I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

doronshadmi · Dec 20, 2014

LarryS said:
the universal substrate is Unity

The substance of mutiplicity is Unity, but not vise versa.

LarryS said:
Unity is without distinction

LarryS said:
Unity has the capacity to make a distinction

Unity is the substance of distinction, but not vise versa.

LarryS said:
from a single distinction, multiplicity can be explained

Multiplicity can be demonstrated by one-step.

LarryS said:
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao

Actual silence is not talking about silence.

LarryS said:
The name that can be named is not the eternal name

Thinking and speaking are some multiplicity levels.

LarryS said:
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth

The non-composed is the substance of the composed, but not vise versa.

LarryS said:
The named is the mother of myriad things

The named is one_of_many thing, and so is the case of a name like Unity, which is not the actual thing in itself.

Once again, 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.

Fudbucker · Dec 20, 2014

Correction to my last thread- it was Bertrand Russel, not Wittgenstein.

Nonpareil · Dec 20, 2014

doronshadmi said:
Your reply

cleay demonstrates once again, that you still try to comprehend my Neutral monist model of Unity by using municipality-only reasoning (that is exactly the context that is used by you here), which wrongly comprehends Unity as one_of_many thing.

So counting things is verboten now. Got it.

As for the rest, I've responded to it all before. You are spouting gibberish. Repeating gibberish doesn't make it more coherent. It just turns it into a madness mantra.

Fudbucker, you will get a reply when I have access to an actual keyboard, since actual coherency in posts is so rare in this thread as to be worth responding to properly, even if I do think you're wrong.

Nonpareil · Dec 20, 2014

Missed this.

marplots said:
No, I'm not attempting to prove that. Because if there existed a real Death Star, it wouldn't be a non-existent thing. What I'm thinking of is some kind of rule that helps shape what we can imagine, even about non-existent things. The problem is going to be when I get to the step where I say the "rule" isn't just a property of how imagination works. This might be a dead end.

Start by showing how this would be in any way distinguishable from normal imagination.

doronshadmi · Dec 21, 2014

Nonpareil said:
So counting things is verboten now. Got it.

Wrong, counting is simply done by one-step, as a general method among finite or infinity many things, where each counted thing is, by definition, one_of_multiple things.

This is not the case of Unity, which is, by definition, the substance of multiplicity, but not vise versa (since Unity is, by definition, the non-composed substance of multiplicity (but not vise versa) it can't be counted as one_of_multiple things (it is, by definition, not one_of_multiple things)). Once again you demonstrate how you are wrongly use multiplicity reasoning in order to define Unity.

Worse than that, by your "So counting things is verboten now" it is clearly seen that what you call "counting things" is actually a step-by-step process, which is useful only among countably finite things, but can't be used among infinite (countably or uncountably) things.

Nonpareil said:
As for the rest, I've responded to it all before.

You can response as many times that you like, but the amount of the responses does not guarantee their quality.

Here is some recent reply from you:

Nonpareil said:
The string "0011" is referred to as p, while "0101" is q. Yes, these values are completely arbitrary; they're just ones that give a pretty table.

1) Multiplicity can be any collection (arbitrary or not), where each thing in that collection is one_of_multiple things.

2) Since Unity is, by definition, the substance of multiplicity, but not vise-versa, Unity is not one_of_multiple things, as very simply addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10379299&postcount=619, and definitely can't be comprehended by a person that uses multiplicity-only reasoning, in order to comprehend the substance of multiplicity (which is, by definition, not one_of_multiple things).

3) Now please look at this:

p q
---
0 0
0 1
1 0
1 1

As can be clearly seen "p is 0011" and "q is 1010" are clearly not arbitrary, because together they provide, in an ordered way, the all 0|1 combinations among two things (notated as p and q).

On the basis of this ordered 0|1 combinations, 16 logical connectives are used among p q as follows:

p q
---
0 0 | 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
0 1 | 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
1 0 | 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
1 1 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Let's get rid of redundant 0|1 (the order of 0|1 bits in p and q (as wrongly appears in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10379299&postcount=619) was corrected) and get:

Code:

         p = 1    1  0 0

         q = 1    0  1 0
         ---------------


                      /0  Contradiction
                    /0
                   /  \1  p AND q
                 /0
                /  \  /0  p not implies q
               /    \1
              /       \1  p
            /0
           /  \       /0  q not implies p
          /    \    /0
         /      \  /  \1  q
        /        \1
       /           \  /0  p XOR q
      /             \1
     /                \1  p OR q
Unity
     \                /0  p NOR q
      \             /0
       \           /  \1  p NXOR q
        \        /0
         \      /  \  /0  NOT q
          \    /    \1
           \  /       \1  q implies p
            \1
              \       /0  NOT p
               \    /0
                \  /  \1  p implies q
                 \1
                   \  /0  p NAND q
                    \1
                      \1  Tautology

such that Unity is the substance of this non-arbitrary 0|1 logical structure, but not vise versa (Unity is, by definition, not one_of_multiple things).

Moreover, the same ordered 0|1 is used in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10379299&postcount=619 in order to demonstrate how Unity is the substance of Materialism or Idealism (where each one of them is one_of_multiple things), but not vise versa (Unity is, by definition, not one_of_multiple things).

So Nonpareil's many replies do not guarantee their quality, in this fine discussed subject.

Belz... · Dec 21, 2014

doronshadmi said:
1) Multiplicity can be any collection (arbitrary or not), where each thing in that collection is one_of_multiple things.

2) Since Unity is, by definition, the substance of multiplicity, but not vise-versa, Unity is not one_of_multiple things, as very simply addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=619, and definitely can't be comprehended by a person that uses multiplicity-only reasoning, in order to comprehend the substance of multiplicity (which is, by definition, not one_of_multiple things).

It also apparently can't be explained by someone who uses unity-only reasoning, because your posts make zero sense.

In fact, you haven't actually tried to explain what unity is. Every attempt you've made has simply led me to conclude that it's the same as materialism.

doronshadmi · Dec 21, 2014

Belz... said:
Every attempt you've made has simply led me to conclude that it's the same as materialism.

Not at all. Materialism or Idealism are, by definition, bounded multiple expressions, where Unity is, by definition, unbounded and non-composed.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566 clearly explains it, and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377718&postcount=583 is your "best" attempt to comprehend it, by using your material-only view that is derived from multiplicity reasoning.

A person like you that agrees with "When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence." can't comprehend https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3hcPBRBCzClQ3ZFMjVrQzBkc0E/view?usp=sharing .

turingtest · Dec 21, 2014

doronshadmi said:
Wrong, counting is simply done by one-step, as a general method among finite or infinity many things, where each counted thing is, by definition, one_of_multiple things.

This is not the case of Unity, which is, by definition, the substance of multiplicity, but not vise versa (since Unity is, by definition, the non-composed substance of multiplicity (but not vise versa) it can't be counted as one_of_multiple things (it is, by definition, not one_of_multiple things)). Once again you demonstrate how you are wrongly use multiplicity reasoning in order to define Unity.
...[and so on]...

This whole thing sounds to me like you're asserting a definition, then using the definition to back the assertion. This is, by definition, a circle, the substance of fallacy, but not vise versa (since fallacy is, by definition, the non-composed substance of circle (but not vise versa) it can't be counted as one_of_a_fallacy (it is, by definition, not one_of_multiple things)).

(I dunno- maybe if you kept up with (your parenthetical openings and closings, it ((might be more coherent).

Belz... · Dec 21, 2014

doronshadmi said:
Not at all. Materialism or Idealism are, by definition, bounded multiple expressions, where Unity is, by definition, unbounded and non-composed.

I can't parse your sentence. Materialism and Idealism both propose a SINGLE type of stuff. How is that multiple ? You propose several types of stuff. How is that unity ?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566 clearly explains it

Just because you understand it, or think you do, doesn't mean it's clear, since no one seems to understand it, according to you. Your graph doesn't mean anything. Anybody can draw a picture and claim it means something, but it doesn't make it so. It seems you are trying to find reasons in others as to why they disagree with you, rather than trying to clarify the position yourself. Case in point:

A person like you that agrees with "When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence." can't comprehend https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3hcPBRBCzClQ3ZFMjVrQzBkc0E/view?usp=sharing .

Who says I agree with it ?

PixyMisa · Dec 22, 2014

marplots said:
Not "imagination" the "imaginary."

Yes, I know. Imagination exists. Imaginary things do not. That's all there is to it.

My problem seems to be communicating what I think are reasonable points

No, you're communicating just fine. The problem is, you're wrong.

punshhh · Dec 22, 2014

Nonpareil said:
There's no point in trying to get an answer out of him, EDIT: Larry. Doron has no interest in defining his terms, even if he does have the ability - which is doubtful, since even ignoring his demonstrable issues with basic mathematics, the concepts he is trying to argue for are very likely incoherent at their bade.

He does this regularly. Take, for example, "parallel summation", which his "unity" is highly reminiscent of.

Doronshadmi is convinced that .999999... is not equal to 1, despite his utter inability to show any situation in which is does not behave exactly as if it is. One of his many attempts to prove that it isn't was to introduce an undefined mathematical operation he called "parallel summation", which was supposed to bypass the whole problem of an infinite series being, well, infinite, by somehow adding up all the digits in it at once.

Or something like that. Like I said, he never defines his terms; the above is the best the other posters in the thread could get out of him. It's impossible, nonsensical, and still very likely more coherent than any definition doronshadmi himself could give.

There was even the whole "you're only right because you are limited by a frame of reference" bit. Over there it was "observing the real number line from the perspective of the cardinality of infinity", or something equally nonsensical. This time he's just substituted "multiplicity viewpoint".

He not only can't define these terms; he won't, because the instant he does so, he not only sacrifices his primary defense - saying "these terms are simply beyond your puny mortal minds" - but it becomes instantly apparent that he doesn't actually know what he's talking about. We saw this earlier when he claimed that he was a neutral monist, but claimed that neutral monism held that both materialism and idealism are true; this is wrong on all three counts, as all of those philosophies are mutually exclusive by definition. When this was pointed out, he argued against it for a bit until the fact that he was provably wrong became too much to ignore. Then he resorted to editing his original post and trying to claim victory ehen I refused to waste my time with that game.

This is why he plays at pseudomath. This is why he uses eight-word phrases to refer (poorly) to lines, then backpedals frantically and says they aren't really lines, even though he just gave the definition of a line and the image being referred to is an image of a line. This is why he uses terms like unity and multiplicity, unbounded and infinite, even though his definitions of those are alternately unclear or wrong. Because there's just enough there to tether him, in some ethereal way, to real mathematics.

And mathematics is the domain of intelligent people. So, obviously, if you can't understand him, it's not because he's spouting gibberish. It's because he's a better mathematician than you.

So asking for definitions from him is pointless. Even if he could give them, he wouldn't. Because that would mean leaving his ivory tower and exposing himself to real criticism.

It's not even a catch-22. He couldn't be coherent if he wanted to, but he doesn't want to anyway.

So that's all right.

We can all go around picking holes in each other and rubbishing each othere's personal philosophy. But I and a few other posters around here are interested in exploring these ideas in a spirit of constructive cooperation, even collaboration. I tired of playground games years ago.

Do you realise that Doron has been patiently struggling to discuss some philosophical ideas in this way and present his mathematical ideas.

Might I suggest that you are conflating philosophical ideas approaching unity with a kind of reductionist materialist naivety. Perhaps if we entertain an analogy of unity as suggested we might actually have an interesting discussion.

punshhh · Dec 22, 2014

PixyMisa said:
Yes, I know. Imagination exists. Imaginary things do not. That's all there is to it.

No, you're communicating just fine. The problem is, you're wrong.

Hu.. Hum.

Oh unless ideas approaching unity just don't exist in the first place.

marplots · Dec 22, 2014

PixyMisa said:
Yes, I know. Imagination exists. Imaginary things do not. That's all there is to it.

No, you're communicating just fine. The problem is, you're wrong.

Wrong isn't such a bad thing to be.

doronshadmi · Dec 22, 2014

turingtest said:
This whole thing sounds to me like you're asserting a definition, then using the definition to back the assertion. This is, by definition, a circle, the substance of fallacy, but not vise versa (since fallacy is, by definition, the non-composed substance of circle (but not vise versa) it can't be counted as one_of_a_fallacy (it is, by definition, not one_of_multiple things)).

(I dunno- maybe if you kept up with (your parenthetical openings and closings, it ((might be more coherent).

Hey turingtest,

Please pay attention that any communication between us in this media is done such that definition, any given definition (whether it is defined by words, diagrams etc.) exists only at the level of multiplicity, where anything (included definitions) at the level of multiplicity is some bounded and composed thing.

No collection of bounded and composed things (where, again, a definition is some bounded and composed thing) captures the unbounded and non-composed thing, exactly because the unbounded and non-composed thing is the substance of multiplicity, but not vise versa.

So, when I state something like: "Unity is, by definition, the substance of multiplicity, but not vise versa", I state that Unity in itself, is not fully captured in terms of "the substance of multiplicity, but not vise versa", simply because Unity in itself does not need multiplicity in order to simply be, without the need of any definition (including a definition like ""the substance of multiplicity, but not vise versa"), which is some bounded and composed thing at the level of multiplicity.

Since multiplicity's existence depends on Unity and definitions are no more than analogies about Unity at the level of multiplicity, no circular reasoning is involved here.

Here is this part agaim:

doronshami said:
This is not the case of Unity, which is, by definition [by analogy], the substance of multiplicity, but not vise versa (since Unity is, by definition [by analogy], the non-composed substance of multiplicity (but not vise versa) it can't be counted as one_of_multiple things (it is, by definition [by analogy], not one_of_multiple things)).

Unity in itself is not some definition [some analogy] about Unity in itself,

So there is not circular reasoning here.

turingtest · Dec 22, 2014

doronshadmi said:
Hey turingtest,

Please pay attention that any communication between us in this media is done such that definition, any given definition (whether it is defined by words, diagrams etc.) exists only at the level of multiplicity, where anything (included definitions) at the level of multiplicity is some bounded and composed thing.

No collection of bounded and composed things (where, again, a definition is some bounded and composed thing) captures the unbounded and non-composed thing, exactly because the unbounded and non-composed thing is the substance of multiplicity, but not vise versa.

So, when I state something like: "Unity is, by definition, the substance of multiplicity, but not vise versa", I state that Unity in itself, is not fully captured in terms of "the substance of multiplicity, but not vise versa", simply because Unity in itself does not need multiplicity in order to simply be, without the need of any definition (including a definition like ""the substance of multiplicity, but not vise versa"), which is some bounded and composed thing at the level of multiplicity.

Since multiplicity's existence depends on Unity and definitions are no more than analogies about Unity at the level of multiplicity, no circular reasoning is involved here.

Oh, ok- definition is, by definition, definition only of defined things, not non-defined things like "Unity," which is, but not by definition, non-defined by definition.

My mistake- you're not reasoning in circles, you're standing on tautology. That's much better.

doronshadmi · Dec 22, 2014

turingtest said:
you're standing on tautology.

No, tautology (like definition) is some aspect of multiplicity:

Code:

         p = 1    1  0 0

         q = 1    0  1 0
         ---------------


                      /0  Contradiction
                    /0
                   /  \1  p AND q
                 /0
                /  \  /0  p not implies q
               /    \1
              /       \1  p
            /0
           /  \       /0  q not implies p
          /    \    /0
         /      \  /  \1  q
        /        \1
       /           \  /0  p XOR q
      /             \1
     /                \1  p OR q
Unity
     \                /0  p NOR q
      \             /0
       \           /  \1  p NXOR q
        \        /0
         \      /  \  /0  NOT q
          \    /    \1
           \  /       \1  q implies p
            \1
              \       /0  NOT p
               \    /0
                \  /  \1  p implies q
                 \1
                   \  /0  p NAND q
                    \1
                      \1  Tautology

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

Thank you.

doronshadmi · Dec 22, 2014

Belz... said:
Materialism and Idealism both propose a SINGLE type of stuff. How is that multiple ?

both is a form of multiplicity.

Moreover, you reject Idealism exactly because you compare it with Materialism, so how you are able to reject Idealism without first compare both of them with each other?

Belz... said:
You propose several types of stuff. How is that unity ?

Wrong, according to Neutral monist model of Unity, there is one and only one stuff that is Unity.

Unity may be expressed as the substance that enables the harmony among Materialism and Idealism as addressed here:

Code:

      Idealism    = 0   
                        
      Materialism = 1   
                        
                        
                        
                      /0 ...
                    /0  
                   /  \1 ...
                 /0     
                /  \  /0 ...
               /    \1  
              /       \1 ...
            /0          
           /  \       /0 ...
          /    \    /0  
         /      \  /  \1 ...
        /        \1     
       /           \  /0 ...
      /             \1  
     /                \1 ...
Unity                   
     \                /0 ...
      \             /0  
       \           /  \1 ...
        \        /0     
         \      /  \  /0 ...
          \    /    \1  
           \  /       \1 ...
            \1          
              \       /0 ...
               \    /0  
                \  /  \1 ...
                 \1     
                   \  /0 ...
                    \1  
                      \1 ...

But Unity does not need multiplicity in order to be, as addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566.

Belz... said:
Who says I agree with it ?

It appears as a slogan at each one of your posts, isn't it?

According to such reasoning ("I also quote things that I do not agree with them, as slogans of my posts") everything can be used as your slogan, isn't it?

Belz... · Dec 22, 2014

doronshadmi said:
both is a form of multiplicity.

Moreover, you reject Idealism exactly because you compare it with Materialism, so how you are able to reject Idealism without first compare both of them with each other?

There are words in there but it makes a salad, not a sentence.

Are you ever able to express your ideas coherently ?

Wrong, according to Neutral monist model of Unity, there is one and only one stuff that is Unity.

Right, so how is that different from materialism ?

Unity may be expressed as the substance that enables the harmony among Materialism and Idealism as addressed here:

You just said it was all one thing. Why are you talking about two things, now ?

Code:

      Idealism    = 0   
                        
      Materialism = 1   
                        
                        
                        
                      /0 ...
                    /0  
                   /  \1 ...
                 /0     
                /  \  /0 ...
               /    \1  
              /       \1 ...
            /0          
           /  \       /0 ...
          /    \    /0  
         /      \  /  \1 ...
        /        \1     
       /           \  /0 ...
      /             \1  
     /                \1 ...
Unity                   
     \                /0 ...
      \             /0  
       \           /  \1 ...
        \        /0     
         \      /  \  /0 ...
          \    /    \1  
           \  /       \1 ...
            \1          
              \       /0 ...
               \    /0  
                \  /  \1 ...
                 \1     
                   \  /0 ...
                    \1  
                      \1 ...

This looks really nice but it doesn't mean anything.

It appears as a slogan at each one of your posts, isn't it?

It's called a signature. And of course it appears at the end of each of my posts. How does it follow that I agree with it ?

punshhh · Dec 23, 2014

marplots said:
Wrong isn't such a bad thing to be.

Especially if its not even wrong!

punshhh · Dec 23, 2014

Belz... said:
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 ?

My point is that you are not analysing the material (of the body) to determine if the subject prefers country music. You are observing their response to it. Now if brain states and thoughts can be understood physically one should in principle be able to determine by analysis of the physical material of the body which style of music they prefer.

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

Quite, now who is contradicting themselves? You are referring here to identifying a personal preference in the subject by identifying "prefer" in the brain, presumably it can be read in the chemical composition of a part of the brain, i.e. I prefer Chopin to Bach is chemically encoded in the brain and can be read as a chemical formulae, or signature.

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

Ah, you feign anger, ok, you will have the patience to take this discussion to its end point.

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

This is not what i said, why are you being so obtuse?
I am referring to the meaning of magic. The definition of magic is something which is not understood and appears to defy the laws of nature. Now it cannot be determined if it is defying the laws of nature, or if it follows them and merely appears not to, due to our incomplete understanding of the laws of nature.

No, I keep saying that everything is physical.

This is an unfounded claim.
Remember I agree with you on this if we substitute the word "material"for "physical".

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

No it is not logically contradictory at all. Due to humanity's limited understanding of nature, logic would have to consider that there may be something in existence in nature of which we are likely to have no understanding. This could include materials, or other existent things (X), which are (from our perspective) independent of physical matter and impinge on its state and change of state in some way(unknown to us).

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

Nice try, but it has not been established that every thing is composed of particles*.

Well for starters, there may be a common substrate between our known physical matter(a)and another form of matter(X), allowing an influence in the state of (a), of a state in (X). This would necessarily be a mechanism external to our instance of timespace.

Also there may be an influence in the course of events due to a portal of interface in the physical matter, i.e. The human mind. For example an external entity, let's say god for example could spread a dislike for country music and a preference for classical music through a series of revelations, or more subtle means in the minds of people. Again something unknown to science.

No, you won't.

There's that dodgy appraisal again.

I have an excellent appraisal: you believe in magic.

I have no beliefs, why won't you believe me?

Word salad. What does it mean ?

The material state or form of that which exists.

No.

Correction, mind is not an abstraction, the contents of mind are an abstraction.

*it has not been stated if particles includes unknown particles, such as undetected particles, or any other kind of particle which may exist.

doronshadmi · Dec 23, 2014

Dear Belz...

Your "words salad" loop-reply is your way to avoid any real discussion on the considered subject:

doronshadmi said:
both is a form of multiplicity.

Moreover, you reject Idealism exactly because you compare it with Materialism, so how you are able to reject Idealism without first compare both of them with each other?

...

But Unity does not need multiplicity in order to be, as addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566.

As for your used signatures that you don't agree with, mein kampf is somehow missing, or maybe Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ISIS manifests ...

doronshadmi · Dec 23, 2014

Dear Belz...

Your "words salad" loop-reply is your way to avoid any real discussion on the considered subject:

doronshadmi said:
both is a form of multiplicity.

Moreover, you reject Idealism exactly because you compare it with Materialism, so how you are able to reject Idealism without first compare both of them with each other?

...

But Unity does not need multiplicity in order to be, as addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566.

----

Belz... said:
It's called a signature. And of course it appears at the end of each of my posts. How does it follow that I agree with it ?

As for your used signatures that you don't agree with, mein kampf is somehow missing, or maybe Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ISIS manifests ...

Belz... · Dec 23, 2014

punshhh said:
My point is that you are not analysing the material (of the body) to determine if the subject prefers country music. You are observing their response to it.

Isn't that the same thing ? The body's response IS the material doing things.

Now if brain states and thoughts can be understood physically one should in principle be able to determine by analysis of the physical material of the body which style of music they prefer.

Yes, and we will.

Quite, now who is contradicting themselves?

Not me, unless you can somehow explain the contradiction. I presume that you will only highlight your lack of comprehension.

Ah, you feign anger

No, again you are a terrible reader. There was no anger in my post. In fact, you just proved my point.

I am referring to the meaning of magic. The definition of magic is something which is not understood and appears to defy the laws of nature.

I'll agree to the second part but not the first. Plenty of people claim to understand magic.

Now it cannot be determined if it is defying the laws of nature, or if it follows them and merely appears not to, due to our incomplete understanding of the laws of nature.

That is incorrect. You can tell that it defies the laws you currently have.

This is an unfounded claim.

Unfounded ? Every single thing we have ever observed and/or studied has always been physical. Anything not physical is forever beyond our ability to observe it in any way. How is it unfounded ?

No it is not logically contradictory at all. Due to humanity's limited understanding of nature, logic would have to consider that there may be something in existence in nature of which we are likely to have no understanding. This could include materials, or other existent things (X), which are (from our perspective) independent of physical matter and impinge on its state and change of state in some way(unknown to us).

The contradiction is that you are saying that something interacts but cannot be detected. As explained to you several times, that is impossible. If it interacts then by definition it can be detected, in principle.

Nice try, but it has not been established that every thing is composed of particles*.

Yes it has.

Well for starters, there may be a common substrate between our known physical matter(a)and another form of matter(X), allowing an influence in the state of (a), of a state in (X). This would necessarily be a mechanism external to our instance of timespace.

Irrelevant. They would thus both be physical. You are having a hard time following the fundamentals, here.

I have no beliefs, why won't you believe me?

Because your actions betray you.

Correction, mind is not an abstraction, the contents of mind are an abstraction.

Correction ? I'm asking you what it means.

Belz... · Dec 23, 2014

doronshadmi said:
Dear Belz...

Your "words salad" loop-reply is your way to avoid any real discussion on the considered subject:

No, it's pointing out that you again and again post nonsense that you can't even clarify to others.

As for your used signatures that you don't agree with, mein kampf is somehow missing, or maybe Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ISIS manifests ...

Ad hominem. You do not understand the point of my signature, you think you can mind-read me (probably some power granted by unity), and are unable to accept that you are wrong.

You also cannot explain your ideas in a coherent way.

marplots · Dec 23, 2014

punshhh said:
Especially if its not even wrong!

That remains to be determined.

I'm doubly handicapped. First, I'm a materialist, so arguing the other side doesn't come naturally. Second, I think others in the discussion have traveled the road before and know the arguments I am likely just discovering for myself.

Where it stands now is a brand of solipsism. If I grant that the contents of mind are material - as in electro-chemistry/biology - then every thought becomes bound to materialism too. But I think there's a bit of a dodge going on, because, like other solipsistic arguments, it fails to connect the contents of mind with outside facts - the very thing an objective materialist wants to do.

But I'm stuck for a good way to express my objection. And I don't understand a word of that "monist/unity/vibration" argument.

doronshadmi · Dec 23, 2014

Belz... said:
No, it's pointing out that you again and again post nonsense that you can't even clarify to others.

It's pointing out that you can't explain how you reject Idealism, without first compare it to Materialism, or in other words, at the basis of your logic there are two things that exclude each other (you are using XOR logical connective between Idealism=0 | Materialism=1, as follows:

Code:

 p XOR q        
---------       
 0     0  --> 0 
                
 0     1  --> 1 
                
 1     0  --> 1 
                
 1     1  --> 0

--------------

Belz... said:
Ad hominem.

This signature

"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." - Starship Troopers

is Ad hominem, and yet it is used by you as a signature for your posts.

Why is that?

turingtest · Dec 23, 2014

doronshadmi said:
...

This signature

"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." - Starship Troopers

is Ad hominem, and yet it is used by you as a signature for your posts.

Why is that?

You don't really know what "ad hominem" means, do you?

punshhh · Dec 23, 2014

marplots said:
That remains to be determined.

Agreed.
It was in reference to "Not even wrong", as used by PixyMisa, when he states that it is incoherent.

I'm doubly handicapped. First, I'm a materialist, so arguing the other side doesn't come naturally. Second, I think others in the discussion have traveled the road before and know the arguments I am likely just discovering for myself.

Yes, it would help if they engaged your ideas a bit, for the purposes of discussion. I barely get the opportunity to go over the arguments as I see them.

Where it stands now is a brand of solipsism. If I grant that the contents of mind are material - as in electro-chemistry/biology - then every thought becomes bound to materialism too. But I think there's a bit of a dodge going on, because, like other solipsistic arguments, it fails to connect the contents of mind with outside facts - the very thing an objective materialist wants to do.

yes, on both points. Hopefully I am opening this out with Belz.

But I'm stuck for a good way to express my objection. And I don't understand a word of that "monist/unity/vibration" argument.

I know the unity philosophy well. Perhaps if we discuss it a bit and perhaps with Doron, it might be more fruitful.

punshhh · Dec 23, 2014

Nonpareil said:
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.

If we are discussing an entirely physical material universe, then the sentiment "I prefer country music to classical", will in theory be represented in a combination of atoms in the brain and if the brain is dissected sufficiently this configuration of atoms can be compared with the configuration of atoms representing the sentiment "I prefer classical music to country" and indeed, "however I am undecided about the relative merits of Dolly Parton and Chopin" for relaxation", along with a myriad of other sentiments. Enabling the scientist to read the thoughts and sentiments of the subject.

MRC_Hans · Dec 23, 2014

punshhh said:
If we are discussing an entirely physical material universe, then the sentiment "I prefer country music to classical", will in theory be represented in a combination of atoms in the brain and if the brain is dissected sufficiently this configuration of atoms can be compared with the configuration of atoms representing the sentiment "I prefer classical music to country" and indeed, "however I am undecided about the relative merits of Dolly Parton and Chopin" for relaxation", along with a myriad of other sentiments. Enabling the scientist to read the thoughts and sentiments of the subject.

Yes, that is correct.

Hans

pagetheoracle · Dec 23, 2014

Well we have opinion about whether something should exist or not (positive and negative emotion). Then we have subjective reality and objective reality. I see clouds that exist outside in the physical world but receive signals in my head that like a camera displays them on an internal screen (analogy).

Does this mean the outside world doesn't exist because I receive pictures in my head, just like a TV does or would it make the TV egotistical (if it ad a personality), if it thought so? I think we transmit and receive ideas and that we make them real in the outside world through the creation of physical forms as inside our head they exist as thought forms or ideas only (or memories of what did exist in the past but may not be present now.

I hope this is as clear as mud, m'lud!

MRC_Hans · Dec 23, 2014

pagetheoracle said:
Well we have opinion about whether something should exist or not (positive and negative emotion). Then we have subjective reality and objective reality. I see clouds that exist outside in the physical world but receive signals in my head that like a camera displays them on an internal screen (analogy).

You are perceiving the outside world through your senses, but that is all physical: Light from the clouds form a projection on your retina where it is converted to electrical signals that go to your brain, which processes them. Much like a camara, yes.

Does this mean the outside world doesn't exist because I receive pictures in my head,

No, the opposite: It means the outside world exists, since it can form pictures in your head.

I think we transmit and receive ideas and that we make them real in the outside world through the creation of physical forms as inside our head they exist as thought forms or ideas only (or memories of what did exist in the past but may not be present now.

The outside world is real whether you perceive it or not.

Hans

Belz... · Dec 23, 2014

doronshadmi said:
It's pointing out that you can't explain how you reject Idealism, without first compare it to Materialism

I do compare it to materialism. I have done so in this thread. How could you have missed it ?

or in other words, at the basis of your logic there are two things that exclude each other

Oh, this is where you are wrong. They are not exclusive. They just cannot interact. If they interact, then they are of the same stuff.

This signature

[...]

is Ad hominem

What ? Do you even know what "ad hominem" means ? It's an argument based on a personal attack. How is my signature a personal attack ? It's a quote from a movie. A quote I disagree with morally but which is often true historically. That has nothing to do with the current topic, by the way.

doronshadmi · Dec 23, 2014

Belz... said:
I do compare it to materialism. I have done so in this thread. How could you have missed it ?

I did not miss it. You need both Materialism and Idealism in order to compare between them, so you are actually using multiplicity reasoning.

Belz... said:
Oh, this is where you are wrong. They are not exclusive. They just cannot interact. If they interact, then they are of the same stuff.

They interact during your comparison between them, you simply can't avoid it, and no, they are not of the same stuff and yet they are interact by XOR logical connective, such that Materialism excludes Idealism by your Materialist point of view, which is derived from multiplicity reasoning.

This is not the case of Unity, since Unity is the substance of all 16 logical connectives (including XOR), but not vise versa as very simply addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10381545&postcount=645.

Belz... said:
What ? Do you even know what "ad hominem" means ? It's an argument based on a personal attack. How is my signature a personal attack ? It's a quote from a movie. A quote I disagree with morally but which is often true historically. That has nothing to do with the current topic, by the way.

force=violence is the mother of personal ad hominem attacks, exactly because you let this equation to be at the heart of the democratic system, when persons like you are using it as their signature.

Morality is at the essence of this thread, and your Materialism-only view is exactly where force=violence is flourishing.

Belz... · Dec 23, 2014

doronshadmi said:
I did not miss it. You need both Materialism and Idealism in order to compare between them, so you are actually using multiplicity reasoning.

You are all over the place. On the one hand you ask me to compare them, and then you seem to be saying that doing so is the wrong way to think. Which is it ?

They interact during your comparison between them, you simply can't avoid it, and no, they are not of the same stuff and yet they are interact by XOR logical connective

You are confused. Things do not interact by thinking about them. If I think about a battle between Darth Vader and Bruce Lee, they do not interact because none of them exist right now. And even if they did, the only thing interacting would be the particles in my brain.

Materialism excludes Idealism by your Materialist point of view

Again, you are incorrect. You are simply not reading what I write: materialism does not exclude idealism. They just cannot interact.

which is derived from multiplicity reasoning.

You can't even explain what that is.

This is not the case of Unity, since Unity is the substance of all 16 logical connectives (including XOR), but not vise versa as very simply addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10381545&postcount=645.

We're talking about reality, not some fiction you can dream up.

force=violence is the mother of personal ad hominem attacks

Again: I have just explained to you what an ad hominem attack is: it's an insult. How is that an insult ?

exactly because you let this equation to be at the heart of the democratic system, when persons like you are using it as their signature.

At this point you are back to talking nonsense. The quote is about human history.

Morality is at the essence of this thread, and your Materialism-only view is exactly where force=violence is flourishing.

Now it seems fully obvious that you are just picking stuff you see left and right and trying to fit them into a single narrative even when nothing of the sort is warranted.

And, tell me, what is political force if not violence or the threat thereof ?

doronshadmi · Dec 24, 2014

Belz... said:
You are all over the place. On the one hand you ask me to compare them, and then you seem to be saying that doing so is the wrong way to think. Which is it ?

Multiplicity reasoning is not wrong, it is simply limited to the expressed level of multiple and bounded things that exclude the unbounded and non-composed substance, which they are derived from (the substance that enables multiple and bounded things to interact with each other, in the first place).

Materialism or Idealism are definitely no more than an aggregation of bounded things that exclude the unbounded and non-composed substance, which they are derived from, where in this multiplicity-only media is marked as Unity.

Belz... said:
You are confused. Things do not interact by thinking about them.

You are simply wrong, please read more about placebo, nocebo, phantom pain, etc.

Belz... said:
Again, you are incorrect. You are simply not reading what I write: materialism does not exclude idealism. They just cannot interact.

Wrong, they are interact by mutually exclude each other.

If Materialism was really the only substance, Idealism even can't be imagined, in the first place.

Belz... said:
You can't even explain what that is.

Wrong, it is very simply explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10379299&postcount=619, where again, any explanation is only about Unity and not Unity in itself.

Once again, speaking about silence is not silence in itself.

Belz... said:
We're talking about reality, not some fiction you can dream up.

What you call reality is the bounded, composed and ever changed multiple expressions of Unity,where Unity is the unbounded non-composed and invariant substance of multiplicity, which naturally enables the harmony among multiplicity.

Belz... said:
Again: I have just explained to you what an ad hominem attack is: it's an insult. How is that an insult ?

Insult is no more than a tip of an iceberg of force=violence equation, that is used as the signature of your posts.

Belz... said:
At this point you are back to talking nonsense. The quote is about human history.

No, the quote is about your filter about human history, and the following quote actually supports my argument about you, in this case:

Belz... said:
And, tell me, what is political force if not violence or the threat thereof ?

Real political force is the ability to use it in order to develop win-win strategy among us, without eliminate our diversity, materially or spiritually.

So real political force is definitely not "violence or the threat thereof".

Once again, Materialism-only XOR Idealism-only, are no more than particular case at the level of multiplicity, that simply prevent the fruitful harmonious and diverse interactions among them, and indeed lead to rationality without emotions (Materialism) or emotions without rationality (Idealism), where both cases unfortunately lead to "political force as an act of violence".

The history can be changed if people are opened to the unbounded and non-composed substance, where multiplicity is derived from, such that no sum of infinitely many things is their unbounded and non-composed substance (reality is non-entropic, and therefore an ever creative).

Belz... · Dec 24, 2014

doronshadmi said:
Materialism or Idealism are definitely no more than an aggregation of bounded things

I'm going to stop you before you get further into the salad thing: how do you even know either of those things is even true ?

You are simply wrong, please read more about placebo, nocebo, phantom pain, etc.

And again you are horribly confused. You seem to be under the impression that thoughts are not physical. They ARE, which is why they interact with the rest of reality. I think this is your fundamental mistake.

Wrong, they are interact by mutually exclude each other.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

If Materialism was really the only substance, Idealism even can't be imagined, in the first place.

Again, nonsense. There is literally no rhyme or reason to what you just posted.

Wrong, it is very simply explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10379299&postcount=619, where again, any explanation is only about Unity and not Unity in itself.

Nowhere in that post does it talk about "multiplicity reasoning". So not only is it not simply explained, it's not explained at all. Want to try again ?

What you call reality is the bounded, composed and ever changed multiple expressions of Unity,where Unity is the unbounded non-composed and invariant substance of multiplicity, which naturally enables the harmony among multiplicity.

Wow, that sounds great, doesn't it ? What does it mean ?

Insult is no more than a tip of an iceberg of force=violence equation

No, actually, it has nothing to do with it. Insult is "you're an idiot". Saying that force is violence is not an insult, because it's not about a person anyway.

No, the quote is about your filter about human history

No, I'm pretty sure we can agree that violence has been one of the prime movers of human civilization since the beginning.

So real political force is definitely not "violence or the threat thereof".

No ? What happens to you if you break the law and resist arrest ?

Once again, Materialism-only XOR Idealism-only, are no more than particular case at the level of multiplicity, that simply prevent the fruitful harmonious and diverse interactions among them, and indeed lead to rationality without emotions (Materialism) or emotions without rationality (Idealism), where both cases unfortunately lead to "political force as an act of violence".

The history can be changed if people are opened to the unbounded and non-composed substance, where multiplicity is derived from, such that no sum of infinitely many things is their unbounded and non-composed substance (reality is non-entropic, and therefore an ever creative).

Word salad. You cannot explain how that quote, from a movie, has anything to do with the topic at hand. You are off-topic.

abaddon · Dec 24, 2014

Doron seems entirely unaware of the nature of the movie and the intent of the quotation. He also seems not to understand what signatures are for nor what ad hom actually means. I don't hold that against him, however. What I find odd is the refusal to countenance any and all explanations of that which everyone else regards as normal.

doronshadmi · Dec 24, 2014

Belz... said:
I'm going to stop you before you get further into the salad thing: how do you even know either of those things is even true ?

The material and the spiritual are both changeable.

Unity is the invariant substance of the changeable.

Belz... said:
And again you are horribly confused. You seem to be under the impression that thoughts are not physical. They ARE, which is why they interact with the rest of reality. I think this is your fundamental mistake.

You are still confused, the changeable can't be the substance of anything.

Belz... said:
That makes no sense whatsoever.

You are unable to comprehend the 16 logical connectives, and how these connectives are no more than expressions of Unity.

Belz... said:
Again, nonsense. There is literally no rhyme or reason to what you just posted.

Materialism is changeable and therefore you have no basis to your woo Materialist substance of reality.

Belz... said:
Nowhere in that post does it talk about "multiplicity reasoning". So not only is it not simply explained, it's not explained at all. Want to try again ?

Find the word "multiplicity" in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10379299&postcount=619 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566 and continue from there, it is very simple (but not to a person that forces the changeable as the substance of reality).

Belz... said:
Wow, that sounds great, doesn't it ? What does it mean ?

It is a fundamental question that you forgot to ask yourself, when you decided to use the changeable as the substance of reality.

Belz... said:
No, actually, it has nothing to do with it. Insult is "you're an idiot". Saying that force is violence is not an insult, because it's not about a person anyway.

Insult is a "soft" case of being ad hominem where murder is the "hard" case of being ad hominem. Both of them are forms of violence, therefore force=violence is an ad hominem equation.

Belz... said:
No, I'm pretty sure we can agree that violence has been one of the prime movers of human civilization since the beginning.

This is exactly the reason why we very quickly have to do our best in order to enliven force=harmony among us, before force=violence will totally fulfill itself on this planet.

Belz... said:
No ? What happens to you if you break the law and resist arrest ?

Simply do not break the law, and avoid violence of any kind.

Belz... said:
Word salad. You cannot explain how that quote, from a movie, has anything to do with the topic at hand. You are off-topic.

You are using the changeable as the substance of reality, so don't be surprised that the best you can get is no more than word salad (or more comprehensively worlds salad).

doronshadmi · Dec 24, 2014

abaddon said:
Doron seems entirely unaware of the nature of the movie and the intent of the quotation. He also seems not to understand what signatures are for nor what ad hom actually means. I don't hold that against him, however. What I find odd is the refusal to countenance any and all explanations of that which everyone else regards as normal.

I am sorry, but I disagree that force=violence is normal, nor to the very narrow view of ad hom as insults.

I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

The Terrible Trivium

The Terrible Trivium

Penultimate Amazing

Fiend God

Penultimate Amazing

Mistral, mistral wind...

Fiend God

Persnickety Insect

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Mistral, mistral wind...

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Fiend God

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Fiend God

Fiend God

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Mistral, mistral wind...

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Scholar

Penultimate Amazing

Fiend God

Penultimate Amazing

Fiend God

Penultimate Amazing

Fiend God

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing