I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

LarryS said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Verified as fact" was a limiting condition I wasn't imposing on the materialists, since I'm not going to use it myself.
 
LarryS said:
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.
Click to expand...

Verification applies to models, which is all that words , thoughts and theories are. All we have is approximations for the behavior of observed reality.

By your standard, nothing will ever be validated.
:)
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
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 ;)
Click to expand...

That was not what he said. And you know it.

Hans
 
Fudbucker said:
If a triangle can exist independent of the mind, who is there to give a "descriptor"?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant for the existence of the triangle.

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?
Click to expand...

The Pythagoream Theorem does not exist in a universe without minds, but the fact that it describes does.

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?
Click to expand...

The mathematical facts exist, even with nobody to decribe them. 2+2 equals four, even if nobody knows.

If the representations exist independent of any minds, then it seems it's a rather large problem for materialism
Click to expand...

No.

Hans
 
Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...
1) You have no clue what my theorem is.

2) You use some another poster in spite of (1) in order to reject it (B.T.W who is exactly this another poster?)

In other words, you reject something even if you simply don't understand it.

There is no wonder that by using this weak reasoning you have no clue what is addressed, for example, in http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269301.

Say no more.

Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's really quite simple: multiplicity (the waves patterns) is derived from Unity (the unbounded and non-composed straight or non-straight 1-dimesional element) but not vise versa, as very simply addressed by the following diagram:

5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg


Moreover Unity exits even if it does not expressed as multiplicity (the waves patterns), as addressed by the unbounded and non-composed straight 1-dimesional element in this diagram.

Materialism\Idealism is some form of multiplicity that its existence depends on Unity, but not vise versa.

Once again, as long as someone count Unity as one_of_many thing, he\she actually misses the vary nature of Unity (which is invariant and unbounded by its expressions, as very simply addressed by the diagram above) 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:
doronshadmi said:
1) You have no clue what my theorem is.
Click to expand...

Doron, I honestly don't believe that even you have any clue what your theorem is.

doronshadmi said:
It's really quite simple: multiplicity (the waves patterns) is derived from Unity (the unbounded and non-composed straight or non-straight 1-dimesional element) but not vise versa, as very simply addressed by the following diagram:

[qimg]https://c4.staticflickr.com/4/3296/5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg[/qimg]

Moreover Unity exits even if it does not expressed as multiplicity (the waves patterns), as addressed by the unbounded and non-composed straight 1-dimesional element in this diagram
Click to expand...

Translation, for those who don't feel like putting on their waders to get through the gibberish:

The pretty semicircles ("multiplicity", "waves patterns") are drawn by dividing the line ("unity", "unbounded and non-composed straight one-dimensional element") into halves over and over.

It still means nothing in support of his earlier assertions, and his uses of "multiplicity" and "unity" are still gibberish even using the definitions he gives here (which are hardly definitions at all).
 
Nonpareil said:
The pretty semicircles ("multiplicity", "waves patterns") are drawn by dividing the line ("unity", "unbounded and non-composed straight one-dimensional element") into halves over and over.
Click to expand...
This is an actual example of a person that gets the diagram only in terms of one_of_many thing.

The "value" of its replies about Natural monism, is demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543.

Nonpareil, you have no clue what my Natural monist model of Unity is.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
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.
Click to expand...

The future doesn't exist til you get there, then it becomes the past.
 
doronshadmi said:
This reply is "very convincing", what I can say, I'm just overwhelmed by it.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I myself am often staggered by how clear and concise I can be when making it clear that something is just plainly, self-evidently wrong.

Are you done making up nonsense phrases yet?
 
Nonpareil said:
...he says immediately after substituting an eight-word phrase for "line".
Click to expand...
My Neutral monist model Unity uses an unbounded non-composed straight or non-straight 1-dimnsional element as an analogy of Unity (where any given analogy is not the discussed thing itself).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Natural monist
Click to expand...

Neutral. Neutral monist.

Unless you've given up pretending that you know what that means, and are using this new term to give yourself another un-definition to hide behind.

doronshadmi said:
an unbounded non-composed straight or non-straight 1-dimnsional element
Click to expand...

A line.

Unless it's non-straight, in which case it is not one-dimensional.

doronshadmi said:
as an analogy of Unity (where any given analogy is not the discussed thing itself).
Click to expand...

So you still don't have a definition, then.

Glad we could clear that up.
 
marplots said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's relevant. Even if god exists, your actions based on the belief in him have nothing to do with the actual god.
 
Nonpareil said:
This is at least the third time that you have demanded responses to questions that have already been dealt with.

Pay attention.
Click to expand...

Do you really ask me to pay attention to this reply?
Nonpareil said:
Ah. I see the problem.

You don't understand what materialism or idealism is, either.
Click to expand...
Forget it.

For the last time, please, by using detailed reply, air your view about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543 content.
 
doronshadmi said:
1) You have no clue what my theorem is.
Click to expand...

YOU have no clue what your theorem is.

2) You use some another poster in spite of (1) in order to reject it (B.T.W who is exactly this another poster?)
Click to expand...

It's not my fault if others express your own ideas better than you. Now, if you can get your stuff together and give me a sensible explanation of your theorem, we might be getting somewhere.

In other words, you reject something even if you simply don't understand it.
Click to expand...

I understand at leass this: 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.

It's really quite simple: multiplicity (the waves patterns) is derived from Unity (the unbounded and non-composed straight or non-straight 1-dimesional element) but not vise versa, as very simply addressed by the following diagram:
Click to expand...

So they ARE all physical. Sounds like the Christian trinity: god is three people, but not really.
 
doronshadmi said:
Wrong tsig, my replies use very simple demonstrations of my Nuatral monist model of Unity.
Click to expand...

Here's a useful diagram:



My Natural monist model Unity uses an unbounded non-composed straight or non-straight 1-dimnsional element as an analogy of Unity (where any given analogy is not the discussed thing itself).
Click to expand...

Word salad. Chassez le naturel et il revient au galop.
 
doronshadmi said:
Do you really ask me to pay attention to this reply?
Click to expand...

I do. I just don't expect you to actually do so.

doronshadmi said:
Forget it.
Click to expand...

Correctly, as it turns out.

doronshadmi said:
For the last time, please, by using detailed reply, air your view about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543 content.
Click to expand...

Fine.

You do not understand the definition of materialism or idealism. You also don't understand the definition of neutral monism. You fail to differentiate between "mental and physical phenomena exist" and "(material/consciousness)[select one of preceding] is the underlying nature of reality". You fail to realize that materialism, idealism, and neutral monism are all mutually exclusive.

You don't.

Understand.

What you're talking about.
 
Nonpareil said:
Neutral. Neutral monist.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the correction.

Nonpareil said:
A line.

Unless it's non-straight, in which case it is not one-dimensional.
Click to expand...
A line is defiantly not defined as "the unbounded and non-composed straight or non-straight 1-dimesional element", so no, it is not a line.

It is an analogy of Unity.


Nonpareil said:
So you still don't have a definition, then.
Click to expand...
Definition, any given definition (whether it is defined by words or diagrams) exists only at the level of multiplicity.

Since multiplicity is derived from Unity, but not vise versa, Unity is defined only in terms of analogy, whether this analogy is words or a given diagram.

Since your reasoning is limited only to multiplicity, it does not have the needed abstraction in order to comprehend what Unity is.
 
doronshadmi said:
A line is defiantly not defined as "the unbounded and non-composed straight or non-straight 1-dimesional element", so no, it is not a line.
Click to expand...

Well, you're right, but not for the reason you think. It's for the reason I pointed out before: a non-straight one-dimensional element is a contradiction. Also, because "non-composed" means nothing.

Other than that, yes, that is what a line is.

doronshadmi said:
Definition, any given definition (whether it is defined by words or diagrams) exists only at the level of multiplicity.

Since multiplicity is derived from Unity, but not vise versa, Unity is defined only in terms of analogy, whether this analogy is words or a given diagram.

Since your reasoning is limited only to multiplicity, it does not have the needed abstraction in order to comprehend what Unity is.
Click to expand...

Gibberish.
 
Nonpareil said:
Fine.

You do not understand the definition of materialism or idealism. You also don't understand the definition of neutral monism. You fail to differentiate between "mental and physical phenomena exist" and "(material/consciousness)[select one of preceding] is the underlying nature of reality". You fail to realize that materialism, idealism, and neutral monism are all mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Your reply did not address http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543 at all.

This time please air your view by explicitly quoting what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543.

Thank you.
 
Nonpareil said:
a non-straight one-dimensional element is a contradiction. Also, because "non-composed" means nothing.
Click to expand...
Only by your multiplicity reasoning (in that case you don't understand the meaning of "element").

Nonpareil said:
Other than that, yes, that is what a line is.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant, it has nothing to do with line.

Nonpareil said:
Gibberish
Click to expand...
Only by using your multiplicity reasoning.

Now it becomes very clear why you can't comprehend, for example, http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269301.

It is indeed can't be comprehended by using multiplicity reasoning.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Only by your multiplicity reasoning (in that case you don't understand the meaning of "element").


Irrelevant, it has nothing to do with line.


Only by using your multiplicity reasoning.

Now it becomes very clear why you can't comprehend, for example, http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269301.

It is indeed can't be comprehended by using multiplicity reasoning.
Click to expand...

I admit I have no idea what you are getting at, but for the moment I will be sympathetic to your cause and attempt to grasp it. Are you suggesting that:

the universal substrate is Unity
Unity is without distinction
Unity has the capacity to make a distinction
from a single distinction, multiplicity can be explained
 
LarryS said:
I admit I have no idea what you are getting at, but for the moment I will be sympathetic to your cause and attempt to grasp it. Are you suggesting that:

the universal substrate is Unity
Unity is without distinction
Unity has the capacity to make a distinction
from a single distinction, multiplicity can be explained
Click to expand...
Hey LarryS,

Please pay attention that any communication between us in this media is done only in terms of analogy about Unity, which is not Unity in itself.

Before you and I continue the dialog, do you have anything to reply about that?
 
Last edited:
dronshadmi said:
Your reply did not address http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543 at all.

This time please air your view by explicitly quoting what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

I have no interest in playing games with you. Your question has been answered. Whether or not you like the answer is not my problem.

doronshadmi said:
Only by your multiplicity reasoning (in that case you don't understand the meaning of "element").
Click to expand...

Gibberish.

Let me know when your definition of "unity" or "multiplicity" begins to border on coherent.

Scratch that. Let me know when you have any definition at all.
 
Nonpareil said:
Your question has been answered.
Click to expand...
As long as your answer is not explicitly based on the content of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543 (by quoting its content as an inseparable part of your answer) you did not answer to my question.

Nonpareil said:
You fail to realize that materialism, idealism, and neutral monism are all mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Simply wrong, Neutral monism claims that Materialism or Idealism are only phenomena that are derived from a common substance that can't be considered as one of its phenomenon.

At no point any of the phenomenon is considered as false, as you wrongly claim in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
As long as your answer is not explicitly based on the content of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543 (by quoting its content as an inseparable part of your answer) you did not answer to my question.
Click to expand...

See previous comment.

I also find it rather telling that your defense against being accused of not understanding a philosophical argument to the point of claiming two mutually exclusive things are both true, then making the same mkstake again with a third position, is to quibble with the way in which this problem is pointed out to you.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Hey LarryS,

Please pay attention that any communication between us in this media is done only in terms of analogy about Unity, which is not Unity in itself.

Before you and I continue the dialog, do you have anything to reply about that?
Click to expand...

If my assumption is correct, that Unity is without distinction, then no words of comparison or measurement will apply to Unity, neither would any tools of science, and we would be limited to analogy and parable. Will be also have to put logic and rationality aside? (BTW, I am not being sarcastic)
 
LarryS said:
If my assumption is correct, that Unity is without distinction, then no words of comparison or measurement will apply to Unity, neither would any tools of science, and we would be limited to analogy and parable. Will be also have to put logic and rationality aside? (BTW, I am not being sarcastic)
Click to expand...

Unity in itself is simpler than any tool, mental or physical, which is used to measure it.

As for logic, please look at http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269007.
 
Last edited:
LarryS said:
You're going to have to speak like I'm in 4th grade - that web page makes no sense.
Click to expand...
If Unity is the unbounded source of all bounded forms, it is naturally unbounded by contradiction or tautology, which are clearly the bounds of logic at the level of multiplicity.

So is the case about mental or physical phenomena, which are some bounded forms at the multiplicity level that is derived from Unity, but not vice versa.

Please look also at http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269301 and http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269052.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Unity in itself is simpler than any tool, mental or physical, which is used to measure it.

As for logic, please look at http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269007.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
This is no more than your materiel aspect of your multiplicity reasoning, that wrongly gets Unity as one_of_many thing.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
If Unity is the unbounded source of all bounded forms, it is naturally unbounded by contradiction or tautology, which are clearly the bounds of logic at the level of multiplicity.

So is the case about mental or physical phenomena, which are some bounded forms at the multiplicity level that is derived from Unity, but not vice versa.

Please look also at http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269301.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, we know all of this. But you're ignoring the bigger question.

Has anyone even been so far as even to decide to use even to go look more like?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom