolish, I suppose.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
I BTW would like evidence that is entirely arbitrary and not subject to cause and effect.
Click to expand...

"Arbitrary" does not mean "not subject to cause and effect".

You do not understand the words you are trying to use.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
So I subjectively define what wrong means objectively?!! :) I get it! :D
Click to expand...

No, you don't.

You do not grasp the concept of a meta-statement. The fact that statements about other statements exist, and can be objective or subjective independent of the statement they concern, seems to escape you.

And you still don't understand what "objective" or "subjective" actually means in the first place.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
BTW you can't objectively define something subjective
Click to expand...

You can.

No one else necessarily has to have the same definition that you do. But you can.
 
Last edited:
LarryS said:
You are expressing the dangers in the analysis of the contents of experience as there are plenty of opportunities to misdiagnose (ie a shadow for a ghost or a toy gun for a real gun), and opportunities to add value to an experience that may not be there (ie Divine). However, it is possible to look to the mechanics of "pure experience", even the non thunderous mundane experience like holding a pencil, and inquiring into that experience. For example, I pick up a pen, and figuratively putting that pen (content) aside, I ask What is the substance I am experiencing? I then pick up a banana, and again figuratively putting that content aside, What is the substance of my experience? I look to the trees outside . . . it's all the same substance and that substance is in awareness. I must confess Materialism is the most rational explanation for experience, but it is totally counter-intuitive.
Click to expand...


That's as may be, but what understanding of anything does experiencing the pen (except for the part about the pen) lead to?

What is the substance you are experiencing when you dream about a pen that is also a snake that rolls away from you when you drop it on a train and when you crouch down to look for it you realize you're surfing in the Grand Canyon?

What is the substance you are experiencing when you're not holding a banana but you wish you had one?

Since everything we experience is necessarily "framed" by the act of experiencing, it is tempting, and it is also quite possible, to more or less adequately explain the universe using models in which the act of experiencing is the origin of everything experienced. The most parsimonious and self-consistent of such models is solipsism, but that fails to explain the apparent similarities between our own and others' experiences. So the most popular models of that type end up including a unifying entity, a universal mind or first experiencer. The partial subordination of our individual experiences to the unifying entity's explains their similarities to one another.

Those models, which I'll loosely equate with mysticism, are almost perfect inversions of the materialistic one, to the point where in many ways they're almost equivalent and lead to some of the same destinations, including certain ideas about the nature and boundaries of the self and the meaning of death. This is generally unappreciated, in large part because most materialists haven't gone far enough in following up the logical implications of the materialist model. That's something I have to write an essay about soon, though it's looking like a monumental task.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom