I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

Myriad said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't agree about the explanatory or satisfactory (or even coherent) nature of idealist models, but I'd be interested to read the essay regardless. Let me know if it's ever finished.
 
Nonpareil said:
...
Click to expand...

Do you know what? You are not wrong nor right unless you think and feel so. If you for some ways of understanding give up those 2 binary arbitrary designators and stop thinking that humans can be right or wrong, you might learn a new way of understanding. You don't have to and it is not certain that you can, but it is there.

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

Well, I don't know if this is relevant, but when you trace in practice some of the assumptions inherent in science you get across e.g.:
The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the Universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the Universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the Universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.. p. 2.
Click to expand...
 
Belz... said:
Nonsense. If I say "two plus two equals five", I am wrong no matter what you or I feel about it.
Click to expand...

So all forms and categories of wrong are exactly the same?

  • The moon is made of the dairy product green cheese
  • 2+2=5
  • Killing a newborn for the fun of it.

In effect you are saying there is a universal physical cause and effect which gives you the physical property of being wrong. How odd ;)
 
Nonpareil said:
Wrong is a descriptor.

You're just deliberately wasting time now.
Click to expand...

No, all words are actual physical processes in a brain and can be described using natural science in the strong sense. So what is wrong is a physical sense? So using dualism, Nonpareil!!!

Now in practice PixyMisa won't come to get you, because you are one of "we...", but none the less you are engaging in functional dualism. I.e. there is a meaning to some words which can't described using physical terms. :D
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
No, all words are actual physical processes in a brain and can be described using natural science in the strong sense. So what is wrong is a physical sense? So using dualism, Nonpareil!!!
Click to expand...

Your inability to understand concepts presented to you does not amount to dualism on my part.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
Then stop using it in a moral sense. :)
Click to expand...

I am using it as a descriptor applied to objectively untrue statements.

I have no idea what you are using it as, because you don't understand what you're saying, let alone what anyone else is.
 
Myriad said:
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.
Click to expand...

At this point, I'm not really gunning for any "understanding", and I don't feel worthy of any inquiries into advanced topics as self or death, but I do like to conduct a completely honest appraisal of the present moment - and when I do, I find awareness and stuff in awareness. Whether this stuff is labeled material or consciousness is going to come down to how squirrelly it is - and so far, no matter what we think matter is, it turns out to be more than that.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
So all forms and categories of wrong are exactly the same?
Click to expand...

Something is either true or not. The problem here is that you conflate "factually wrong" with "morally wrong". As I've told you earlier today, and that you probably ignored, you can convert one to the other once you establish your variables.

In effect you are saying there is a universal physical cause and effect which gives you the physical property of being wrong. How odd ;)
Click to expand...

No, that is not at all what I'm saying. Perhaps you should read posts more slowly before replying, and assume that you interpreted it wrong before you hit "submit".
 
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...

The answer is part of the Cut/Cure, Heal/Hurt, Love/Lust, Disobedience/Obey and Real/Immaterial dichotomies of everyday existence.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Do you know what? You are not wrong nor right unless you think and feel so. If you for some ways of understanding give up those 2 binary arbitrary designators and stop thinking that humans can be right or wrong, you might learn a new way of understanding. You don't have to and it is not certain that you can, but it is there.

With regards
Click to expand...

So if I think and feel I'm right while beheading an infidel I'm OK?
 
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...

But that's the rub, isn't it? An instantiation of something that doesn't exist is a bit of magic that turns the non-existent into some "thing."

Even if we say that all that exists (material and energy) is a fixed total, and differences we note are simply rearrangements of this sandbox, there's still a possibility for the immaterial. In this framing, the immaterial comes in when we ask about how the arrangement came to be this way instead of that, or whether the principles we've discovered about how things act are also material things. It's not hard to find meta levels.
 
marplots said:
But that's the rub, isn't it? An instantiation of something that doesn't exist is a bit of magic that turns the non-existent into some "thing."
Click to expand...
No.

Even if we say that all that exists (material and energy) is a fixed total, and differences we note are simply rearrangements of this sandbox, there's still a possibility for the immaterial.
Click to expand...
No.

In this framing, the immaterial comes in when we ask about how the arrangement came to be this way instead of that, or whether the principles we've discovered about how things act are also material things.
Click to expand...
No.

It's not hard to find meta levels.
Click to expand...
It's particularly easy if you abandon any semblance of logic.
 
marplots said:
But that's the rub, isn't it? An instantiation of something that doesn't exist is a bit of magic that turns the non-existent into some "thing."

Even if we say that all that exists (material and energy) is a fixed total, and differences we note are simply rearrangements of this sandbox, there's still a possibility for the immaterial. In this framing, the immaterial comes in when we ask about how the arrangement came to be this way instead of that, or whether the principles we've discovered about how things act are also material things. It's not hard to find meta levels.
Click to expand...

Literally every sentence in this post is wrong. Except possibly the last, but that's mostly because "finding meta levels" could mean anything.
 
Nonpareil said:
Triangles are real entities. "Triangle" is a descriptor we give to a shape that fits a certain definition.
Click to expand...

If a triangle can exist independent of the mind, who is there to give a "descriptor"?

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.
Click to expand...

No, it's that mathematical concepts exist independent of the mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Mathematical_realism

Which means that there's a possible universe where the Pythagoream Theorem exists in a universe with no conscious beings. That begs the obvious question: How does the Pythagream Theorem (SP) exist in a mindless universe? What is the materialist explanation for that?

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

A necessary condition for description is someone to do the describing. In a universe without minds, the mathematical descriptions still exist, but there are no describers. What is the material explanation for that?

Abstract representations are not a problem for materialism.
Click to expand...

If the representations exist independent of any minds, then it seems it's a rather large problem for materialism
 
marplots said:
But that's the rub, isn't it? An instantiation of something that doesn't exist is a bit of magic that turns the non-existent into some "thing."

Even if we say that all that exists (material and energy) is a fixed total, and differences we note are simply rearrangements of this sandbox, there's still a possibility for the immaterial. In this framing, the immaterial comes in when we ask about how the arrangement came to be this way instead of that, or whether the principles we've discovered about how things act are also material things. It's not hard to find meta levels.
Click to expand...

The terms 'material' and 'non material' are a problem semantically, more useful terms would be material=bound by time space or subject to modification and non material=unbounded and not subject to modification.

These terms would be employed 'in principle'

Then, if a concept, or arrangement or law of nature and etc are suggested, they can be shown to be material. For example, a geometric point, which occupies no space and only differentiates a location - is material. A law of nature, such as the speed of light, an arrangement, or a non existent unicorn - - are in principle subject to modification and or locatable in space/time and are therefore material. Ghosts, angels and any deity would also be material.

The only 'thing' that would be non material would be unbounded and changeless.

Otherwise we're doomed to a debate between gross material, and non material as whatever is currently too subtle to measure/know material.
 
Fudbucker said:
If a triangle can exist independent of the mind, who is there to give a "descriptor"?
Click to expand...

If a fish is green, how much does my table weigh?

Fudbucker said:
No, it's that mathematical concepts exist independent of the mind.
Click to expand...

Concepts? No. Concepts require minds to exist. But mathematical realism talks about entities, not concepts. It speaks of triangles, not our description of triangles.

Those do exist independent of the mind, and I have never said otherwise.

I have just explained this. Mathematics is independent of the interpreter, because mathematics is an objective description of reality.

Fudbucker said:
Which means that there's a possible universe where the Pythagoream Theorem exists in a universe with no conscious beings.
Click to expand...

No, it means that there's a possible universe where the Pythagorean theorem applies with no conscious beings.

A theorem is a formulation of principles created by conscious beings. By definition, theorems do not exist without anyone to theorize.

Fudbucker said:
A necessary condition for description is someone to do the describing. In a universe without minds, the mathematical descriptions still exist
Click to expand...

No, they don't. Descriptions do not exist without minds.

The things being described still exist.

This is not complicated.
 
Belz... said:
But I just told you that it isn't. Why do you just ignore reality ?
Click to expand...
Well perhaps you can use a brain scanner to observe the brain of a subject while listening to country music and then to classical music and compare which parts of the brain light up etc. But this is not determining that the subject prefers country, scientifically, it is merely an observation of the phenomena and is essentially the same as asking the subject directly which they prefer. Tell me how a brain is different in a person who likes country from a person who likes classical?
You keep saying that you're open-minded but you're not: you've already made up your mind long ago.
Click to expand...
This is becoming repetitious. Are you getting angry? Your responses suggest it.


No, that does not follow.
Click to expand...
Magic is phenomena not yet understood by humanity, which appear unnatural. It cannot be determined if these phenomena are natural but not yet understood, or truly supernatural. Supernatural suffers from the same short comings. It is little better than name calling, or hand waving to use either of these words.


Because that's what you propose, silly. Otherwise there is no point to the distinction.
Click to expand...
No, it's you who bring it up. My position is it interacts, but appears not to, even to scientific investigation, because we cannot detect it.


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.
Click to expand...
I see no requirement for it to move any particle. There are numerous alternative forms of interaction given a little thought.


Yeah, and that's philosophy.
Click to expand...
When discussing practical affairs, I will consider the practicality of things.


Wouldn't that make it relevant, then, since that's what the topic is ? :boggled:
Click to expand...
The topic is about philosophical stances, we are working from the knowledge that the world is the way it is. So either of the alternative philosophies will treat the physical world as a given (as it is) and consider the foundational basis, I.e.the origin, the mechanisms of its existence, the nature of timespace, dimension, the nature of mind etc.


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.
Click to expand...
That repetition again. You don't appear to have made a very good appraisal of my position.

And that doesn't even mean anything. "The truth of what exists" ?
Click to expand...
The true state, of what it is that exists.


That's why it fails.
Click to expand...
Mind is an abstraction, i.e. a computation. Personal experience is a different aspect of our lives and is a more direct understanding and route to the knowing, of what exists.
 
Last edited:
Nonpareil said:
No. No, there isn't.
Click to expand...

Here is what http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/ actually says about mental and physical phenomena:
Most versions of neutral monism are versions of noneliminativist reductionism. Mental and physical phenomena are real but reducible to/constructible from the underlying neutral level.
Click to expand...


And here is your definition of Natural monism that wrongly interprets what is actually written in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/:
Nonpareil said:
Neutral monism is just the claim that materialism and idealism are both false
Click to expand...

Nonpareil said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nonpareil, "you come to me with a square and try to pretend it's a triangle too" is exactly what you are doing about http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/.

So the exact address to your wrong claims about Natural monism is you and no one else but you.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
1) You ignore the fact that significant replies of mine were actually removed to AHH, where http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10372026&postcount=424 was not moved to AHH, in spite of the fact that it definitely airs its view about my mathematical abilities, and in spite of the fact that my replies to such claims were moved to AHH.

2) You also ignore the second part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10374270&postcount=485 that clearly says that (I corrected some typo):
doronshadmi said:
It does not mean that things can't be chanced for better from now on.
Click to expand...
where this part is aimed to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10373669&postcount=457 from now on.

Belz... said:
That we are not accepting your crazy idea isn't the same thing.
Click to expand...
Those "we" are exactly the persons that wish to address reality only in terms of Materialism XOR Idealism, by unconditionally rejecting any view of reality that defines the harmony among these aspects, in terms of multiplicity that is derived from Unity, but not vise versa (whereUnity is not one_of many thing, as clearly addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10373669&postcount=457).
 
Last edited:
LarryS said:
The terms 'material' and 'non material' are a problem semantically, more useful terms would be material=bound by time space or subject to modification and non material=unbounded and not subject to modification.

These terms would be employed 'in principle'

Then, if a concept, or arrangement or law of nature and etc are suggested, they can be shown to be material. For example, a geometric point, which occupies no space and only differentiates a location - is material. A law of nature, such as the speed of light, an arrangement, or a non existent unicorn - - are in principle subject to modification and or locatable in space/time and are therefore material. Ghosts, angels and any deity would also be material.

The only 'thing' that would be non material would be unbounded and changeless.

Otherwise we're doomed to a debate between gross material, and non material as whatever is currently too subtle to measure/know material.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was the basis for my objection. The materialist camp is doing a bit of a dance so that everything worth discussing - even, lately, the conceptual - is going to be called material, in an effort to keep the immaterial out of play. I don't actually mind the ploy, but it kind of kills the discussion, when we can't even find an example of immaterial to look at. All of my suggestions of immaterial things have failed to sprout.

If everything I can possibly think about is material because it exists as electrochemical impulses in my noggin, then by definition I cannot even consider the ideas, save that those ideas are themselves material. My ability to reason is limited by the thing I'm reasoning with.

In my view, this way of treating materialism is over-broad and fails to make any useful distinction. "Everything is material. I win."
 
punshhh said:
Well perhaps you can use a brain scanner to observe the brain of a subject while listening to country music and then to classical music and compare which parts of the brain light up etc. But this is not determining that the subject prefers country, scientifically, it is merely an observation of the phenomena and is essentially the same as asking the subject directly which they prefer.
Click to expand...

You are contradicting yourself. In the first part of that last sentence, you say it's not determining preference, but then you go on and say it's equivalent to asking the person what they prefer, which definitely DOES determine that preference. So which is it ?

Of course you can determine preference, as long as you know what "prefere" looks like in the brain.

Tell me how a brain is different in a person who likes country from a person who likes classical?
Click to expand...

It will light up differently.

This is becoming repetitious. Are you getting angry? Your responses suggest it.
Click to expand...

And apparently you also have no clue how to detect emotions in others. You are a terrible brain scanner.

Magic is phenomena not yet understood by humanity
Click to expand...

No. No scientist will call anything they don't understand "magic". That is a fantasy of yours.

No, it's you who bring it up.
Click to expand...

No, I keep saying that everything is physical. It is you who brings up things not in evidence.

My position is it interacts, but appears not to, even to scientific investigation, because we cannot detect it.
Click to expand...

That is logically contradictory, as I have explained to you already several times. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I see no requirement for it to move any particle. There are numerous alternative forms of interaction given a little thought.
Click to expand...

No, there aren't. Go on, try it: what other forms of interaction are there, since everything is composed of particles ?

When discussing practical affairs, I will consider the practicality of things.
Click to expand...

No, you won't.

That repetition again. You don't appear to have made a very good appraisal of my position.
Click to expand...

I have an excellent appraisal: you believe in magic.

The true state, of what it is that exists.
Click to expand...

Word salad. What does it mean ?

Mind is an abstraction
Click to expand...

No.
 
doronshadmi said:
1) You ignore the fact that significant replies of mine were actually removed to AHH
Click to expand...

I do not. I am pointing out that MOST of your posts, which pertain to your ideas and beliefs, marginal as they are, are allowed to stand. That does not amount to silencing, and thus your claim is false.

Those "we" are exactly the persons that wish to address reality only in terms of Materialism XOR Idealism
Click to expand...

That is a lie. We have explicitly addressed ALL of these alternatives including duality and your own nonsense ideas of unity. We do not reject these because we don't address them, we reject them AND tell you why. Since you know this, this claim of yours can only be a lie.
 
Belz... said:
I do not. I am pointing out that MOST of your posts, which pertain to your ideas and beliefs, marginal as they are, are allowed to stand. That does not amount to silencing, and thus your claim is false.
Click to expand...
Again, this is no more than your 0/1 excluded middle reasoning, which ignores the contents of my replies to Nonpareil , that were moved to AHH, without removing also Nonpareil post. So you have no case.

Belz... said:
We do not reject these because we don't address them, we reject them AND tell you why.
Click to expand...

Really? Let's see exactly how you reject the following quote and also http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269050, http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p26900 and http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269301, AND tell me exactly (explicitly) why you reject them:

By my Natural monist view
doronshadmi said:
... 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 [aspects] 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...


The stage is yours (and please do not ignore any of the links).
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
Yes, that was the basis for my objection. The materialist camp is doing a bit of a dance so that everything worth discussing - even, lately, the conceptual - is going to be called material, in an effort to keep the immaterial out of play.
Click to expand...
Well, the immaterial doesn't exist, so it's much more of a dance to disagree.

I don't actually mind the ploy, but it kind of kills the discussion, when we can't even find an example of immaterial to look at.
Click to expand...
Imagine our surprise.

All of my suggestions of immaterial things have failed to sprout.
Click to expand...
Imagine our continuing surprise.

If everything I can possibly think about is material because it exists as electrochemical impulses in my noggin, then by definition I cannot even consider the ideas, save that those ideas are themselves material. My ability to reason is limited by the thing I'm reasoning with.
Click to expand...
Yes.

In my view, this way of treating materialism is over-broad and fails to make any useful distinction. "Everything is material. I win."
Click to expand...
Tough cheese, kid. Welcome to reality.
 
PixyMisa said:
If everything I can possibly think about is material because it exists as electrochemical impulses in my noggin, then by definition I cannot even consider the ideas, save that those ideas are themselves material. My ability to reason is limited by the thing I'm reasoning with.
Click to expand...

Yes.

In my view, this way of treating materialism is over-broad and fails to make any useful distinction. "Everything is material. I win."
Click to expand...

Tough cheese, kid. Welcome to reality.
Click to expand...

And, of course, with this over-broad brush, God and my lunch become equivalently real, since both are things I can think about in my head...

Claiming all the real estate means claiming the swamp along with the sunny meadow on the hillside.
 
marplots said:
And, of course, with this over-broad brush, God and my lunch become equivalently real, since both are things I can think about in my head...
Click to expand...
The instantiated concepts of God and lunch are equally real, since they're both brain processes. So?

Claiming all the real estate means claiming the swamp along with the sunny meadow on the hillside.
Click to expand...
If both the swamp and the meadow are imaginary, then yes.
 
doronshadmi said:
Again, this is no more than your 0/1 excluded middle reasoning
Click to expand...

Actually, it is the exact opposite. You simply cannot accept that you are wrong. You are NOT being silenced.

So you have no case.
Click to expand...

Well, it's YOUR case, so what does that say about you ?

Really? Let's see exactly how you reject the following quote and also http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269050, http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p26900 and http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269301, AND tell me exactly (explicitly) why you reject them:
Click to expand...

I've already told you: it's nonsense. It makes no sense. There are words there but no meaning. Perhaps someone can put some effort at clarifying it, but it won't be you. Until it's clarified, it's hard to address it. However, based on the earlier clarification given by another poster, your idea is inconsistent with observation, and self-contradictory. That's why I reject it.

It's really quite simple: if things interact, then they share some characteristic in common that puts them in the same ontological category. And if they interact, they affect each other and that can be detected in principle. There's no way around this.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
And, of course, with this over-broad brush, God and my lunch become equivalently real, since both are things I can think about in my head...
Click to expand...

No. "God" doesn't exist. The house you imagine in your head doesn't exist, even if houses exist. It's just a process between your neurons.
 
Belz... said:
No. "God" doesn't exist. The house you imagine in your head doesn't exist, even if houses exist. It's just a process between your neurons.
Click to expand...

We haven't made much progress then by making thoughts themselves real things - if the subject of those thoughts may yet be imaginary. For once again, the imaginary is intruding on reality - a thing I am told isn't supposed to happen, since the real and the unreal cannot touch.
 
punshhh said:
Well perhaps you can use a brain scanner to observe the brain of a subject while listening to country music and then to classical music and compare which parts of the brain light up etc. But this is not determining that the subject prefers country, scientifically, it is merely an observation of the phenomena
Click to expand...

...Which prove that the subject prefers country music over classical...

punshhh said:
and is essentially the same as asking the subject directly which they prefer.
Click to expand...

So does it get you an answer or not? You don't seem to be able to decide.

punshhh said:
Tell me how a brain is different in a person who likes country from a person who likes classical?
Click to expand...

They respond with different levels of enjoyment when exposed to each genre.

punshhh said:
This is becoming repetitious.
Click to expand...

Yes.

punshhh said:
Are you getting angry? Your responses suggest it.
Click to expand...

No idea where this came from, and no.

doronshadmi said:
Here is what http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/ actually says about mental and physical phenomena:

And here is your definition of Natural monism that wrongly interprets what is actually written in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/:



Nonpareil, "you come to me with a square and try to pretend it's a triangle too" is exactly what you are doing about http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/.

So the exact address to your wrong claims about Natural monism is you and no one else but you.
Click to expand...

Ah. I see the problem.

You don't understand what materialism or idealism is, either.
 
marplots said:
We haven't made much progress then by making thoughts themselves real things - if the subject of those thoughts may yet be imaginary. For once again, the imaginary is intruding on reality - a thing I am told isn't supposed to happen, since the real and the unreal cannot touch.
Click to expand...

I'm having a lot of difficulty parsing this. The unreal doesn't exist, so obviously it cannot affect reality. You are confusing the unreal with the belief in the unreal. You are confusing the effects of that belief with the effects of the thing being believed in.
 
marplots said:
We haven't made much progress then by making thoughts themselves real things - if the subject of those thoughts may yet be imaginary. For once again, the imaginary is intruding on reality - a thing I am told isn't supposed to happen, since the real and the unreal cannot touch.
Click to expand...

Imagining unreal things is not impossible. It is also not "the imaginary intruding on reality"; it's just your brain doing what your brain does.

Saying that imagining unreal things somehow makes those have an effect on reality is interesting - it forms the basis of several of my favorite short stories, for example - but it's not actually true in any meaningful sense.
 
marplots said:
And, of course, with this over-broad brush, God and my lunch become equivalently real, since both are things I can think about in my head...

Claiming all the real estate means claiming the swamp along with the sunny meadow on the hillside.
Click to expand...


Your thoughts about god are reality, god not so much.
 
Belz... said:
I'm having a lot of difficulty parsing this. The unreal doesn't exist, so obviously it cannot affect reality. You are confusing the unreal with the belief in the unreal. You are confusing the effects of that belief with the effects of the thing being believed in.
Click to expand...

I do get the difficulty, but I'm not sure how to pierce it. I think we agree that our beliefs about things that do not exist can affect our behavior and hence reality. But the question seems to be about whether our beliefs, in and of themselves, are justified. In other words, if I react to something which does not exist, am I always foolish or mistaken to do so? I'd say not at all.

Consider a common enough occurrence. You and I are discussing whether or not to go to the movies this coming Saturday night. They will be showing a movie we both want to see and we can go at 4:30pm and eat after or go at 9:00pm and eat before. We need to purchase tickets for one showing or the other online today to get a discount - something we both agree about.

I'm arguing for the earlier time, because I think the cinema will be crowded for the later show, and I prefer not to see the movie with a rowdy crowd. You, on the other hand, point out the restaurant will be crowded if we eat later on, and we should eat first to avoid having to wait for a table.

Common enough situation. But consider what's going on here. By deciding on one course of action over another, we are eliminating one possible future. In fact, both "futures" do not exist at the time we are discussing the choices. And yet, our beliefs - justified beliefs, since we are familiar with crowds, restaurants, and movies - about these non-existent situations influence our current behavior: which tickets to buy.

And, to make things even more interesting, our choice, based on our belief about something that doesn't exist, actually creates (or tends to) what eventually does exist. But no matter which we choose, one of our future states will never exist at all. Somewhere in that mix I propose that the imaginary, the non-existent, touches reality and influences it thereby.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
And, of course, with this over-broad brush, God and my lunch become equivalently real, since both are things I can think about in my head...

Claiming all the real estate means claiming the swamp along with the sunny meadow on the hillside.
Click to expand...

Yes, but stuff that 'is subject to modification', whether it be your lunch or God or pick any photon - these are not real. How can a thing subject to modification be verified as fact? It can be verified only in a practical way, and 'practical' means in the context of the lifespan or attention span of the observer. The material is not real, only the non material has a chance of being real.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom