Why the bias against materialism? [Archive]

Zantra

Aug5-03, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by TENYEARS
This is seperate from all the personal attacks I get for not believing in stuff that isn't real.

Where is the logic here? You are no different than the people who lambasted the first people that said the world could be round instead of flat. That was socalled science at the time. It also exists now this I do not belive I know, but that is me.

If tomarrow headlines read yet there is more scientifically proven, would you know that it is real? No you would say wow ok it is real I belive because science said it is real. Does that make it real? Will it be an experience to you? What has changed.

Life is about people and band wagons. It does not matter where you are or what arena. They are all band wagons. Sometimes they when not in a detrimental way they are good because they give groups of people a sense of community or being a part of an idea, but they will never lead to truth because the truth must come from one place and it is in a place where the seeker has yet to look.

When I was a child I knew all people had the capacity to understand, it is just that some don't but not because they cannot but because their lives to this point and time have not led them to a set of circumstances that would knock the lid off into the connection.

See that's the difference between science and religion. Religion IS a bandwagon and everyone's just along for the ride. Science, at least from my viewpoint, isn't about a bandwagon.

If science tomorrow said the earth was flat, I would need to see it for myself to believe it. I would start walking round the world, cuz I'm not buying it. The bottom line is that Science is a methodology, not necessarily a belief on the same level as religion. Science has the ability to question itsself. To doubt it's rules when it is necessary to do so. Religion lacks the ability to question itsself, because it cannot stand up to scrutiny. Religion is the intangible, Science the tangible.

When we are children we believe in Santa Claus. I did. Then as I grew older I realized that it was a myth. I also realized it was a based in part, in fact. Nicholas was an actual person in Germany in the 1600's who went around leaving presents at the doors of houses for children. Thus the myth was born. I also realized the need for this myth, and the magic and mysticism that it feeds to the imaginations of children throughout the world. It makes us happy to see the kids bubbling with joy each christmas in anticipation of Santa Claus's visit. It fills a need, a void that children badly need to fill. The same parallel is found in religion. There is a need, a fullfillment that people recieve from following religion. It gives them guidance in life, and hope, and for many, a purpose. I may not believe in religion, but I definitely realize the need. And if it gives a sense of purpose and meaning to some people, who am I to disparage thier needs? But for me, I see religion for what it truly is, not what I would wish it to be.

Iacchus32

Aug5-03, 02:07 PM

We have the "effect" all around us, which is external. But, if this is the extent of our focus, how does it belie the "cause," which is internal? Life itself is nothing but subjective, which is say, if we wish to find meaning in life, then we must look within. Doesn't that make the least bit of sense?

Whereas the materialists will say, there is no meaning to life, we are just here. Now you tell me which makes more sense? ... and, which sounds outright foolish?

What is the point to doing anything in this life if it doesn't mean anything?

Zero

Aug5-03, 02:22 PM

Iacchus32

Aug5-03, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Zero
That is a philospohical argument that doesn't change physical reality. The reality isn't what we want, just because we don't like the alternative.If we weren't so concerned with "outer-appearances" -- which, is all vanity -- maybe we wouldn't find the need to wreak so much havoc on the material world, to satiate that need ... for materialistic hedonism.

Also, materialists don't seem to be committing suicide in droves, so obviously we have figured out 'meaning', don't you think? Haven't heard of any up to date statistics, but in recent years have heard of a lot of young people committing suicide.

Zero

Aug5-03, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If we weren't so concerned with "outer-appearances" -- which, is all vanity -- maybe we wouldn't find the need to wreak so much havoc on the material world, to satiate that need ... for materialistic hedonism.I don't understand what this means, or what point you are trying to make. A meterialistic worldview has nothing to do with hedonism. Plus, actually, it is the materialists who are all for conservation of the world.

Haven't heard of any up to date statistics, but in recent years have heard of a lot of young people committing suicide. I don't see how this is relevant either, frankly. Can you elaborate?

Zantra

Aug5-03, 02:49 PM

Iacchus32

Aug5-03, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
You know when I first got here, I was chastized for giving a subjective explanation as to why we are here. And love's been broken down into chemical reations and nerve impusles. So I don't want to hear anything about subjective this and that. We are here because the infinite causal law has brought us to this point and time as a result of an combination of genetics, evolution, and various other external factors. That is why we are here... hmmph! What? And it can actually communicate too? How novel! [;)]

Zantra

Aug5-03, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What? And it can actually communicate too? How novel! [;)]

If only we could say the same of God[;)]

Iacchus32

Aug5-03, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I don't understand what this means, or what point you are trying to make. A meterialistic worldview has nothing to do with hedonism. Plus, actually, it is the materialists who are all for conservation of the world. What would you say about mass consumerism, and the fact that by the time we're ready to buy something -- new and off the shelf -- that it's already considered obsolete? So here we are already looking to replace what we just bought! I see a lot of junk going into the landfills and a lot of resources being wasted. Why can't people be satisifed with what they've got? And why is it so important that "we" only settle for "the best?" Could it be because it's an ego or vanity problem?

I don't see how this is relevant either, frankly. Can you elaborate? I see a lot of young people today (in fact even when I was growing up) without any sense of values.

Iacchus32

Aug5-03, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
If only we could say the same of God[;)] What should a little speck of protoplasm care anyway for? [;)]

Fliption

Aug5-03, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Of all the ideas bandied around theboard, the only onesI know of that is practical, that can be shown to have any supporting evidence, and can be repeated, or predict anything, are materialistic views or reality. So why are they almost universally blasted in threads on Physics Forums? It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever...(This is seperate from all the personal attacks I get for not believing in stuff that isn't real...if I was attacked for believing in things, the offender would be blasted for religious discrimination. Being rude to nonbelievers is apparently ok, though...that makes no sense either)

It's interesting to see how different people perceive things differently. I would have never claimed that there was bias in this forum "AGAINST" materialism. I would say it is for materialism. I'm not questioning whether that bias is justified or not. I'm just stating that I perceived the majority voting in on the materialism side. Now there are a few very vocal individuals who would tend to disagree with the majority view on most things and one of those has admitted that even he is a materialist. Anyway....

My struggle with this materialism/Idealism topic is that no one ever really defines it before they start talking about it. Except for Heusdens maybe and his definitions are 30 page long textbook excerpts and well... who wants to read all that?

Is Materialism the belief that only material things exists? Or is it the believe that material things do exists? Is Idealism the idea that non-material things exists? Or is it the idea that ONLY non-material things exist i.e. the material world is not real? And how can anyone know which to believe when no one ever defines what it means to be "material". How is material defined? I have seen several threads debating on what is and what isn't considered material (ex. energy) so it seems there isn't even a common understanding of this.

So with this void of definition, one side just assumes that there has to be more than what science tells us, therefore there are non-material things that exists and the other side claims that everything is material because nothing non-material has ever been found. This is because apparently the definition of material=everything that exists. So it tells us nothing. The conclusion is built into the definition.

So what's the definition of material?

rocket art

Aug6-03, 04:01 AM

Why the bias against materialism?

because materialism is a bias in itself. It is an attempt to manipulate objectivity for subjective motive, which is most often, selfish and materialistic.

Another God

Aug6-03, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Is Materialism the belief that only material things exists? Or is it the believe that material things do exists?
Great point Fliption. I think we would need to consider both definitions (and both for idealism), because I am sure all four versions would have a representative somewhere within the forum.

Personally, I consider myself a "Only material things exist" person, but by that I mean that "Only Objective things exist", and those Objective things are not necessarily anything like the matter we have around us, but rather a much more fundamental unit which gives rise to the matter. But it is the existence of these fundamental 'units' which is real, they are the only real things, and they cause everything that is, and are solely responsible for the creation of the subjective phenomenon (which, while being different to Objective reality, only exists as a consequence of Objective reality, and not vice versa).

Another God

Aug6-03, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If we weren't so concerned with "outer-appearances" -- which, is all vanity -- maybe we wouldn't find the need to wreak so much havoc on the material world, to satiate that need ... for materialistic hedonism. Umm..excuse me, but back in "The good old days" when many of the questions hadn't been answered, and nothing was understood about our world people cut down trees without consideration of the effects. Species of animals were wiped out without a second of atherthought, and often without people even noticing that it had even happened.

Back when "Man was created in Gods image" and All the creatures and plants of the land were here specifically for mans use...people ABUSED them. Wasted, threw away, didn't care, partook in hedonistic whatever they wanted.

You can't blame science, materialism, progress, consumerism or modernity for the behaviours of man. We do what we want when we want how we want, and often at the expense of others and other things.

It's just cute how periodically someone sits back and comments "Oh, how terrible we are" as if they are superior to everyone else for having noticed.

Haven't heard of any up to date statistics, but in recent years have heard of a lot of young people committing suicide.
And you think u can just assume this is a consequence of materialistic philosophy???? Perhaps (and thats a big perhaps) you have noticed a correlation, but that doesn't link the two objects up as a cause and effect relation... (this is logic I am using by the way. Logic comes from philosophy. Science is a 'denomination' (thats how i think of it) of Philosophy.)

My theory on the suicide rate increase is actually that our lives are too damn easy these days, and so people find themselves creating internal problems for themselves, and then find they can't deal with them.

See, there are statistical studied that show that during times of hardship (depression, war etc) suicides drop to almost insignificant levels. The obvious reason in my mind is to do with the fact that we are designed to deal with hardship. In the absence of hardship, we just don't know what to do with ourselves, and so it would seem we just self destruct.

Now is science to blame for this?

Probably. It's only thanks to science that our lives have become so easy.

TENYEARS

Aug6-03, 07:48 AM

The american indians where materialistic and spiritual at the same time becuase they are not different. They are one. They lived in a balance according to nature and took only what they needed. They were not mad as most of western society devouring all in its path regardless of the future devoid of spirt(Words of oh yes I believe or yes virgina there is a god is not quite good enough, it must be represented by action - responsiblity for ones actions in accordance with nature it's affects upon it. That would be the totality of all life when I say nature, and I consider all things alive.)

Dam, fools materialistic, idealisistic communistic whatever your idiotic ism or ic. For any idiot that says materialistic, I say this you are no different than a puddle, I prefer the puddle because the puddle reflects truth properly you do not because have not taken down the very thing you call "materialism" to it's absolute root. Gravity. You don't know what it is and yet you have the audacity to speak of materialism. This I call a band wagon.

I would have far more respect for an individual who walked around in the realization that one knew nothing and yet accepted nothing that was not understood instead of living in a false notions of what is real. Before you build a sand castle, I suggest you understand the nature of sand to it's finite parts.

Another God

Aug6-03, 07:56 AM

That sounds very close minded to me...but maybe i haven't given it enough thought.

TENYEARS

Aug6-03, 08:05 AM

So, you austrailians still kidnapping aboriginy kids to convert them so they leave their roots so you can more easily access the land and resources? I would have of course have to have belived this, but since I know that nature of the human beings I would say with little effort that the probability would be high.

Another God

Aug6-03, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by TENYEARS
So, you austrailians still kidnapping aboriginy kids to convert them so they leave their roots so you can more easily access the land and resources? I would have of course have to have belived this, but since I know that nature of the human beings I would say with little effort that the probability would be high. No, instead we have now given Aboriginals more rights than everyone else and created a fight for the government, which the government wants to win, but for some reason won't do anything to make it easier on themselves. Strange, but I didn't do it.

You know, what you wrote made no sense whatsoever. Didn't make a point. ANd has only worked to injure your credibility as someone who might be able to say something meaningful.

Do you want to fix that for me?

TENYEARS

Aug6-03, 08:22 AM

No, I edit nothing. It supposedly really happened and not so far in the past according to different sources, but it also happened everywhere else in the world. My point was to get you fired up. Do you really think I give a dam who views me as credible or not? I have witnessed the truth, etc....... It does not matter to me.

I can do little to change the world, but I can react in a clear manner and that in itself will be my contribution to the world because that is all I can do.

Another God

Aug6-03, 08:36 AM

But reacting in a clear manner was the exact opposite of what you did. And I fear any truth you profess to have witnessed.

I don't get fired up much anymore. It ruins my concentration.

Zero

Aug6-03, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by rocket art
Why the bias against materialism?

because materialism is a bias in itself. It is an attempt to manipulate objectivity for subjective motive, which is most often, selfish and materialistic.

Can you support that with a little elaboration?

Zero

Aug6-03, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by TENYEARS
The american indians where materialistic and spiritual at the same time becuase they are not different. They are one. They lived in a balance according to nature and took only what they needed. They were not mad as most of western society devouring all in its path regardless of the future devoid of spirt(Words of oh yes I believe or yes virgina there is a god is not quite good enough, it must be represented by action - responsiblity for ones actions in accordance with nature it's affects upon it. That would be the totality of all life when I say nature, and I consider all things alive.)

Dam, fools materialistic, idealisistic communistic whatever your idiotic ism or ic. For any idiot that says materialistic, I say this you are no different than a puddle, I prefer the puddle because the puddle reflects truth properly you do not because have not taken down the very thing you call "materialism" to it's absolute root. Gravity. You don't know what it is and yet you have the audacity to speak of materialism. This I call a band wagon.

I would have far more respect for an individual who walked around in the realization that one knew nothing and yet accepted nothing that was not understood instead of living in a false notions of what is real. Before you build a sand castle, I suggest you understand the nature of sand to it's finite parts.
See, this is another one of those completely emotional responses that doesn't address anything like evidence for or against a materialistic worldview.

Zero

Aug6-03, 10:38 AM

Fliption

Aug6-03, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Another God
Great point Fliption. I think we would need to consider both definitions (and both for idealism), because I am sure all four versions would have a representative somewhere within the forum.

Personally, I consider myself a "Only material things exist" person, but by that I mean that "Only Objective things exist", and those Objective things are not necessarily anything like the matter we have around us, but rather a much more fundamental unit which gives rise to the matter. But it is the existence of these fundamental 'units' which is real, they are the only real things, and they cause everything that is, and are solely responsible for the creation of the subjective phenomenon (which, while being different to Objective reality, only exists as a consequence of Objective reality, and not vice versa).

OK all that is clear. I'm positive you are correct that all 4 views are held by people here. But what is your definitional line that you use to call something "material"?

Zero

Aug6-03, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
OK all that is clear. I'm positive you are correct that all 4 views are held by people here. But what is your definitional line that you use to call something "material"?

I think the materialist philosophy is a practical one. The 'line' for something to be considered 'material' is having a defined understood existance. It is not, necessarily, having the cause of that existance completely understood. For instance, if telekinesis could be shown to work in a laboratory setting, and replicated, it would count as being part of the materialistic worldview, even if we couldn't figure out HOW it worked for centuries, if ever.

Fliption

Aug6-03, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Another God
See, there are statistical studied that show that during times of hardship (depression, war etc) suicides drop to almost insignificant levels. The obvious reason in my mind is to do with the fact that we are designed to deal with hardship. In the absence of hardship, we just don't know what to do with ourselves, and so it would seem we just self destruct.

This kinda reminds me of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. As long as the highest need of society is in process of being met then everything is fine. So I could make the argument that now that our society is at it's highest level of need; a spiritual need, that a materialistic culture hampers progress in fulfilling this need and causes problems. You would get the same things in time of war if there was nothing to fight with. But this has never actually happened so the stats would be scewed.

So I don't see it so much as "man is designed for hardship" as I do "man is designed to fulfill all needs throughout the hierarchy."
It could just be that the highest need is the most difficult to reach.

Zero

Aug6-03, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
This kinda reminds me of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. As long as the highest need of society is in process of being met then everything is fine. So I could make the argument that now that our society is at it's highest level of need; a spiritual need, that a materialistic culture hampers progress in fulfilling this need and causes problems. You would get the same things in time of war if there was nothing to fight with. But this has never actually happened so the stats would be scewed.

So I don't see it so much as "man is designed for hardship" as I do "man is designed to fulfill all needs throughout the hierarchy."
It could just be that the highest need is the most difficult to reach.

Nevertheless, this post, while not foolish by any means, doesn't address the truth or falsehood of the meterialistic worldview.

Iacchus32

Aug6-03, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Another God
Umm..excuse me, but back in "The good old days" when many of the questions hadn't been answered, and nothing was understood about our world people cut down trees without consideration of the effects. Species of animals were wiped out without a second of atherthought, and often without people even noticing that it had even happened.

Back when "Man was created in Gods image" and All the creatures and plants of the land were here specifically for mans use...people ABUSED them. Wasted, threw away, didn't care, partook in hedonistic whatever they wanted.

You can't blame science, materialism, progress, consumerism or modernity for the behaviours of man. We do what we want when we want how we want, and often at the expense of others and other things.

It's just cute how periodically someone sits back and comments "Oh, how terrible we are" as if they are superior to everyone else for having noticed.Cute huh? Now were these materialists committing these acts or, were they "true idealists?"

And you think u can just assume this is a consequence of materialistic philosophy???? Perhaps (and thats a big perhaps) you have noticed a correlation, but that doesn't link the two objects up as a cause and effect relation... (this is logic I am using by the way. Logic comes from philosophy. Science is a 'denomination' (thats how i think of it) of Philosophy.)

My theory on the suicide rate increase is actually that our lives are too damn easy these days, and so people find themselves creating internal problems for themselves, and then find they can't deal with them.

See, there are statistical studied that show that during times of hardship (depression, war etc) suicides drop to almost insignificant levels. The obvious reason in my mind is to do with the fact that we are designed to deal with hardship. In the absence of hardship, we just don't know what to do with ourselves, and so it would seem we just self destruct.Yes, and when you begin to focus on the spiritual aspect (quality of life), instead of "lavishing it on ourselves," you don't need all these material things.

Now is science to blame for this?

Probably. It's only thanks to science that our lives have become so easy. Yes, we have the quantity (materialism) which, suits our vanity, but not the quality (idealism), which suits our ultimate sense of worth and humility. So it seems it's all a matter of values.

Royce

Aug6-03, 12:38 PM

Zero, I'm getting a different read of your stace as a materialist in this thread than in the other one where we discussed marterialism vs subjectivism or idealism. I understood your position to be that only the objective physical material universe existed here you seem to be making room for the subjective as well as material. Am I miss reading or are you taking a slightly different position in this thread?

Zero

Aug6-03, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Zero, I'm getting a different read of your stace as a materialist in this thread than in the other one where we discussed marterialism vs subjectivism or idealism. I understood your position to be that only the objective physical material universe existed here you seem to be making room for the subjective as well as material. Am I miss reading or are you taking a slightly different position in this thread?

I believe you are misreading me...can you point to the specific part of a post of mine that is confusing you?

heusdens

Aug6-03, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32 We have the "effect" all around us, which is external. But, if this is the extent of our focus, how does it belie the "cause," which is internal? Life itself is nothing but subjective, which is say, if we wish to find meaning in life, then we must look within. Doesn't that make the least bit of sense?

Whereas the materialists will say, there is no meaning to life, we are just here. Now you tell me which makes more sense? ... and, which sounds outright foolish?

What is the point to doing anything in this life if it doesn't mean anything?
You have an absolute talent for misrepresenting materialism and science. Where does science/materialism say such a thing?
There is a purpose in our life, cause we are the very beings, that determine and define purpose for ourself, unlike rocks, and planets and stars, and the universe, which does not have that kind of subjectivity. To be alife is meaning in itself, cause it is a struggle to be and remain in life, that is what billion of years of evolution can tell us.

But science is neither prescribing people how to find purpose and meaning in life, since that is a personal matter. Science can only say something meaningfull as our biological nature and drifts is concerned, or whay our psychological behaviour is considered.

It is theism on ther other hand that gives a false meaning to people's lifes since religion is based on an alienated self-consciousness. That is what is trouble some, cause religion defines a false meaning to someone's life.

" (...) Hunger is a natural need; it therefore needs a nature outside itself, an object outside itself, in order to satisfy itself, to be stilled. Hunger is an acknowledged need of my body for an object existing outside it, indispensable to its integration and to the expression of its essential being. The sun is the object of the plant — an indispensable object to it, confirming its life — just as the plant is an object of the sun, being an expression of the life-awakening power of the sun, of the sun’s objective essential power.

A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective.

A non-objective being is a non-being.

Suppose a being which is neither an object itself, nor has an object. Such a being, in the first place, would be the unique being: there would exist no being outside it — it would exist solitary and alone. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another — another reality than the object outside me. For this third object I am thus a different reality than itself; that is, I am its object. Thus, to suppose a being which is not the object of another being is to presuppose that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for an object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous thing — a product of mere thought (i.e., of mere imagination) — an abstraction. To be sensuous, that is, to be really existing, means to be an object of sense, to be a sensuous object, to have sensuous objects outside oneself — objects of one’s sensuousness. To be sensuous is to suffer.

Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being — and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object. (...)"

" (...) The way in which consciousness is, and in which something is for it, is knowing. Knowing is its sole act. Something therefore comes to be for consciousness insofar as the latter knows this something. Knowing is its sole objective relation.

It [consciousness] then knows the nullity of the object (i.e., knows the non-existence of the distinction between the object and itself, the non-existence of the object for it) because it knows the object as its self-alienation; that is knows itself — knows knowing as object — because the object is only he semblance of an object, a piece of mystification, which in its essence, however, is nothing else but knowing itself, which has confronted itself with itself and hence has confronted itself with a nullity — a something which has no objectivity outside the knowing. Or: knowing knows that in relating itself to an object it is only outside itself — that it only externalises itself; that it itself only appears to itself as an object — or that that which appears to it as an object is only itself.

On the other hand, says Hegel, there is here at the same time this other moment, that consciousness has just as much annulled and reabsorbed this externalisation and objectivity, being thus at home in its other-being as such.

In this discussion all the illusions of speculation are brought together.

First of all: consciousness, self-consciousness, is at home in its other-being as such. It is therefore — or if we here abstract from the Hegelian abstraction and (put the self-consciousness of man instead of self-consciousness) it is at home in its other being as such. This implies, for one thing, that consciousness (knowing as knowing, thinking as thinking) pretends to be directly the other of itself — to be the world of sense, the real world, life — thought surpassing itself in thought (Feuerbach)[51]. This aspect is contained herein, inasmuch as consciousness as mere consciousness takes offence not at estranged objectivity, but at objectivity as such.

Secondly, this implies that self-conscious man, insofar as he has recognised and superseded the spiritual world (or his world’s spiritual, general mode of being) as self-alienation, nevertheless again confirms it in this alienated shape and passes it off as his true mode of being — re-establishes it, and pretends to be at home in his other-being as such. Thus, for instance, after superseding religion, after recognising religion to be a product of self-alienation he yet finds confirmation of himself in religion as religion. Here is the root of Hegel’s false positivism, or of his merely apparent criticism: this is what Feuerbach designated as the positing, negating and re-establishing of religion or theology (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/future/future1.htm#21b) — but it has to be expressed in more general terms. Thus reason is at home in unreason The man who has recognised that he is leading an alienated life in law, politics, etc., is leading his true human life in this alienated life as such. Self-affirmation, self-confirmation in contradiction with itself — in contradiction with both the knowledge and the essential being of the object — is thus true knowledge and life.

There can therefore no longer be any question about an act of accommodation on Hegel’s part vis-à-vis religion, the state, etc., since this lie is the lie of his principle.

If I know religion as alienated human self-consciousness, then what I know in it as religion is not my self-consciousness, but my alienated self-consciousness confirmed in it. I therefore know my self-consciousness that belongs to itself, to its very nature, confirmed not in religion but rather in annihilated and superseded religion.

In Hegel, therefore, the negation of the negation is not the confirmation of the true essence, effected precisely through negation of the pseudo-essence. With him the negation the negation is the confirmation of the pseudo-essence, or of the self-estranged essence in its denial; or it is the denial; or it is the denial of this pseudo-essence as an objective being dwelling outside man and independent of him, and its transformation into the subject. (...)"

Source: Marx in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm)

TENYEARS

Aug6-03, 01:11 PM

Zero, in the materialist handbook page 54 line 13 it says that although it may have not been performed in a laboratory paid for or subsidized by big business to create more ways to be irresponsible while makeing lots of money. It is generally accepted from the materialist as long as it boosts ones ego or increases pocket currency. Since the kidnapping of kids was an observed fact which would qualify for a materialist view, since there is no money to be made on the subject or ego or power boost, rule 182 on page 176 is now invoked which means it did not happen from a materialist stand point.

I must be a dam fool, because I agrue with them.

Royce

Aug6-03, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I think the materialist philosophy is a practical one. The 'line' for something to be considered 'material' is having a defined understood existance. It is not, necessarily, having the cause of that existance completely understood. For instance, if telekinesis could be shown to work in a laboratory setting, and replicated, it would count as being part of the materialistic worldview, even if we couldn't figure out HOW it worked for centuries, if ever.

I this is what I'm reading as leaving room. specifically;
" The 'line' for something to be considered 'material' is having a defined understood existance. It is not, necessarily, having the cause of that existance completely understood."
I had thought that the materialist view required a physical measureable existence. The next line is even more outside the materislist box and telekinesis is the subjective influencing to objective.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that you are being inconsistant at all only the you seem to be taking, for the purpose of this thread, a slightly different stance. It's okay to do so. I often do myself. I just want to know where you are standing now so if I do try to take a shoot at you I will at least be aiming in the right direction.[<:)] [:D]

Not to worry I'm still recovering from our last go around.[zz)] [;)]

Zero

Aug6-03, 02:10 PM

What I meant, specifically, is that for something to have an objective existance, it must be measurable. We don't know exactly how gravity works('graviton particles' or spacetime curvature), but we can absolutely measure and predict the effects of.
As far as telekinesis, I don't understand what you mean by 'subjective influencing to objective', but my point was simple. If it can observed in controlled conditions, invariably repeated, and observed by anyone who cares to see, it becomes part of a materialist worldview. Both gravity and telekinesis describe action over a distance with no easily apparent link between the objects, but gravity can be measured, can be shown to exist the same way for all observers, and can be predicted with great accuracy. When the same can be said for psuedoscientific ideas like telekinesis, they will then become part of what we can consider to be 'reality'.

Does that make any sense?

Royce

Aug6-03, 02:26 PM

Yep, and consistant.

telekinsis is an esp term for moving material objects by mind power alone ie. subjective thought physcally causing an object to move. I assumed that that is what yo were talking about. So far I wouldn't even place it in the suedoscientific catagory more illusion or fraud.

heusdens

Aug6-03, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Zero, in the materialist handbook page 54 line 13 it says that although it may have not been performed in a laboratory paid for or subsidized by big business to create more ways to be irresponsible while makeing lots of money. It is generally accepted from the materialist as long as it boosts ones ego or increases pocket currency. Since the kidnapping of kids was an observed fact which would qualify for a materialist view, since there is no money to be made on the subject or ego or power boost, rule 182 on page 176 is now invoked which means it did not happen from a materialist stand point.

I must be a dam fool, because I agrue with them.

What "Materialist handbook" are you talking about here?

Zero

Aug6-03, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Yep, and consistant.

telekinsis is an esp term for moving material objects by mind power alone ie. subjective thought physcally causing an object to move. I assumed that that is what yo were talking about. So far I wouldn't even place it in the suedoscientific catagory more illusion or fraud. Well, what about any 'non-physical' idea? Shouldn't it be held to the same standard as any other idea?

Fliption

Aug7-03, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I think the materialist philosophy is a practical one. The 'line' for something to be considered 'material' is having a defined understood existance. It is not, necessarily, having the cause of that existance completely understood. For instance, if telekinesis could be shown to work in a laboratory setting, and replicated, it would count as being part of the materialistic worldview, even if we couldn't figure out HOW it worked for centuries, if ever.

This definition you have is exactly my point. I don't see how this definition can be acceptable. If we make "material" mean something which can be shown to exist, then the word material is useless. We already have a word that means that and it's called existence! This was my point earlier when I said that if you start off with a definition of material that is equivalent to existence then you have no where else to go. You must conclude materialism is correct. It's built right into the assumption! No, I think the definition has be much more specific. You can't just define away what you don't want to believe.

I think AG will understand what I'm asking for. Maybe he will get a chance to respond.

Fliption

Aug7-03, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Nevertheless, this post, while not foolish by any means, doesn't address the truth or falsehood of the meterialistic worldview.

Nor was it intended to. It accomplsihes this no better and no worse than AG's post that it is responding to. You might want to go back and tell him the same thing about his post. (or is this bias for materialism? [:)])

I was just responding to a specific sub-issue in the thread.

Another God

Aug7-03, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
This definition you have is exactly my point. I don't see how this definition can be acceptable. If we make "material" mean something which can be shown to exist, then the word material is useless. We already have a word that means that and it's called existence! This was my point earlier when I said that if you start off with a definition of material that is equivalent to existence then you have no where else to go. You must conclude materialism is correct. It's built right into the assumption! No, I think the definition has be much more specific. You can't just define away what you don't want to believe.
And the ironic part is that I believe Zero's definition is essentially what materialism (where materialism is the thing which science is supposedly based on) and still people deny it... Look at them all...crowding around yelling it down "You stupid materialists...blah blah blah" And here we have it, the definition of materialism, as used by science and anyone who cares for it, is "Something which has a defined and measurable existence" or something to that effect.

Excuse me for a second: The world is full of morons.

OK, I'm back.

I don't believe in Ghosts, I don't believe in ESP, in Psychic powers, in UFO's (the phenomenon), in God, in Satan, or even in Santa Claus. Why not? Because there is no basis for my belief. No evidence, no place that I can go and say 'Hey, look, thats evidence for God'. There is no 'thing' that i can do to find evidence for any of them, there is no dance I can dance which will allow me to verify their existence.

And apparently, my denial of these phenomenon which can't be verified labels me as a materialist.

The second we find out that Ghosts are a consequence of alternate dimensional interference in the alpha wave of the fundamental subunit of the power generators which are trying to push the citizens of that alternate universe through to our own universe so that they can interact with us...then I will believe in Ghosts. ...

Wait, thats not even true. I'll believe in ghosts when this alternate universe people get a machine stuck, and it keeps trying tyo put a person through the same spot once everyday forever more. Becuase then, people could go and watch as the 'Ghost appears' on schedule, every day. Tests can be conducted, afffects measured etc.. And the ghost won't be "scared away" and crap like that.

Zero

Aug7-03, 02:16 AM

Zero

Aug7-03, 02:19 AM

Oh, and before someone decides to post that concepts like beauty and love cannot be measured, but do exist...don't bother. Biological brain functions developed during our evolution that provide some survival trait don't count as proof of anything but the complexity of our incredible, but purely physical, brains.

TENYEARS

Aug7-03, 08:15 AM

The unspoken rule book which guides humanity to all of it's wonderful decisions. You see this is not a personal attack on zero, but he does not understand what gravity is and yet he has this thing called a materialist view. I find it absurd. I am not expecting any of you to know why. It is not that people can't understand it is that it is not important enough to them so they don't. Importance usually comes at crunch time and by then it is usally to late.

The understanding of humanity can be akin to where the food comes for the eloi in the book/movie "the time machine". The morlock in our sense is not really people, but is now the warped nature of humanity.

Our future will be resigned to a similar fate.

Another God

Aug7-03, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Our future will be resigned to a similar fate.
Hmmm, yeah....evolution.

Zero

Aug7-03, 08:57 AM

The unspoken rule book which guides humanity to all of it's wonderful decisions.

What does this mean? Spouting deep-sounding nonsense is no way to start off, dude!(unless English isn't your first language? I've seriously been meaning to ask you about that!)

You see this is not a personal attack on zero, but he does not understand what gravity is and yet he has this thing called a materialist view. I find it absurd.

That's funny, I find most of the things you say(when I can understand them at all) to be absurd. To each his own, I suppose.
I am not expecting any of you to know why. It would be nice if we could understand you, if you see what I mean?
It is not that people can't understand it is that it is not important enough to them so they don't. Importance usually comes at crunch time and by then it is usally to late. Again, you say things that sound deep, but are completely empty of meaning.

The understanding of humanity can be akin to where the food comes for the eloi in the book/movie "the time machine". The morlock in our sense is not really people, but is now the warped nature of humanity.
Once more, do you think you could stop speaking in code and metaphor, and be a bit more direct?

[quote]Our future will be resigned to a similar fate.
Our future has nothing to do with a silly movie with bad CGI...does it?

TENYEARS

Aug7-03, 09:07 AM

Yes, it is evoulution, but that does not deny the reality of cause and effect. If I have two stones and I take away one there is one left no matter what I want or need to believe. If I have an ocean and posion it so that nothing can no longer live in it that leaves me with what exactly, ah it's a paradise.

Just wash off after you swim and don't stay in the water for more than 7 minutues at a time. Hell I remember when I was a kid you used to be able to stay in the water for 20 minutes before you had to come out and wash off. Ah I don't buy everything they say today it doesn't look any more toxic than it did 15 years ago except for in some parts where it seems way worse. Hell last year only 8700 people died on this part of the coast due to TP so to me it's no big deal. They were proably in the water for over 20 minutes anyway or never washed off properly with the chemical treatment series. Hell todays treatment series is far better than it was 15 years ago, yes it is more expensive but so what it's better quality. The world is getting better with better technology. Some day we could push the limit back up to 10 minutes again if we conserve and don't pollute as much.

Just rambling or not.

Zero

Aug7-03, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Yes, it is evoulution, but that does not deny the reality of cause and effect. If I have two stones and I take away one there is one left no matter what I want or need to believe. If I have an ocean and posion it so that nothing can no longer live in it that leaves me with what exactly, ah it's a paradise.

Just wash off after you swim and don't stay in the water for more than 7 minutues at a time. Hell I remember when I was a kid you used to be able to stay in the water for 20 minutes before you had to come out and wash off. Ah I don't buy everything they say today it doesn't look any more toxic than it did 15 years ago except for in some parts where it seems way worse. Hell last year only 8700 people died on this part of the coast due to TP so to me it's no big deal. They were proably in the water for over 20 minutes anyway or never washed off properly with the chemical treatment series. Hell todays treatment series is far better than it was 15 years ago, yes it is more expensive but so what it's better quality. The world is getting better with better technology. Some day we could push the limit back up to 10 minutes again if we conserve and don't pollute as much.

Just rambling or not.

I would ask: please try to stay on topic, ok? I don't have any idea what the *expletive deleted* you were rambling about, but it sounded vaguely anti-technology...which has NOTHING to do with this thread.

TENYEARS

Aug7-03, 09:34 AM

Actually it has everything to do with the thread. This is the result of a materialist view without understanding what matter or gravity is. Nothing but Eloi, as in the first movie or the book but not the second movie.

The result of human beings living in the land of the king with no cloths. Ah yes there is understanding, when it gets cold we will see.

If you are looking for deep, fall into the ditch that materialism is diggning. Not by nature of pure materialism but by nature of so called practiced/regcognized materialism.

For anyone that qualifies themselves as a materialist you would understand gravity and what matter is. Without it you have a house due to crumble because you have no foundation.

Zero

Aug7-03, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Actually it has everything to do with the thread. This is the result of a materialist view without understanding what matter or gravity is. Nothing but Eloi, as in the first movie or the book but not the second movie.

The result of human beings living in the land of the king with no cloths. Ah yes there is understanding, when it gets cold we will see.

If you are looking for deep, fall into the ditch that materialism is diggning. Not by nature of pure materialism but by nature of so called practiced/regcognized materialism.

For anyone that qualifies themselves as a materialist you would understand gravity and what matter is. Without it you have a house due to crumble because you have no foundation.

You are speaking oddly again. Houses with no foundation and teh like...can you for one post not use a metaphor? I'll give you a dollar!

Anyways, you keep harping on gravity. Last I checked, the hunt for the graviton was still going on, so the issue isn't exactly settled. Unless, of course, you think that gravity worked by 'God's will', like some people I know.
As far as the 'harmful effects' of the materialist's worldview: whether there are negative effects or not isn't the issue. The question is whether it is a 'correct'(in a practical sense) view of reality. Saying it is wrong because it is emotionally unsatisfying is nonsense. The same goes for saying it must be wrong because some people can use its reality to cause harm.

TENYEARS

Aug7-03, 09:51 AM

God does not control gravity or anything else, but that god is or is not is for you to discover for yourself. For the rest of today I am otta here.

Where is FZ by the way I sent him my weakest class C vision and he hasn't posted for a month. Vacation?

Zero

Aug7-03, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by TENYEARS
God does not control gravity or anything else, but that god is or is not is for you to discover for yourself. For the rest of today I am otta here.

Where is FZ by the way I sent him my weakest class C vision and he hasn't posted for a month. Vacation? As soon as some god shows up and appears to everyone, we can say it has been 'found'.

Fliption

Aug7-03, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Another God
[B]And the ironic part is that I believe Zero's definition is essentially what materialism (where materialism is the thing which science is supposedly based on) and still people deny it... Look at them all...crowding around yelling it down "You stupid materialists...blah blah blah" And here we have it, the definition of materialism, as used by science and anyone who cares for it, is "Something which has a defined and measurable existence" or something to that effect.

Excuse me for a second: The world is full of morons.

OK, I'm back.

Hmmm, this is all a bit cryptic AG heh. But if you're saying that you agree with Zero's definition then I would say that you shouldn't. Because the definition you have stated is not what he said. He didn't say anything about being measureable. He said definable existence. To say that something has a "definable existence" means nothing to me. That's pretty subjective. Your definition has now added the word "measureable". That's better but it's still vague. Define what you mean when you say "measure". I can measure whether or not I am in the mood to participate in this forum today. But my mood is not a material thing, is it. This just needs more specificity.

I don't believe in Ghosts, I don't believe in ESP, in Psychic powers, in UFO's (the phenomenon), in God, in Satan, or even in Santa Claus. Why not? Because there is no basis for my belief. No evidence, no place that I can go and say 'Hey, look, thats evidence for God'. There is no 'thing' that i can do to find evidence for any of them, there is no dance I can dance which will allow me to verify their existence.

What do these things have to do with materiality or non-materiality? This is the problem with equating 'existence' with 'materiality'. The definition of materiality that you are using means that if you ever discovered that ghost do exists, then ghost would now be a material thing, because the criteria for being material is simply to exists! With this definition how could anyone ever be anything but a materialist? Centuries of philosophical debate over nothing. I suspect we don't have the right definition here.

The second we find out that Ghosts are a consequence of alternate dimensional interference in the alpha wave of the fundamental subunit of the power generators which are trying to push the citizens of that alternate universe through to our own universe so that they can interact with us...then I will believe in Ghosts. ...

and then if this happened, according to Zero's definition, ghost would then become a material thing since material simply means existence. The problem with this definition is that there is no test for materialism. It MUST be true by definition! It's like concluding that "a is true" when your first premise is "a is true". It's a meaningless argument and, in this case, the word material is a meaningless word because by definition it doesn't distinguish itself from anything else.

Zero

Aug7-03, 11:49 AM

Fliption, I suggest that YOU have the wrong definition. We seem to be just fine with it. The point we are trying to make is that some people make the claim for the existance of things that cannot be shown to exist, like 'God'. We materialists stand against those ideas, not because we know them to be wrong, but because they cannot(thus far) be proven to be right.

Fliption

Aug7-03, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Fliption, I suggest that YOU have the wrong definition. We seem to be just fine with it. The point we are trying to make is that some people make the claim for the existance of things that cannot be shown to exist, like 'God'. We materialists stand against those ideas, not because we know them to be wrong, but because they cannot(thus far) be proven to be right.

LOL. Because 2 proclaimed materialists claim it is so when it is in their interest to do so, is not convincing to me. Nor should it be if I'm going to honestly attempt to find truth.

I am pretty sure I am not wrong on this. You say "we materialists stand against those ideas". And the ideas that you're referring to are "some people make the claim for the existance of things that cannot be shown to exist, like 'God'".

But these statements have nothing to do with materialism. This is my point. You mentioned 'love' earlier. You obviously think that it exists because you said it shows how complex the brain is. Do you consider it material? I am not trying to say that this proves ghost, or santa claus(or any other childish insulting label you can think of) exists. All I'm trying to show you is that 'material'cannot be the same as 'existence'. Science could not show that a quark existed at one time in it's history. Does that mean that quarks weren't material then? Hopefully you can see the problem with making material synonmous with "known to exist".

In order for people to have philosophical debates, they must agree on the definitions of the concepts about which they disagree. The whole philosphical debate around materialism has been going on for years. What I am certain about is that no one in their right mind would
disagree with materialism if your definition is correct. You have conveniently defined it so that it cannot be wrong. No philosopher would ever accept the definition that material things are the things that exists and then turn around and say that non-material things DO exists. They cannot exists by definition! That's
just nuts! So what's all the debate about? Well, they probably have a better definition.

If the non-materialist people that post in this forum were to use this definition they would still claim that god exists. They would simply claim that he is material. The debate would then just shift from materialism versus non-materialism to god
vs no-god. This definition of material solves nothing. It is meaningless.

Zero

Aug7-03, 01:32 PM

Would anyone like to help me out here? If not, Fliption, I think you are going to just have to live with it...

Fliption

Aug7-03, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Would anyone like to help me out here? If not, Fliption, I think you are going to just have to live with it...

I am going to have to live with people who don't want to understand their own position? That would be a shame. More so for them then for me.

Zero

Aug7-03, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
I am going to have to live with people who don't want to understand their own position? That would be a shame. More so for them then for me.

No, see, I understand my position well. You don't understand it. It is our different perception that you may just be stuck with.

Zero

Aug7-03, 01:53 PM

Oh, and Fliption, do youn happen to have a worldview of your own that you would care to share with us, as sort of a break from the action, and maybe a jumping-on point for the next phase of this discussion?

Fliption

Aug7-03, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Zero
No, see, I understand my position well. You don't understand it. It is our different perception that you may just be stuck with.

You understand it well but you want someone else to explain it to me?
Ok, that makes sense[g)]. You cannot say that you have tried to explain it to me either and are now giving up because it is hopeless. I have paved the way for you to provide me understanding by asking very specific questions. This is typically the way a meaningful discussion is held. But these questions have not been responded to.

I hardly think I am stuck with this. I am confident there are some materialists who can ratiional defend their view.

Fliption

Aug7-03, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Oh, and Fliption, do youn happen to have a worldview of your own that you would care to share with us, as sort of a break from the action, and maybe a jumping-on point for the next phase of this discussion?

No, but when I get one I will be sure to start a thread asking why everyone is biased against it.

I didn't start this thread so I see no reason why I need to leave this topic so that we can then pick apart my views. But I can assure you that if I get a view, I will be able defend to. You won't be "stuck" with me just telling you it is so.

Another God

Aug7-03, 05:34 PM

Honestly, I think I am a materialist simply because when I present my views, people call me a materialist. My views are those that have been described by Zero though.

How about this angle on it? I believe in an entirely objective universe, which is fundamental to everything, include our subjectivity. If the objective universe can be called material, then I am a materialist (but Objectivist would be a more accurate description).

Here is a thought: I don't think there is any doubt that all materialists believe in Gravity? Is gravity represented in matter etc? No. So why should the term materuialism be based on matter alone?

heusdens

Aug7-03, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Another God
Here is a thought: I don't think there is any doubt that all materialists believe in Gravity? Is gravity represented in matter etc? No. So why should the term materuialism be based on matter alone?

Good point, but I think you are mistaken on that.
For the simple reason that matter in the philosophical sense is not the same as matter in the physical sense.

Philosophical matter:

That what exists independend, outside and apart from consciousness.

Physical matter:

(sub atomic) particles that are the constituents of all mass having physical entities.

I would therefore conclude that matter in the philosophical sense already includes both phys. matter, energy, radiation, fields, etc.

Fliption

Aug7-03, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
Good point, but I think you are mistaken on that.
For the simple reason that matter in the philosophical sense is not the same as matter in the physical sense.

Philosophical matter:

That what exists independend, outside and apart from consciousness.

Physical matter:

(sub atomic) particles that are the constituents of all mass having physical entities.

I would therefore conclude that matter in the philosophical sense already includes both phys. matter, energy, radiation, fields, etc.

That's good Heusdens. I have a question for you. I am assuming that when we say "materialism" we are talking about a view based on the philosophical definition you have provided. If I got that right, then how do you reconcile the statement that science is based on materialism when the physical definition (that I presume science would be using)of matter is different from the definition in the philosophical view of materialism?

Also, your philosphical definition above is much better than the ones that have been presented so far. But another question is this... Does a materialist believe that matter DOES exists? Or do they believe that ONLY matter exists? I assume Zero and AG consider themselves the 2nd one. But then according to your definition, they do not believe that conscious creations(emotions, thoughts) exists. This sounds strange.

Thanks for any answers.

Les Sleeth

Aug7-03, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Fliption, I suggest that YOU have the wrong definition. We seem to be just fine with it. The point we are trying to make is that some people make the claim for the existance of things that cannot be shown to exist, like 'God'. We materialists stand against those ideas, not because we know them to be wrong, but because they cannot(thus far) be proven to be right.

After reading all the posts in this thread, I can tell you a few reasons why I get irritated with SOME materialists (by the way, you don't honestly think that at a physics forum materialists can be biased against do you?).

1. You refuse to admit your belief.

You believe matter is all there is, but you want to put a spin on that so it comes out "materialists only believe in what can be shown to exist."

That is NOT the definition of materialism, which means that all which exists is either material or derived from what is material. Matter, for a materialist, is the origin and end of all, which at least Heusdan and AG honestly acknowledge. It is obvious to me you are playing mind games to get a tactical advantage in this debate. "We superior materialists only believe what is shown to exist." Of course, the only thing you are willing to accept as having been shown to exist is that which is material. Fliption was on to you right off.

2. Your standard of proof is a materialist standard.

If I were the king of Yoltan where you are shipwrecked, and you were accused of a crime, I would demand you prove your innocence according to the ancient Yoltan scriptures. The only thing I accept are Yoltan scriptures, and so when you start spouting science, I can't hear you because I don't listen to non-Yoltan scripture talk.

That's a materialist for you . . . they are not interested in the truth, they are interested in whatever confirms material existence, which science mightily does. But what does empiricism fail to reveal? And if you think I am more sympathetic to the spirtualist who refuses to accept any evidence other than what supports his position, you are wrong. My objection is to people who've already decided existence is a certain way, and then go about gathering every fact which supports, and ignoring every fact which contradicts, their belief.

3. Half-assed education.

Elaborating more on the previous objection, the materialist, like the physical-denying idealist, only knows what helps him with his belief. I'd be willing to bet my inheritance that not a single materialist posting here has studied, and I mean studied the way a scholar should, what is really behind the belief in God. Yet listen to them screem bloody murder when they catch some idealistic-oriented slob daring to talk uninformed about gravity or relativity!

Another God

Aug8-03, 01:59 AM

I love it when a thread appears to progress in understanding on all sides. Thanks for the great post Heusdens, I had all that somewhere inside my head, I just failed to put it all together when I needed it.

Fliption: Science is a philosophy. It is a philosophy which is based on the Materialistic philosophy. Just because we have another meaning of the word material doesn't mean that Science can't also be philosophically materialistic.

As for the two options, I would actually consider myself the first one. Matter DOES exist. I most certainly do not believe that ONLY matter exists. As I said before : Gravity, all forces, energy etc all appear to be immaterial, and yet all fall under 1. my belief system 2. Under the philosophical doctrine of materialism.

As I have already said: You could call my belief Objectivism. I simply believe that there is an objective world first and foremost, and everything is a consequence of that objective reality. The scientific assumption from this premise is that our individual subjective realities are representative of this objective reality, and so through concession, our understanding of subjective experience may be aligned with objective reality.

And for this sort of belief, materialists get accused of all sorts of crazy things.

Zero

Aug8-03, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
No, but when I get one I will be sure to start a thread asking why everyone is biased against it.

I didn't start this thread so I see no reason why I need to leave this topic so that we can then pick apart my views. But I can assure you that if I get a view, I will be able defend to. You won't be "stuck" with me just telling you it is so.

No one asked you to leave...but, if you actually had a viewpoint of some sort, maybe I would know how to phrase things so you could understand them?

Another God

Aug8-03, 02:24 AM

Grrrr..using public computers sucks. I retyped the whole last post, I am not retyping this whole post out!!!! (until I get home)

Don't worry sleeth..your turn is coming [;)]

Zero

Aug8-03, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
That's good Heusdens. I have a question for you. I am assuming that when we say "materialism" we are talking about a view based on the philosophical definition you have provided. If I got that right, then how do you reconcile the statement that science is based on materialism when the physical definition (that I presume science would be using)of matter is different from the definition in the philosophical view of materialism?

Also, your philosphical definition above is much better than the ones that have been presented so far. But another question is this... Does a materialist believe that matter DOES exists? Or do they believe that ONLY matter exists? I assume Zero and AG consider themselves the 2nd one. But then according to your definition, they do not believe that conscious creations(emotions, thoughts) exists. This sounds strange.

Thanks for any answers.

It may sound strange, but that does seem to be what we believe, doesn't it? *grins* And we ROCK because of it! Emotions and thoughts, like I said earlier(for the non-reading crowd), are manefestations of the physical, in a similar way to how pictures on a TV screen are manefestations of the physical realm.

I guess it may seem circular to say 'only things that exist do in fact exist', but you might be surprised at how many people appear to disagree with that.

Another God

Aug8-03, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I guess it may seem circular to say 'only things that exist do in fact exist', but you might be surprised at how many people appear to disagree with that. LOL, yep.[:D]

My way of expressing this Zero is that subjectivity is a manifestation of the Objective universe. As such, subjectivity does exist objectively, but it itself is not an objective thing.

I am still to figure out how this relationship works though. it is quite tricky. but I have very litle doubt that Love, emotions, colour, sound etc, are merely subjective interpretations of the objective reality.

And yet you go to that "Philosophy of Love" thread...and OMG...do some people just not get it?????

Zero

Aug8-03, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
After reading all the posts in this thread, I can tell you a few reasons why I get irritated with SOME materialists (by the way, you don't honestly think that at a physics forum materialists can be biased against do you?).

1. You refuse to admit your belief.

You believe matter is all there is, but you want to put a spin on that so it comes out "materialists only believe in what can be shown to exist."

That is NOT the definition of materialism, which means that all which exists is either material or derived from what is material. Matter, for a materialist, is the origin and end of all, which at least Heusdan and AG honestly acknowledge. It is obvious to me you are playing mind games to get a tactical advantage in this debate. "We superior materialists only believe what is shown to exist." Of course, the only thing you are willing to accept as having been shown to exist is that which is material. Fliption was on to you right off. Right off, you show yourself to be awfully biased against me with absolutely no cause...no surprise from you, actually. How do you think AG and Heusden decide what is material and what is not? Funny, me and AG agree almost perfectly, but all the attacks are focused on me. Must be because I'm a Mentor, and you are jealous?(and how small your lives must be, if that were true!;))

2. Your standard of proof is a materialist standard.

If I were the king of Yoltan where you are shipwrecked, and you were accused of a crime, I would demand you prove your innocence according to the ancient Yoltan scriptures. The only thing I accept are Yoltan scriptures, and so when you start spouting science, I can't hear you because I don't listen to non-Yoltan scripture talk.

That's a materialist for you . . . they are not interested in the truth, they are interested in whatever confirms material existence, which science mightily does. But what does empiricism fail to reveal? And if you think I am more sympathetic to the spirtualist who refuses to accept any evidence other than what supports his position, you are wrong. My objection is to people who've already decided existence is a certain way, and then go about gathering every fact which supports, and ignoring every fact which contradicts, their belief. Awwww...what standard would you like us to use? What standard CAN there be, besides showing evidence? Please, show me anything that exists, without showing it to me. Just one thing!!

3. Half-assed education.

Elaborating more on the previous objection, the materialist, like the physical-denying idealist, only knows what helps him with his belief. I'd be willing to bet my inheritance that not a single materialist posting here has studied, and I mean studied the way a scholar should, what is really behind the belief in God. Yet listen to them screem bloody murder when they catch some idealistic-oriented slob daring to talk uninformed about gravity or relativity! Another personal attack? I know all about why people believe in gods, I've read a few dozen books on the subject, and hundreds of articles posted online. People mostly belive in things that don't have any evidence to support it, because of deep(and meaningful, in case you think that I take it lightly) psychological needs, based on the evolution of higher intelligence.

Zero

Aug8-03, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Another God
LOL, yep.[:D]

My way of expressing this Zero is that subjectivity is a manifestation of the Objective universe. As such, subjectivity does exist objectively, but it itself is not an objective thing.

I am still to figure out how this relationship works though. it is quite tricky. but I have very litle doubt that Love, emotions, colour, sound etc, are merely subjective interpretations of the objective reality.

And yet you go to that "Philosophy of Love" thread...and OMG...do some people just not get it????? What I am trying to figure out is why they hate me, and tolerate you, even though we are saying the exact same things. Any clue?

Another God

Aug8-03, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by Zero
What I am trying to figure out is why they hate me, and tolerate you, even though we are saying the exact same things. Any clue? Maybe its some sort of karma thing. I have copped a lot of crap in the past for expressing my views. Maybe now its my rest time, and your turn to cop the crap???

Or maybe not.

Ummm...more likely, it has something to do with the way you assert yourself, and the way I claim that "I believe this, I think this is the truth, and these are my reasons..but if you can show me why I am wrong, then please tell me". (And maybe my signature helps lighten the blow too? [:)]

Seriously though, i have copped so much **** over the years for expressing my views, and it is only thanks to this site that I have gradually taught myself to be able to express my opinions without insulting people (too much) and without causing too much raucus.

i could be wrong though.

[:)]

TENYEARS

Aug8-03, 09:04 AM

My way of expressing this Zero is that subjectivity is a manifestation of the Objective universe. As such, subjectivity does exist objectively, but it itself is not an objective thing.

Yes AG, but since you still have not experienced this very passage you wrote, you will argue the way you do. When you understand the nature of what you say above you will have to reword it slighty and then you will know what the trinity is. Not until.

Another personal attack? I know all about why people believe in gods, I've read a few dozen books on the subject, and hundreds of articles posted online. People mostly belive in things that don't have any evidence to support it, because of deep(and meaningful, in case you think that I take it lightly) psychological needs, based on the evolution of higher intelligence.

Zero, books? You have to read books to give you a qasi understanding of what you are to lazy to figure out yourself. The mind will lead you everywhere but where you don't want to go. Only when you want to go nowhere will you begin to understand. You are afraid it will take to long, that you will waste your life and no answers will come because there aren't any. If that is the case why to you waste your time reading books for answers to people who seem to profess and understanding of their experiences?

I had some visions come true and some people I work with knew about them. In a conversation which was going on as I was about to leave the building from five different people from differnt parts of the world with different views came five turning heads all with the same words on their lips in a conversation I was barely in. The words were in unison "we were afraid it would take to long".

Truth is not a magic thing. It exists in accordance with the materialistic view because it is pure materalism and is based on the law of conservation of matter and energy. Do you know what that is?

rocket art

Aug8-03, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Can you support that with a little elaboration?

Hi. This is in catching up with the question on page 2. Your patience will be appreciated.

I was addressing the concept straight to the point and exposing the mask. It is inevitable that in every philosophical perspective, they had been subjectively approached(not subjectively defined) by individual/s. Materialism however attempts to scheme the concept of reality by manipulating objectivity and subjectively defining (rather than subjectively approaching)it, which will eventually fall into the primitive wiles of human folly, i.e. selfishness, greed; not surprisingly for it limits the human capacity for another's subjective control. Materialism, due to subjective manipulation, refuses to be aware of the Mystery and Essence of Reality for in so doing it may manipulate its version of "reality". Rather than seeking answer or being in harmony or balance, or being holistic in perspective, materialism refuses to be aware of the Mystery and Essence of Reality but rather pretends to claim to know reality only by what is seen, then subjugates and imprisons it by setting limits and boundaries, rendering it manipulated for, materialistically speaking (because it can't understand the abstract notion of selflessness), selfish purposes. We exist beyond lightspeed, this is not the only dimension. Matter, in its certain dimension, cannot exceed lightspeed.

I tend to consider materialism, for its subjective bias as proven thru history, not as a science but a modern day occult. Rather than using such as tool, it had been made into manipulative institution. There was this saying "There is a Lie that tell of nothing but truth."
I guess that describes materialism.

heusdens

Aug8-03, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by rocket art
Hi. This is in catching up with the question on page 2. Your patience will be appreciated.

I was addressing the concept straight to the point and exposing the mask. It is inevitable that in every philosophical perspective, they had been subjectively approached(not subjectively defined) by individual/s. Materialism however attempts to scheme the concept of reality by manipulating objectivity and subjectively defining (rather than subjectively approaching)it, which will eventually fall into the primitive wiles of human folly, i.e. selfishness, greed; not surprisingly for it limits the human capacity for another's subjective control. Materialism, due to subjective manipulation, refuses to be aware of the Mystery and Essence of Reality for in so doing it may manipulate its version of "reality". Rather than seeking answer or being in harmony or balance, or being holistic in perspective, materialism refuses to be aware of the Mystery and Essence of Reality but rather pretends to claim to know reality only by what is seen, then subjugates and imprisons it by setting limits and boundaries, rendering it manipulated for, materialistically speaking (because it can't understand the abstract notion of selflessness), selfish purposes. We exist beyond lightspeed, this is not the only dimension.

I tend to consider materialism, for its subjective bias as proven thru history, not as a science but a modern day occult. Rather than using such as tool, it had been made into manipulative institution. There was this saying "There is a Lie that tell of nothing but truth."
I guess that describes materialism.

Selfishness and greed have nothing to do with philosophical materialism.

Materialism does not claim that matter only exists in visible form, and the exploration of nature through science is proof of that.
Nobody has "seen" electrons or protons or magnetic fields and such.

What mystery and essence are you speaking of here, please reveal us that mystic concept of your thought so we can explore that "truth".

Les Sleeth

Aug8-03, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Right off, you show yourself to be awfully biased against me with absolutely no cause...no surprise from you, actually. How do you think AG and Heusden decide what is material and what is not? Funny, me and AG agree almost perfectly, but all the attacks are focused on me. Must be because I'm a Mentor, and you are jealous?(and how small your lives must be, if that were true!;))

That's a bit much Zero. I said this to you in the ethics thread, but I will repeat that at times I feel you are being clever to get a debating advantage, rather than truly being open to other points of view, and responding to them honestly (and yeah, maybe we expect more from a mentor). It is sophistry, and it really bugs me. It isn't being materialist that I object to, it is how you attempt to make your case.

Originally posted by Zero
Awwww...what standard would you like us to use? What standard CAN there be, besides showing evidence? Please, show me anything that exists, without showing it to me. Just one thing!!

You aren't listening, your response is not to what I said. The question is not about evidence being the standard, it is about how broadly, open-mindedly and thoroughly you study evidence. Are you open to it all, or a lot more open to that evidence which agrees with you?

Originally posted by Zero
I know all about why people believe in gods, I've read a few dozen books on the subject, and hundreds of articles posted online. People mostly belive in things that don't have any evidence to support it, because of deep(and meaningful, in case you think that I take it lightly) psychological needs, based on the evolution of higher intelligence.

So you know all about why people believe in God?

You seem to understand why the masses participate in religion, but there has been another, entirely different group of people doing another entirely different thing than you find in religion. Why don't you and other materialists know about this? Because you have studied and read what supports what you want to believe.

If you devise a model of the universe without relativity, you aren't going to look for relativistic effects are you? And if you do observe them, you will try to explain them with classical physics. It is such a rare mind that notices when something doesn't fit, as Einstein did. Many others are perfectly willing to keep the model they've become expert at, and bend and twist its principles to accommodate anomalies.

There are people who've pursued a direct experience of "something" inside themselves, and after much accumulated experience began to believe there was something conscious behind creation. There is a 3000 year history of this phenomenon, although compared to the masses participating in religion, they've been a very tiny minority indeed.

Whatever the "something" is, it isn't necessarily any "god" that has been imagined while ancient tribal communities speculated around a campfire. The term "god" was convenient to borrow because of humankind's abundant pagan indulgences.

This "something" also is not experienced with the senses, but through feeling deeply within. So how are you, the materialist, going to demand it be demonstrated empirically, since the empirical method only relies on senses and sense data?

Those who've actually become proficient at inner experience (there have been and still are lots of pretenders) only did so after many years of dedicated practice. Joshu sat in meditation for 40 years, Teresa of Avila her entire life . . . as did many others.

Again, how are you, the materialist, going to evaluate their experiences? There really is only one way, and that is to do it yourself. But if you don't want to, then you could at least be sufficiently informed on genuinely serious inner practitioners.

And this really is the source of my frustration here. To listen to people ignorant of the deeper thing describe reality without it, and virtually sneer at people who feel there's somthing more. They sneer at feeling too, like they think feeling is only the emotions. But really the feeling I am talking about is sensitivity, deepened and maintained, with such a still and attentive mind that one begins to pick up on this "something more."

Even if I didn't know about this, and hadn't felt it myself, I would still have a problem with materialist concept because of life and consciousness. I don't think materialists are even remotely close to demostrating matter/chemistry/complexity -- chemogenesis -- can spontaneously leap to life and evolve consciousness. It doesn't keep them from claiming chemogenesis is all but certain, but they don't have it. How objective is that? How much does that exhibit an interest in the truth over one's preferred truth?

In other words, if they don't have it, and there is evidence of "something more," then how can anyone be so sure of a purely materialistic model? Unless, that is, one has already decided that's how they want the universe to work, and so is going about collecting all the evidence they can that supports their belief, and conveniently overlooking or superficially considering any evidence to the contrary.

Now there is a real story of bias for you, and an ironic one too since science devotees claim to stand for "pure objectivity."

Royce

Aug8-03, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Zero
What I am trying to figure out is why they hate me, and tolerate you, even though we are saying the exact same things. Any clue?
I, for one, don't hate you Zero. Though you style makes it difficult to love you. At times it comes across as insultingly arrogant, condecendingly superior and lacking respect. Thats your style and I am learning to live with it and not take it personal. In our discussion in the other thread I saw none of this and enjoyed mentally sparing with you tremendously.

AG and T-Y have the idea in mind if they don't actually state it.
It is not that we disagree that only the material or objective can be shown to exist by science. It is the conclusion that therefore only the material can and does exist. It is the exclusivity of the statement the bothers us. As if you were saying that you and only you have the truth and the rest of us are childish fools believing in fairy tales for disagreeing with you. Sound familiar?

For one thing the conclusion does not follow. is not obvious and is logically invalid. The absence of evidence or proof can not and does not disprove anything or that something does not exist or that is true or false

You may be a materialist or an objectivist or a material objectivist and have truth and science on your side supporting everything you say and no one can disagree with you or you position. It is when you step beyound materialism and objectivism and say that nothing else such as subjectivity can not and does not exist, that you are attacked for you logical blunder and unsupported unscientific overstatement.
Then in your endearing way defy anyone to prove you wrong and insult them when they try.

See this is why we hate you but love AG.[<:)] [s(] [:)] [:D]

Zero

Aug8-03, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
That's a bit much Zero. I said this to you in the ethics thread, but I will repeat that at times I feel you are being clever to get a debating advantage, rather than truly being open to other points of view, and responding to them honestly (and yeah, maybe we expect more from a mentor). It is sophistry, and it really bugs me. It isn't being materialist that I object to, it is how you attempt to make your case.That's a personal problem you should keep to yourself, I think...you hate me because of what you think my motives are, based on some typed words on a screen? Like I said, keep it to yourself, and see if you can't refute my posts.

You aren't listening, your response is not to what I said. The question is not about evidence being the standard, it is about how broadly, open-mindedly and thoroughly you study evidence. Are you open to it all, or a lot more open to that evidence which agrees with you? I used the telekinesis as my example, specifically because I [/i]DON'T[/i] believe it exists. But, if ever a confirmed, repeatable experiment were done by respected sources, I would have no choice, because of my philosophy, to accept it. It is ALL about the evidence: what kind, from what source, determines what can be considered real.

So you know all about why people believe in God?

You seem to understand why the masses participate in religion, but there has been another, entirely different group of people doing another entirely different thing than you find in religion. Why don't you and other materialists know about this? Because you have studied and read what supports what you want to believe. How do you know this? Because if I studied correctly, I would absolutely HAVE to agree with you? LMAO

[/quote]If you devise a model of the universe without relativity, you aren't going to look for relativistic effects are you? And if you do observe them, you will try to explain them with classical physics. It is such a rare mind that notices when something doesn't fit, as Einstein did. Many others are perfectly willing to keep the model they've become expert at, and bend and twist its principles to accommodate anomalies.[/quote] If I devide a model without relativity, the model works for the most part, after all. There would be some mysteries, but for day to day stuff it works fine. The part where my philosophy comes in is that I would not make up some mystical mumbo-jumbo to explain away the parts I don't understand.

There are people who've pursued a direct experience of "something" inside themselves, and after much accumulated experience began to believe there was something conscious behind creation. There is a 3000 year history of this phenomenon, although compared to the masses participating in religion, they've been a very tiny minority indeed. Bully for them? They looked in themselves, and found something besides intestines? LOL, seriously, I don't see how you accumulate experience by looking inside yourself, to me that would create the opposite situation. Plus, wouldn't a person who wants to find something 'special' within themselves eventually 'find' it, whether it exists or not?

Whatever the "something" is, it isn't necessarily any "god" that has been imagined while ancient tribal communities speculated around a campfire. The term "god" was convenient to borrow because of humankind's abundant pagan indulgences.

This "something" also is not experienced with the senses, but through feeling deeply within. So how are you, the materialist, going to demand it be demonstrated empirically, since the empirical method only relies on senses and sense data?I have a perfect right to demand evidence. It doesn't prove them wrong, of course, but that isn't the point. The point is, if something exists, it can be observed by more than one person, in my philosophy. If you cannot demonstrate it to me, its effects are exactly the same as if it doesn't exist at all.

Those who've actually become proficient at inner experience (there have been and still are lots of pretenders) only did so after many years of dedicated practice. Joshu sat in meditation for 40 years, Teresa of Avila her entire life . . . as did many others.

Again, how are you, the materialist, going to evaluate their experiences? There really is only one way, and that is to do it yourself. But if you don't want to, then you could at least be sufficiently informed on genuinely serious inner practitioners. Why would I want to evaluate their experience? It doesn't do anything, does it?

And this really is the source of my frustration here. To listen to people ignorant of the deeper thing describe reality without it, and virtually sneer at people who feel there's somthing more. They sneer at feeling too, like they think feeling is only the emotions. But really the feeling I am talking about is sensitivity, deepened and maintained, with such a still and attentive mind that one begins to pick up on this "something more."Well, since no one has demonstrated the existance of 'something more', why should I chase after it? And why do you cling to the notion that there MUST be something more, that you fully understand cannot be shown to exist? Because you have an emotional need, perhaps?

Even if I didn't know about this, and hadn't felt it myself, I would still have a problem with materialist concept because of life and consciousness. I don't think materialists are even remotely close to demostrating matter/chemistry/complexity -- chemogenesis -- can spontaneously leap to life and evolve consciousness. It doesn't keep them from claiming chemogenesis is all but certain, but they don't have it. How objective is that? How much does that exhibit an interest in the truth over one's preferred truth? 1) you should re-read the evidence...they are getting closer to demonstrating it, and 'chemogenesis' is the only idea I know of with any demonstrated evidence whatsoever. Sounds like you are a creationist, which brings up all sorts of problems beyond the scope of this thread. I'll not comment, except to ask where you get your information on this subject?

In other words, if they don't have it, and there is evidence of "something more," then how can anyone be so sure of a purely materialistic model? Unless, that is, one has already decided that's how they want the universe to work, and so is going about collecting all the evidence they can that supports their belief, and conveniently overlooking or superficially considering any evidence to the contrary. I'm still waiting for your evidence, boss. Where is teh evidence I am overlooking? It, to my knowledge, doesn't exist, but if you would be kind enough to point it out to me...

Now there is a real story of bias for you, and an ironic one too since science devotees claim to stand for "pure objectivity." [/B]The real story of bias is how you expect anyone to accept your lack of evidence as being equal to evidence.

Zero

Aug8-03, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Royce
I, for one, don't hate you Zero. Though you style makes it difficult to love you. At times it comes across as insultingly arrogant, condecendingly superior and lacking respect. Thats your style and I am learning to live with it and not take it personal. In our discussion in the other thread I saw none of this and enjoyed mentally sparing with you tremendously.

AG and T-Y have the idea in mind if they don't actually state it.
It is not that we disagree that only the material or objective can be shown to exist by science. It is the conclusion that therefore only the material can and does exist. It is the exclusivity of the statement the bothers us. As if you were saying that you and only you have the truth and the rest of us are childish fools believing in fairy tales for disagreeing with you. Sound familiar?

For one thing the conclusion does not follow. is not obvious and is logically invalid. The absence of evidence or proof can not and does not disprove anything or that something does not exist or that is true or false

You may be a materialist or an objectivist or a material objectivist and have truth and science on your side supporting everything you say and no one can disagree with you or you position. It is when you step beyound materialism and objectivism and say that nothing else such as subjectivity can not and does not exist, that you are attacked for you logical blunder and unsupported unscientific overstatement.
Then in your endearing way defy anyone to prove you wrong and insult them when they try.

See this is why we hate you but love AG.[<:)] [s(] [:)] [:D] Then you guys have been misreading me, or I haven't made myself clear enough. I have stated several times(inculding in my last response that I made before seeing yours) that 'things unseen' do not exist 'for practical purposes', which is different than saying they cannot exist, and I know they cannot ever be shown to exist. In a way, I guess it is true that I'm not looking for truth. I'm looking for usefulness, for a practical explanation of things.

Let's say you have a spirit companion. Your spirit companion stands directly behind you at all times, except when you are sleeping, in which case it departs. It only hears and sees what you see, it doesn't have any special knowledge that you don't already have. Now, try to prove it to a materialist, and you will be told it is a trick your mind is playing on you. Some materialists might say that this disproves the spirit's existance. Now me, on the other hand, I would say that for practical purposes, this is 'true', while making no absolute claim about the existance or nonexistance of that spirit. I can't make a claim, because there is no evidence. I can, however, feel confident that it does not exist.

Royce

Aug8-03, 12:43 PM

It is true then that I have been misreading you especially in other threads. (This is why I thought you may have been widening or changing your stance in this thread earlier.) I presumed too much myself and I apologize for that and for lumping you in with the other exclusive materialist. (Did I just coin a new phrase?)
We still disagree in that you will only accept scientific proof where none can exist. Science is only a tool and not the only tool for acquiring and expanding knowledge. Nor is science perfect even in the limited field that it was designed for. It is the best we have been able to come up with so far for the purpose of studying the physical world. It has been wrong before, is and will undoubtedly be wrong again. It should not be the sole criteria or tool we use to study the entire realm of reality.
It is like looking at the world through an old black and white TV instead of looking at it in 3D and full color. This of course is my opinion only.

heusdens

Aug8-03, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
That's a bit much Zero. I said this to you in the ethics thread, but I will repeat that at times I feel you are being clever to get a debating advantage, rather than truly being open to other points of view, and responding to them honestly (and yeah, maybe we expect more from a mentor). It is sophistry, and it really bugs me. It isn't being materialist that I object to, it is how you attempt to make your case.

You aren't listening, your response is not to what I said. The question is not about evidence being the standard, it is about how broadly, open-mindedly and thoroughly you study evidence. Are you open to it all, or a lot more open to that evidence which agrees with you?

So you know all about why people believe in God?

You seem to understand why the masses participate in religion, but there has been another, entirely different group of people doing another entirely different thing than you find in religion. Why don't you and other materialists know about this? Because you have studied and read what supports what you want to believe.

If you devise a model of the universe without relativity, you aren't going to look for relativistic effects are you? And if you do observe them, you will try to explain them with classical physics. It is such a rare mind that notices when something doesn't fit, as Einstein did. Many others are perfectly willing to keep the model they've become expert at, and bend and twist its principles to accommodate anomalies.

There are people who've pursued a direct experience of "something" inside themselves, and after much accumulated experience began to believe there was something conscious behind creation. There is a 3000 year history of this phenomenon, although compared to the masses participating in religion, they've been a very tiny minority indeed.

Whatever the "something" is, it isn't necessarily any "god" that has been imagined while ancient tribal communities speculated around a campfire. The term "god" was convenient to borrow because of humankind's abundant pagan indulgences.

This "something" also is not experienced with the senses, but through feeling deeply within. So how are you, the materialist, going to demand it be demonstrated empirically, since the empirical method only relies on senses and sense data?

Those who've actually become proficient at inner experience (there have been and still are lots of pretenders) only did so after many years of dedicated practice. Joshu sat in meditation for 40 years, Teresa of Avila her entire life . . . as did many others.

Again, how are you, the materialist, going to evaluate their experiences? There really is only one way, and that is to do it yourself. But if you don't want to, then you could at least be sufficiently informed on genuinely serious inner practitioners.

And this really is the source of my frustration here. To listen to people ignorant of the deeper thing describe reality without it, and virtually sneer at people who feel there's somthing more. They sneer at feeling too, like they think feeling is only the emotions. But really the feeling I am talking about is sensitivity, deepened and maintained, with such a still and attentive mind that one begins to pick up on this "something more."

Even if I didn't know about this, and hadn't felt it myself, I would still have a problem with materialist concept because of life and consciousness. I don't think materialists are even remotely close to demostrating matter/chemistry/complexity -- chemogenesis -- can spontaneously leap to life and evolve consciousness. It doesn't keep them from claiming chemogenesis is all but certain, but they don't have it. How objective is that? How much does that exhibit an interest in the truth over one's preferred truth?

In other words, if they don't have it, and there is evidence of "something more," then how can anyone be so sure of a purely materialistic model? Unless, that is, one has already decided that's how they want the universe to work, and so is going about collecting all the evidence they can that supports their belief, and conveniently overlooking or superficially considering any evidence to the contrary.

Now there is a real story of bias for you, and an ironic one too since science devotees claim to stand for "pure objectivity."

Materialist never argue against the "there is something more" thesis, since materialist have the point of view that matter is infinite and eternal, and since we only see a small fraction of that, there has definately got to be "something more".

So, that is realy NOT the issue.

The issue is wether or not that "something more" exists either in objectively - material - form, that is wether it can be known directly or indirectly to the mind, or of that denotes something not objectively.

Some people put likewise claims on the table for subjective entities or spirits and so forth. Many theists claim that God is a necessary being which exists in subjective form, and has to account for the objective existence of the material world. God has had to exists therefore in consciouss form before the material world itself existed.
The position of God however, in regard to the claims that God is an objective reality, leads however to the following analysis:

"A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective.

A non-objective being is a non-being.

Suppose a being which is neither an object itself, nor has an object. Such a being, in the first place, would be the unique being: there would exist no being outside it — it would exist solitary and alone. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another — another reality than the object outside me. For this third object I am thus a different reality than itself; that is, I am its object. Thus, to suppose a being which is not the object of another being is to presuppose that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for an object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous thing — a product of mere thought (i.e., of mere imagination) — an abstraction. To be sensuous, that is, to be really existing, means to be an object of sense, to be a sensuous object, to have sensuous objects outside oneself — objects of one’s sensuousness. To be sensuous is to suffer.
Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being — and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object."

K. Marx in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy

Fliption

Aug8-03, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Zero
It may sound strange, but that does seem to be what we believe, doesn't it? *grins* And we ROCK because of it! Emotions and thoughts, like I said earlier(for the non-reading crowd), are manefestations of the physical, in a similar way to how pictures on a TV screen are manefestations of the physical realm.

My question to Heusden still stands. Thoughts and emotions are not defined as material, BY HIS DEFINITION. I didn't state this. He did. So I am asking him if a materialists disbelieves that thoughts exists? It makes no sense if they do and I'm assuming he will agree with me here and straighten out where I'm misunderstanding the definitions.

I guess it may seem circular to say 'only things that exist do in fact exist', but you might be surprised at how many people appear to disagree with that.

And what I've been trying to tell you is that the fact that you think some people could accept something so ridiculous explains why you are as impatient as you are on this topic but tt is a much better theory that these people are using a different definition from you. I have found that in many cases, if someones view appears to completely contradict itself, especially IN THE VERY SAME SENTENCE, then there is probably something I have misunderstood about their view.

There's some good advice.

Fliption

Aug8-03, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Another God
Fliption: Science is a philosophy. It is a philosophy which is based on the Materialistic philosophy. Just because we have another meaning of the word material doesn't mean that Science can't also be philosophically materialistic.

I didn't say it couldn't. I was just asking for a reconciliation.

As for the two options, I would actually consider myself the first one. Matter DOES exist. I most certainly do not believe that ONLY matter exists. As I said before : Gravity, all forces, energy etc all appear to be immaterial, and yet all fall under 1. my belief system 2. Under the philosophical doctrine of materialism.

As I have already said: You could call my belief Objectivism. I simply believe that there is an objective world first and foremost, and everything is a consequence of that objective reality. The scientific assumption from this premise is that our individual subjective realities are representative of this objective reality, and so through concession, our understanding of subjective experience may be aligned with objective reality.

Well this seems consistent with Heusdens philosophical definition I think. Except that you are saying that you believe both material and non material exists but one depends on the other for existence. Whereas Heusdens definition didn't go into this kind of detail and that's why I asked him the questions I did.

Iacchus32

Aug8-03, 01:03 PM

Fliption

Aug8-03, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Another God
[B]LOL, yep.[:D]

My way of expressing this Zero is that subjectivity is a manifestation of the Objective universe. As such, subjectivity does exist objectively, but it itself is not an objective thing.

I do not believe that the definition of "material" that Zero has used is correct. It doesn't appear that you are using it in your philsophy either. I don't see how you and Zero line up at all. So I don't think you can agree that some people actually believe that "things that don't exists, do exists." No one believes that is a true statement. That's just a byproduct of a poor definition.

but I have very litle doubt that Love, emotions, colour, sound etc, are merely subjective interpretations of the objective reality.

Oh well then it MUST be true! [:)]

Les Sleeth

Aug8-03, 01:16 PM

Well Zero, I don't hate you, or anyone. I do get mad or turned off by things people do, and your last response to me was a definite turn off. As far as I can tell, not bit of appreciation of another's perspective, not an iota of comprehension, not a speck of understanding of anything outside your own narrow views. In terms of a philosophical discussion, nothing is less fun to me than a self centered philosopher, and nothing more boring than a dead-end philosophy.

Fliption

Aug8-03, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Funny, me and AG agree almost perfectly, but all the attacks are focused on me. Must be because I'm a Mentor, and you are jealous?(and how small your lives must be, if that were true!;))

Actually, I'll point this out again. I don't see how what AG is saying lines up to your view at all. Perhaps AG is just being cordial or maybe HE is the one a little guilty of focusing on who the mentor is? [:D]

Also, Zero if you're truly wondering why you might be singled out for any reason as opposed to AG or anyone else then perhaps you should read the content and tone of their responses and compare it to yours. An honest attempt at this will be enlightening.

heusdens

Aug8-03, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Well this seems consistent with Heusdens philosophical definition I think. Except that you are saying that you believe both material and non material exists but one depends on the other for existence. Whereas Heusdens definition didn't go into this kind of detail and that's why I asked him the questions I did.

I think I have clarified that many times, only perhaps not explicitly in this thread.

First of, how does materialism define the term matter?
Matter in philosophical materialism is defined as that what exists outside, independend and apart from the mind, which can bne projected directly or indirectly in the mind.

There is a clear distinction between the philosophical term matter and the physical term matter. In physics matter denotes some physical entity that have the common property of mass.

The philosophical term matter is much more broader in that it not only includes all physical entities, which can be observed directly and indirectly, but also contains all real-life entities, which have an existence onto themselves that is not dependend of the individual mind.

For instance the state, a human society, a school, an institution all denote material entities, even though they do not denote something physical in the direct sense.

It is clear of course that for instance a school (the institution school) denotes something that exists independend of the mind, it is a material reality, but this should not be understood as a physical reality. When the school building is burnt down this does not imply the school itself would no longer exist. The teaching could continue in another building, or even in open air. Also a plane crash causing all teacher and staff of a school to be killed, would not necessarily mean the end of the school, as new teachers and staff could be employed. The school would of course change due to those catastrophic circumstances, but not cease to exist. The same kind of lessons and study programs would be performed, and the same clases would exist.

For the same reason, a religion or religious institution would also denote something material, as it is an objective reality,

The fact that physics uses the term matter with a different meaning is of course confusing, and the main cause for people claiming that they think something immaterial can also exist, which is often based on things that have no direct physical existence.

I don't know exactly in what way materialism differs and corresponds to for instance objectivism or physicalism.

Fliption

Aug8-03, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Zero
What I am trying to figure out is why they hate me, and tolerate you, even though we are saying the exact same things. Any clue?

I gave you the clue above. You are NOT saying the same things. Nor with the same attitude.

Zero

Aug8-03, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Royce
It is true then that I have been misreading you especially in other threads. (This is why I thought you may have been widening or changing your stance in this thread earlier.) I presumed too much myself and I apologize for that and for lumping you in with the other exclusive materialist. (Did I just coin a new phrase?)
We still disagree in that you will only accept scientific proof where none can exist. Science is only a tool and not the only tool for acquiring and expanding knowledge. Nor is science perfect even in the limited field that it was designed for. It is the best we have been able to come up with so far for the purpose of studying the physical world. It has been wrong before, is and will undoubtedly be wrong again. It should not be the sole criteria or tool we use to study the entire realm of reality.
It is like looking at the world through an old black and white TV instead of looking at it in 3D and full color. This of course is my opinion only.
I don't see any other tool to use, and I would love it if someone were to show me an effective one...and as far as science being often wrong, well, I would counter that by saying that science is self-correcting as well. Name me anything else that corrects its own mistakes, and then talk to me about things like being open minded.;)

And, as far as the TV, I see your view as similar to wondering what the characters(not the actors) do between episodes.

Fliption

Aug8-03, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
[B]I think I have clarified that many times, only perhaps not explicitly in this thread.

Good response but there are some questions you left out. Does a materialists believe that philosophical matter DOES exists or does he believe that ONLY matter exists? What is the distinction of a materialists and a non-materialists?

Royce

Aug8-03, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I don't see any other tool to use, and I would love it if someone were to show me an effective one...and as far as science being often wrong, well, I would counter that by saying that science is self-correcting as well. Name me anything else that corrects its own mistakes, and then talk to me about things like being open minded.;)

And, as far as the TV, I see your view as similar to wondering what the characters(not the actors) do between episodes.

LOL,LOL, Your hopless; but I am begining to appreciate your humor. That was humor wasn't it?

As for another tool, try using that electro-chemical gland located between you ears. Scientist don't have a monopoly on the truth.

Yes, Science does correct itself after 10 or 20 years of denying the truth and ruining the careers of fellow scientist who have the audacity to prove the books and them wrong. I hardly call that self correcting. Science only corrects itself after it has no other choice.

I will be glad to give examples if you wish. It is still going on today and will continue going as long as humans are the way that we are. Science is very much a human endevore as I said before and has it's feet very much mired in the mud to the point that it takes a crowbar or dynomite to move it.

Zero

Aug8-03, 01:47 PM

Your spelling is slipping...[;)]

I can use my brain...but what am I supposed to use it on??? How can I apply my intelligence towards things that cannot be shown to exist, without slipping into pure conjecture and even fantasy?

Royce

Aug8-03, 02:00 PM

Yeah, I know, its been a long day. I did go back and tried to edit my last post but you beat me to it.
There is nothing wrong with conjecture or fantasy. Try contemplation or meditation.

Zero

Aug8-03, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Yeah, I know, its been a long day. I did go back and tried to edit my last post but you beat me to it.
There is nothing wrong with conjecture or fantasy. Try contemplation or meditation. But aren't those predicated on observation of the world? Don't we have to have something to comtemplate, generally?

Royce

Aug8-03, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Zero
But aren't those predicated on observation of the world? Don't we have to have something to comtemplate, generally?

Yeah, they are and observing ourselves and other people but not necessarily in a scientific way. Just observing and appreciating. Smelling the roses.

To the second part of your question, no. Don't contemplate anything. Just sit quietly and listen and look. It is amazing what we can here and see when we listen and look with a quiet mind.
Sit on a material rock under a material tree and explore the immaterial subjective world of you mind. If nothing else you give yourself and you too scientific material mind a break. "Try it. You' like it."

heusdens

Aug8-03, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Good response but there are some questions you left out. Does a materialists believe that philosophical matter DOES exists or does he believe that ONLY matter exists? What is the distinction of a materialists and a non-materialists?

I would not qualify materialism in any way with matters of belief.
There is no "scripture" of materialism, that tells what matter is or not is. Materialism itself is a philosophical viewpoint that has been developed in centuries, and started with the philosophies of the Greeks (Heroditus and Democritus) that philosophized about some form of elementary matter in the form of atoms.

You must notify that matter in the philosophical sense denotes an abstract category of thought. In the same way womanhood denotes also an abstract category. You can not make love to womanhood, you can only make love to a specific woman.

The main thing that materialism states is the way in which it answers the basic question in philosophy, which is the question as to what is the primary substance without which the world would not exist.
The answer materialism gives is matter.

In that sense it opposes idealims, which states that consciousness forms the primary substance of all being. Theism has made this primary and necessary consciouss being into a God.

Theism and idealism agree on this, in that they state that the material world itself originated from a consciouss entity (in idealism this sometimes also is characterized as a fundamental principle or absolute idea).

According to materialism, such can't have been the case. The reason for that is that without the existence of an objective material reality, something consciousness can not exist.

Perhaps this text of Marx explains and clarifies this fact, that a Deity which created the material world, can not have any objective existence.

"A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective.

A non-objective being is a non-being.

Suppose a being which is neither an object itself, nor has an object. Such a being, in the first place, would be the unique being: there would exist no being outside it — it would exist solitary and alone. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another — another reality than the object outside me. For this third object I am thus a different reality than itself; that is, I am its object. Thus, to suppose a being which is not the object of another being is to presuppose that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for an object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous thing — a product of mere thought (i.e., of mere imagination) — an abstraction. To be sensuous, that is, to be really existing, means to be an object of sense, to be a sensuous object, to have sensuous objects outside oneself — objects of one’s sensuousness. To be sensuous is to suffer.
Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being — and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object."

K. Marx in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy

Another God

Aug8-03, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
1. You refuse to admit your belief.

You believe matter is all there is, but you want to put a spin on that so it comes out "materialists only believe in what can be shown to exist."

That is NOT the definition of materialism, which means that all which exists is either material or derived from what is material.

I don't think us 'Materialists' really care what The definition of materialism is, nor do we particularly care what any other individuals claim of the definition of materialism is, because no one really goes around trying to keep their opinions within the bounds of doctrine. I have my beliefs, and I never deny those beliefs. I assume Zero is the same. I see no point in denying my beliefs, because I aim to learn, not avoid the hard questions, and if I represent my views skewered, then how will people be able to show me where I am wrong????

If my views do not match your definition of Materialism, then I am either not a materialist, or your definition is wrong.
2. Your standard of proof is a materialist standard.

If I were the king of Yoltan where you are shipwrecked, and you were accused of a crime, I would demand you prove your innocence according to the ancient Yoltan scriptures. The only thing I accept are Yoltan scriptures, and so when you start spouting science, I can't hear you because I don't listen to non-Yoltan scripture talk.
Now this, this is a great criticism. It is just unfortunate that I haven't spent enough time rationalising more indepth why it is that I don't like it [:)]. But I do have an immediate response which for the time being, for me, is good enough.

Materialists accept material evidence, because it is the one method used throughout all of human history which has ever produced any sort of consistent, practical, useful results. The ONLY one. We have seen Psychics, soothsayers, Astrologers, Magicians, Tea leaf readers, psychic healers, dooms day predicters, religions of every form...and not one of them has produced anything practical, nor shown anything consistent. In fact, many of them are founded on the very Materialism which they oppose: Astrology only exists because of the 'scientific like' nature that the early astronomers took to observe the movements of the stars.

Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does.

So lets go back to your example. This time, you find yourself in the same situation, but this time you are a Historian and know of the results of earlier shipwrecks that have ended in this situation.
1st sailor tried to explain in English and science, and was killed.
2nd sailor tried to explain in English and Religion, and was killed.
3rd sailor tried to explain in English and Philosophical ethics, and was killed.
4th sailor tried to explain in English and common law, and was killed.
5th sailor tried to explain in Yoltish and Science, and was killed.
6th sailor tried to explain in Yoltish and Scripture, and survived.
7th sailor tried to explain in Yoltish and Scripture, and survived.
8th sailor tried to explain in Yoltish and scripture, and survived.
9th sailor tried to explain in English and science, and was killed.
10th sailor tried to explain in Yoltish and scripture, and survived.

Now, there you stand...what method are you going to try????

Antibiootics, interplanetary travel, internal combustion engines, electricity, gene therapy, cloning, nuclear power. VS If you have ailment x, place precious stone Y on chest and lay down.

Another God

Aug8-03, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Royce
See this is why we hate you but love AG. [s(] [:)] [:D] Gues who's ,y favourite PF member now? [;)]

Another God

Aug8-03, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Yes, Science does correct itself after 10 or 20 years of denying the truth and ruining the careers of fellow scientist who have the audacity to prove the books and them wrong. I hardly call that self correcting. Science only corrects itself after it has no other choice.

I will be glad to give examples if you wish. It is still going on today and will continue going as long as humans are the way that we are. Science is very much a human endevore as I said before and has it's feet very much mired in the mud to the point that it takes a crowbar or dynomite to move it. True. Science is not a magical entity which knows the truth, and it is definately dependend on the ability of humans to be able to let go of their overarching metaphysical and paradigmatical views. But what makes science better than all other methods of enquiry, is that it still allows it. No matter how crap the people in science are, no one can say 'OK, new Scientific law: Evolution is true, and can never be challenged.

That is unscientific. Many philosophers of Science don't believe popperism is the best description of how science works now, but I don't think anyone would deny that the concept still applies at some fundamental level. You make a conjecture, and it may be accepted, but it is never certainly true, but it may one day be shown to be certainly false.

Zero

Aug9-03, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Actually, I'll point this out again. I don't see how what AG is saying lines up to your view at all. Perhaps AG is just being cordial or maybe HE is the one a little guilty of focusing on who the mentor is? [:D]

Also, Zero if you're truly wondering why you might be singled out for any reason as opposed to AG or anyone else then perhaps you should read the content and tone of their responses and compare it to yours. An honest attempt at this will be enlightening. Dude, you've disliked me for years...maybe it is your fault?[;)]

Zero

Aug9-03, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Royce
Yeah, they are and observing ourselves and other people but not necessarily in a scientific way. Just observing and appreciating. Smelling the roses.

To the second part of your question, no. Don't contemplate anything. Just sit quietly and listen and look. It is amazing what we can here and see when we listen and look with a quiet mind.
Sit on a material rock under a material tree and explore the immaterial subjective world of you mind. If nothing else you give yourself and you too scientific material mind a break. "Try it. You' like it."

Uh huh... Funny, I look inside my mind, and all I find is me! It is deep and meaning ful to me, but I don't see what it would have to do with things outside of me.

I'm reminded of a discussion of narcissism...people with that problem see everything outside of themselves as nothing but a reflection of themselves.(I wouldn't take it too seriously; it was Stephen King talking about a scary book)

Royce

Aug9-03, 08:17 AM

AG, don't take it to seriously. I was merely replying in kind and was speaking relatively.[;)]

Philosophy and religion changes over time too just as science does. It may take longer but just as human thought changes over the years so does our philosophy religion and science.

Zero, if you can look inside your mind and see yourself we are not so far apart in our philosophy as I first thought. Is the why we have quit calling each other names? Damn, next thing I know I'll be accused of fratenizing with the enemy, materialist and expelled from the ranks of idealist, a idealistic Galileo.

Fliption

Aug9-03, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Dude, you've disliked me for years...maybe it is your fault?[;)]

mm hmm and maybe it is the fault of Santa Claus, too.

I don't understand this. If it really was the case that I was the one with a problem, then it seems you would still need to analyze why it is only directed at you. I know I would be wondering. Doesn't matter though. I suspected you weren't asking the question because you really wanted to know the answer. I know it was just a venting tool or a debating ploy. The same goes for the question in the title of this thread as well.

But I will go on record and say that If value is added in a post then I will acknowledge it. I'm not on this forum to vent, improve my self esteem or any other self absorbed goal. I am honestly trying to learn. I actually agreed with you in the thread about the guy who will pay $1M to anyone who proves they can do something supernatural.(can't remember his name) So if I agree with you, I'll say so. I just don't generally agree with unthoughtful, unproductive, 2 sentence responses.

Zero

Aug9-03, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
mm hmm and maybe it is the fault of Santa Claus, too.

I don't understand this. If it really was the case that I was the one with a problem, then it seems you would still need to analyze why it is only directed at you. I know I would be wondering. Doesn't matter though. I suspected you weren't asking the question because you really wanted to know the answer. I know it was just a venting tool or a debating ploy. The same goes for the question in the title of this thread as well.

But I will go on record and say that If value is added in a post then I will acknowledge it. I'm not on this forum to vent, improve my self esteem or any other self absorbed goal. I am honestly trying to learn. I actually agreed with you in the thread about the guy who will pay $1M to anyone who proves they can do something supernatural.(can't remember his name) So if I agree with you, I'll say so. I just don't generally agree with unthoughtful, unproductive, 2 sentence responses.
James Randi.

Oh, and we've had this conversation about you not liking my style, or my choice of topics...have you ever thought of trying my new technique, which is asking people to elaborate in a non-confrontive way?

Fliption

Aug9-03, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Zero
James Randi.

Oh, and we've had this conversation about you not liking my style, or my choice of topics...have you ever thought of trying my new technique, which is asking people to elaborate in a non-confrontive way?

Well saying that I ask people to elaborate in a confrontative way is one thing. I don't think I do that but if someone said I did I would be more careful. But then when you claim that this is yourtechnique, I can no longer take this post seriously. But you do say it is your "new" technique. I can vouch for the "new" part if you're actually doing it.

I couldn't care less what topics you post in. That's your business. If I make an observation, it is just that. But I have no feelings one way or the other about it. Style is different. I don't care for a style that dis-respects everyones opinion but it's own and then consistently displays no understanding of the view it is insulting.

Zero

Aug9-03, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Well saying that I ask people to elaborate in a confrontative way is one thing. I don't think I do that but if someone said I did I would be more careful. But then when you claim that this is yourtechnique, I can no longer take this post seriously. But you do say it is your "new" technique. I can vouch for the "new" part if you're actually doing it.

I couldn't care less what topics you post in. That's your business. If I make an observation, it is just that. But I have no feelings one way or the other about it. Style is different. I don't care for a style that dis-respects everyones opinion but it's own and then consistently displays no understanding of the view it is insulting.

Oh, I understand other views just fine...I just cannotaccept most of them. Alot of people see that as a flaw; I see it as the only logical way to be. All viewpoints are not equal. I weigh viewpoints by their logic, and by how much the agree with the evidence. I don't take into consideration how it makes people feel, or whether society will suffer, or base my life on 'what if' questions that have answers created by my psychological needs.
If that sometimes comes off as insulting, I am sorry.

Zero

Aug9-03, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Royce
AG, don't take it to seriously. I was merely replying in kind and was speaking relatively.[;)]

Philosophy and religion changes over time too just as science does. It may take longer but just as human thought changes over the years so does our philosophy religion and science.

Zero, if you can look inside your mind and see yourself we are not so far apart in our philosophy as I first thought. Is the why we have quit calling each other names? Damn, next thing I know I'll be accused of fratenizing with the enemy, materialist and expelled from the ranks of idealist, a idealistic Galileo.

I think part of the problem I have with philosophy in general, is that i think it is a wonderful tool, applied to the wrong problems. I think all the meditation and introspection can tell you alot about who you are, and about people in general, but I don't think it can tell you about physics or biology.
Also, I see some of the issues brought up in this thread(mostly the existance of 'something else', that explains away lingering questions)as showing alot about the way the human mind works. I think unanswered questions act as sort of a 'cut that would heal, if you would stop messing with it'. Those sorts of things are annoying, and it is often a relief to have an answer, even if that answer is completely wrong.

Les Sleeth

Aug9-03, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Another God
Materialists accept material evidence, because it is the one method used throughout all of human history which has ever produced any sort of consistent, practical, useful results. The ONLY one. We have seen Psychics, soothsayers, Astrologers, Magicians, Tea leaf readers, psychic healers, dooms day predicters, religions of every form...and not one of them has produced anything practical, nor shown anything consistent . . .
Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does.

I see you didn't quite make it to my third objection "half -assed education."

I have NEVER in any post at this or the old PF even slightly suggested "Psychics, soothsayers, Astrologers, Magicians, Tea leaf readers, psychic healers, dooms day predicters, religions of every form" are qualified to represent those who've seriously undertaken the inward search. I have, in fact, consistantly stated I do not believe anything supernatural is possible, including whatever it is people have referred to as "God." Based on how the universe seems to work, either it is natural or it isn't real.

But this statement, "Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does" is just plain wrong. You are doing just what I have complained about, studied only that which supports your belief system.

The correct statement would be, "no other investigative method produces useful results for understanding the material universe than empiricism." That you only find material processes useful is your thing, but to a lot of others inner contentment, happiness, wisdom mean more . . . to some of us, a hell of a lot more.

Materials, and understanding their physical laws, have contributed very little to my contentment, happiness, and wisdom, and I am pretty well off materially and understand the physical side of things better than most people. Now if all YOU value is materiality, and all YOU want is that, and all YOU pursue is matter, and all YOU study is how to understand, manipulate, and acquire it, then of course you might arrive at the conclusion that "Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does" because that's all you care about.

But to project your personal tastes and preferences onto the entire universe, and then suggest to those who want something more that there is nothing more and therefore materialist philosophy is suited best for everyone, well . . .

I know for a fact there is something more. Thirty years of meditation has not been to torture myself, but because it has been so rewarding to do so. You can sit on the sidelines, having never practiced to that extent, and pooh pooh it, call it narcissistic, say it reveals nothing (because, after all, there is nothing more is there?), but in the end you really don't know what such a dedicated inner effort reveals do you?

You could study the Buddha in depth or Meister Eckhart, or Rumi, or Kabir, or Teresa, or the Baal Shem Tov, or Nanak, or Joshu, or the Desert Fathers, or the early Greek Orthodox monastics . . . and then you might actually gain just an inkling of what they'd managed to learn to experience after many years of dedicated practice.

But no, you won't do that. Yet you and the rest of the self-assured materialists still have no qualms about stating in a public forum, in front of the entire world, that ""Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does."

I renew my complaint about half-assed educations.

Fliption

Aug9-03, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Oh, I understand other views just fine...I just cannotaccept most of them. Alot of people see that as a flaw; I see it as the only logical way to be. All viewpoints are not equal. I weigh viewpoints by their logic, and by how much the agree with the evidence. I don't take into consideration how it makes people feel, or whether society will suffer, or base my life on 'what if' questions that have answers created by my psychological needs.
If that sometimes comes off as insulting, I am sorry.

Yes I understand that is your position. I have nothing against it. What I meant was that many times when good points are made you either completely ignore them or you misunderstand them and respond with the same general refutations. This is my biggest beef. I cannot tell you how many times you have responded to me when it was obvious that you didn't understand what my point was. I can take some fault for that but sometimes it isn't all that difficult. It just seems as if you aren't taking the time or the care to be sure you understand before you're whipping out your general 2 sentence response.

Zero

Aug9-03, 08:26 PM

Ok, here's something else I have a problem with: claims that only some sort of special experience can lead to 'truth'. That is something us materialists like about empirical data; EVERYONE can share in it, and it can be displayed whether you believe in it or not. The flaw, at least for some IMO, is that empirical data doesn't make anyone special. The only work you have to do is library work, and you can know about the material universe. You can't claim special enlightenment, or to be in touch with magical forces. Actually, science is the opposite of special experience, something that I'm sure bothers the priests and gurus.

Zero

Aug9-03, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I see you didn't quite make it to my third objection "half -assed education." Which is a rude objection, and probably should be ignored.

I have NEVER in any post at this or the old PF even slightly suggested "Psychics, soothsayers, Astrologers, Magicians, Tea leaf readers, psychic healers, dooms day predicters, religions of every form" are qualified to represent those who've seriously undertaken the inward search. I have, in fact, consistantly stated I do not believe anything supernatural is possible, including whatever it is people have referred to as "God." Based on how the universe seems to work, either it is natural or it isn't real. I say that your mindset is the same as the 'psychics, soothsayers, etc'.

But this statement, "Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does" is just plain wrong. You are doing just what I have complained about, studied only that which supports your belief system.

The correct statement would be, "no other investigative method produces useful results for understanding the material universe than empiricism." That you only find material processes useful is your thing, but to a lot of others inner contentment, happiness, wisdom mean more . . . to some of us, a hell of a lot more. Inner contentment, happiness, and wisdom have to come from somewhere besides human psychology, based on biological evolution? Could you explain further, especially since all of those things are subjective, and therefore cannot be said to have a single source for everyone.

Materials, and understanding their physical laws, have contributed very little to my contentment, happiness, and wisdom, and I am pretty well off materially and understand the physical side of things better than most people. Again, understanding human psychology takes care of this nicely.
Now if all YOU value is materiality, and all YOU want is that, and all YOU pursue is matter, and all YOU study is how to understand, manipulate, and acquire it, then of course you might arrive at the conclusion that "Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does" because that's all you care about. And that would be a correct statement, of course. 'Useful' being a word used in place of 'practical', I'm sure.

But to project your personal tastes and preferences onto the entire universe, and then suggest to those who want something more that there is nothing more and therefore materialist philosophy is suited best for everyone, well . . . That is you projecting your bias on us, buddy! The point of materialism is that we accept what can be observed empirically, and leave the rest alone. It is the non-materialists who 'look inside. look deep', and then claim to have special knowledge of the universe. Now, if you claimed to have special knowledge of yourself, I would believe it 150%, since that is the only think you can really study though meditation.

I know for a fact there is something more. This statement seems to be the exact opposite of what you mean, isn't it? You know for a 'fact'?? I think you mean you have an emotional certainty, don't you?Thirty years of meditation has not been to torture myself, but because it has been so rewarding to do so. You can sit on the sidelines, having never practiced to that extent, and pooh pooh it, call it narcissistic, say it reveals nothing (because, after all, there is nothing more is there?), but in the end you really don't know what such a dedicated inner effort reveals do you? Yep, an inner effort yields inner knowledge.

[/quote]You could study the Buddha in depth or Meister Eckhart, or Rumi, or Kabir, or Teresa, or the Baal Shem Tov, or Nanak, or Joshu, or the Desert Fathers, or the early Greek Orthodox monastics . . . and then you might actually gain just an inkling of what they'd managed to learn to experience after many years of dedicated practice.[/quote] They experienced themselves, and lots of it.

But no, you won't do that. Yet you and the rest of the self-assured materialists still have no qualms about stating in a public forum, in front of the entire world, that ""Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does." How can looking at your belly button give you any knowledge besides the geography of your navel?

I renew my complaint about half-assed educations. I'll bet you say that to all the guys...

Zero

Aug9-03, 08:59 PM

*braces for new round of being called close-minded*

Another God

Aug9-03, 09:35 PM

I did address the third complaint in my original post that was lost, but didn't feel like bothering to reply in my post take 2, because well, admittedly now, I didn't understand it quite the way you meant it, and on that fact, I thought it was not a point worth discussing.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
But this statement, "Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does" is just plain wrong. You are doing just what I have complained about, studied only that which supports your belief system.

The correct statement would be, "no other investigative method produces useful results for understanding the material universe than empiricism." That you only find material processes useful is your thing, but to a lot of others inner contentment, happiness, wisdom mean more . . . to some of us, a hell of a lot more.

Materials, and understanding their physical laws, have contributed very little to my contentment, happiness, and wisdom, and I am pretty well off materially and understand the physical side of things better than most people. Now if all YOU value is materiality, and all YOU want is that, and all YOU pursue is matter, and all YOU study is how to understand, manipulate, and acquire it, then of course you might arrive at the conclusion that "Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does" because that's all you care about.
Perhaps you don't understand how my beliefs work. I don't deny happiness, I don't deny wisdom, or contentment...I do not deny the psychich phenomena (psychic as in psychological), in fact it is the first and foremost thing that I am/have. Everything that exists, after the fact of its existance, is experienced from the psychie. The psychie exists. Thats what I am. I am a psychological phenomenon. So are 'you' and so is zero. The difference between me and al of the idealists out there though, is the fact that I am like galileo and they are like the church. Where they could only see the universe from the perspective of the earth, and so claimed that it must have been the center, Galileo saw that perspective does not dictate fact. Just because our perspective is a psychic perspective does not mean that psychic is all there is, nor that psychie is the origin of the universe. Instead, we have to look outside our perspective and understand that the universe exists without us, exists in its own right, and it is because of its existence that this psychological phenomena may have come about.

There is a good chance that we will never be able to figure out how Objective facts are translated into experiences, but I'll guarantee that we will be able to figure out how Objective facts of the brain etc, are correlated to the mental phenomenon. And as such, we will be able to control many aspects of experience, life, and all the rest.

It's not because I say that "Material*" is all that exists, but more importantly: Material* is all that exists in an absolute sense, which gives rise to all of these phenomenon which make life rich and interesting. I don't deny the phenomenon, but instead accept, and explain them. Idealists and various other philosophies just accept them and claim higher idealic ground for those phenomenon, claiming they are 'special' and can never be explained. How arrogant. To think that an experience of a human is above the objective nature of everything else in the universe.

(* Where material is expressing of the existence understood by the philosophical definition of Materialism)

But to project your personal tastes and preferences onto the entire universe, and then suggest to those who want something more that there is nothing more and therefore materialist philosophy is suited best for everyone, well . . . Materialism is Precisely the opposite of projecting personal tastes and preferences. It is the absolute removal of personal tastes and preferences (well, the attempt to, as best we can), and the expressing of what is left over. And then, it is claimed that this is how the universe IS, whether people like it or not. Materialism isn't about what people like, or what they want to believe, or what sounds good, or nice, or pleasant. It is about how things ARE. It isn't about telling you how u are supposed to experience it, or how you are supposed to reach contentment or anything like that. It is only about objective description of how things are.

I think this is vitally important to know if you are ever going to meaningfully decide what you 'should' do. For without a solid understanding of how things are, your decision of should starts from something unknown, and so you have no standard on which to judge it.

I know for a fact there is something more. Thirty years of meditation has not been to torture myself, but because it has been so rewarding to do so. You can sit on the sidelines, having never practiced to that extent, and pooh pooh it, call it narcissistic, say it reveals nothing (because, after all, there is nothing more is there?), but in the end you really don't know what such a dedicated inner effort reveals do you?I like meditation. I believe mediation is a great thing to use to access your mind, to calm the noise that accumulates in your mind, a great way to let you rmind sort itself out etc... I have nothing but praise for meditation. But that doesn't change the fact that I can look at meditation from both a subjective and a materialistic point of view. In fact, being able to look at it from both points of view, in my opinion, gives me a greater understanding of it than someone who says simply: Oh, its something from within the mind, and that makes it special.

Here's a bit of an analogy for you. In biology there are phenotypes and genotypes. We have always dealt with phenotypes in the past (because they are obvious), and throuhg phenotypes much has been speculated, including evolutionary relatedness etc. Now that we have Molecular Biology technology, we can sequence the Genome,we can comment on the genome relatedness, we can look at individual gene relatedness etc. We are now able to do both phenotypic analysis and genotypic analysis. And for this fact, we are in a better position to claim understanding. The genotypic level is a much better level to use (Because of its digital nature, the definant yes no aspect of it, and the definate logical connections made between it and phenotype), but that doesn't stop the phenotype level from existing.

So too with the objective universe and the subjective experience of that universe. Just because we are starting to understand the objective, doesn't mean we deny the subjective, it just means we are starting to understand the cause of the subjective.

You could study the Buddha in depth or Meister Eckhart, or Rumi, or Kabir, or Teresa, or the Baal Shem Tov, or Nanak, or Joshu, or the Desert Fathers, or the early Greek Orthodox monastics . . . and then you might actually gain just an inkling of what they'd managed to learn to experience after many years of dedicated practice.

But no, you won't do that. Yet you and the rest of the self-assured materialists still have no qualms about stating in a public forum, in front of the entire world, that ""Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does."

I renew my complaint about half-assed educations. I won't go study Bhudda etc, not because of materialism, but because I simply have other things to do with my time which I believe are more important. I really don't appreciate the way you have assumed so much about 'Us materialists' based on your straw man cariacture of materialsm.

I stand by my claim that Materialism produces consistency and useful results. I will take back the 'And nothing else does' part, because I do accept that having someone internally content is important, and 'useful' for various reasons. But having someone internally (psychologically) content/happy/wise, is of little impact on the objective reality of the universe. And that is all materialism is really concerned with. The truth.

Another God

Aug9-03, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Zero
This statement seems to be the exact opposite of what you mean, isn't it? You know for a 'fact'?? I think you mean you have an emotional certainty, don't you?Agreed.

Yep, an inner effort yields inner knowledge.Agreed.

They experienced themselves, and lots of it.

How can looking at your belly button give you any knowledge besides the geography of your navel?
Agreed and agreed.

The point of our posts combined ( i think) is that Materialism is the only way of finding 'THE TRUTH', the one, the only, the absolute unique OBJECTIVE truth, because that is what it concerns itself with.

Above and beyond the Objective truth, subjective truths may exist (as a consequence of THE OBJECTIVE), and materialism may not be able to tell each of us what to think, or how to think etc, but thats fine...Materialism is the puruit of THE ACTUAL truth. Not personal truth.

The great thing about knowing 'The Truth' is that it is foreseeable that one day, from the objective knowledge we will gain, it will be possible to not only predict what people are thinking, but also be able to control it. Where will the idealists and pure introspects be then? I think they will all quickly be converted (by choice, or by force [9)])

I am not denying the existence of personal truths...i am just denying that they need to have any bearing on the truth, or that their 'truth' is even anything special. Its just an opinion, a preference, an emotion.

Zero

Aug9-03, 09:59 PM

I don't like using the word 'truth', AG, because it in itself sort of defies the skepticism that I feel underscores the reak search for knowledge. I fully believe in being open to new ideas, after all, but I also feel that we need to compare those ideas to what we already know, and see which fits better into the overall objective knowledge.
As far as 'personal truth', I belive that is exists, and that it is personal, and exists in the way that my likes and dislikes exist. I can say 'peas are bad', and it is true for me, but it has no effect on the objective existance of peas. You may like them, but my dislike doesn't make the peas any different.

Another God

Aug9-03, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I don't like using the word 'truth', AG, because it in itself sort of defies the skepticism that I feel underscores the reak search for knowledge. Yeah, i do agree with this, but I have spent enough time looking into this stuff now, that I have sort of self-defined a lot of stuff to make a shorthand.

Really, I don't think Science/humans will ever find The Truth, because we are subjective creatures, and The Truth is Objective. But because of that fact, I have decided to just acknowledge that, and use the word 'Truth' as meaning "Accepted by humans for the moment because denying it just isn't reasonable".

I do think of science in a pepperian sense: Temporary acceptance of postulates until they are shown to be wrong/incomplete. And so, of course we can't ever know the truth under that model.

Zero

Aug9-03, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Another God
Yeah, i do agree with this, but I have spent enough time looking into this stuff now, that I have sort of self-defined a lot of stuff to make a shorthand.

Really, I don't think Science/humans will ever find The Truth, because we are subjective creatures, and The Truth is Objective. But because of that fact, I have decided to just acknowledge that, and use the word 'Truth' as meaning "Accepted by humans for the moment because denying it just isn't reasonable".

I do think of science in a pepperian sense: Temporary acceptance of postulates until they are shown to be wrong/incomplete. And so, of course we can't ever know the truth under that model.

I can agree with this, thanks for the clarification.

Les Sleeth

Aug9-03, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Ok, here's something else I have a problem with: claims that only some sort of special experience can lead to 'truth'. That is something us materialists like about empirical data; EVERYONE can share in it, and it can be displayed whether you believe in it or not. The flaw, at least for some IMO, is that empirical data doesn't make anyone special. The only work you have to do is library work, and you can know about the material universe. You can't claim special enlightenment, or to be in touch with magical forces. Actually, science is the opposite of special experience, something that I'm sure bothers the priests and gurus.

I can appreciate your concern . . . it seems sincere. You are correct about empirical data of course; in fact, an important part of the empirical standard is to make claims demonstrable. You are not alone in liking that, I think most intelligent people know one can trust anything genuinely confirmed by science, and so it becomes the first place searched to get the facts about something.

But it seems to me you have several very distinct issues all mushed together into one big messy pile. There is the physical world, which science exposes; there are (and from your perspective, “may be”) people who have legitimately developed some inner experience; and there are people who pretend to have “special” knowledge or experience, but who really are just either deluded or deceitful.

We can easily agree to discount the deluded and deceitful, so let’s consider the possibility of someone who might legitimately develop an inner experience.

You seem to imply by saying “You can't claim special enlightenment, or to be in touch with magical forces,” that because there are people who go around representing themselves as having special knowledge (like a couple of eccentrics at this site) that one cannot develop consciousness in any way but along intellectual lines.

But the delirious rantings, visions, prophesies, nonsense wisdom, and imagined pronouncements of spiritual clowns who do their best to garner attention do NOT represent how the best and most dedicated inner practitioners have behaved. You are unfairly concluding that because of them, all such efforts are bogus, and that is not true. This is what I mean when I say most materialists are half educated. There is an entirely different variety of inner practitioner than the pretenders.

At the old PF, there was this guy who posted several new threads every (or so it seemed) day. I forget his name, but he boldly posited new theories on every aspect of science. Once he responded, after some of the more serious science types suggested he was a crackpot, that he was “like Einstein,” except not quite as versed in physics (or something like that). Now, do you think he’d be justified getting upset at being expected to do his homework before claiming to be a science genius? Is it elitist for people who’ve studied and worked their butts off to learn science, to tell him he does not really comprehend physics, and needs to study to understand? And if this guy were to go to some planet who never heard of science, and represent himself as an expert, and if the planet came to judge the value of science based on his behavior, would they have an accurate picture of what science is capable of?

There, in that situation, I am sure you can clearly see knowledge does not come without work. Well, the same goes for the inner expert. Those claims by individuals that they’ve seen the “truth” in a flash, and now are enlightened, they are very strongly disputed by the history of past experts who to a person worked their tails off, often for most of their lives, to attain it. And so what if you can’t have it without work? If you don’t want to work for it, that’s perfectly fine, but it doesn’t mean there aren’t those who have done the work and now are capable of seeing something you can’t because you chose not to pursue it. That does not make them elitist or special, just skilled.

Zero

Aug9-03, 10:34 PM

Les, I understand your position, I think. I would still say that your inner truth, while valid for you, makes little difference to the rest of us, except in the perfectly possible instance where you figure out something about the himan condition.

Another God

Aug9-03, 10:50 PM

there are (and from your perspective, “may be”) people who have legitimately developed some inner experience;I didn't get what the value of this inner experience was...?

We all have inner experience. It is who we are. Without inner experience, without subjectivity, there isno perception of a self. Even the materialist, seeking out the Objective that exists, is stuck with only their inner experience. They just try to keep their inner experience in a nicely defined region, so as to not let it contaminate their collected data on the 'Objective' that they are trying to understand.

But of course, once they have this datam, their inner self runs rampant with it. Everything we do is inner.

Hmmm... am I wrong in thinking that the difference here, is that the people you are talking about Les, are the people who try to keep their empirical data in a nicely defined region, so as to not contaminate their inner experience?

Does that seem like a nice summary of the two contrasting regions?
A: Materialists to keep their inner experience in a nicely defined region, so as to not let it contaminate their collected data on the 'Objective'.
[b]B[/]: Idealists to keep their empirical data in a nicely defined region, so as to not let it contaminate their inner experience.

But even I do the second option. When I try to understand certain aspects of certain things. Things like "How is my subjectivity created?" and "How is the universe here/where did it come from/whatever way you want to phrase the question". Those sorts of questions, I sometimes consider them by removing all empirical knowledge, so that I can get that particular angle on the subject.

Les Sleeth

Aug9-03, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Les, I understand your position, I think. I would still say that your inner truth, while valid for you, makes little difference to the rest of us, except in the perfectly possible instance where you figure out something about the himan condition.

It is totally, radically, intensely personal . . . it makes no difference to anyone but me. I love it -- what you love is your business.

If you knew me, and suspected it brought contentment, happiness and wisdom to my life, and if you asked me if I recommend it for those reasons alone, I would say yes. Otherwise, I would not think it appropriate to go so far as to recommend it without being asked, or at least sensing your interest.

Zero

Aug9-03, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It is totally, radically, intensely personal . . . it makes no difference to anyone but me. I love it -- what you love is your business.

If you knew me, and suspected it brought contentment, happiness and wisdom to my life, and if you asked me if I recommend it for those reasons alone, I would say yes. Otherwise, I would not think it appropriate to go so far as to recommend it without being asked, or at least sensing your interest. Whatever works for you...I am happy, content, and (dare I say?) wise without beliving in things that can't be measured. To each his own, I suppose.

Les Sleeth

Aug9-03, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Another God
I didn't get what the value of this inner experience was...?

We all have inner experience. It is who we are. Without inner experience, without subjectivity, there isno perception of a self. Even the materialist, seeking out the Objective that exists, is stuck with only their inner experience. They just try to keep their inner experience in a nicely defined region, so as to not let it contaminate their collected data on the 'Objective' that they are trying to understand.

But of course, once they have this datam, their inner self runs rampant with it. Everything we do is inner.

Hmmm... am I wrong in thinking that the difference here, is that the people you are talking about Les, are the people who try to keep their empirical data in a nicely defined region, so as to not contaminate their inner experience?

Does that seem like a nice summary of the two contrasting regions?
[b]A: Materialists to keep their inner experience in a nicely defined region, so as to not let it contaminate their collected data on the 'Objective'.
B[/]: Idealists to keep their empirical data in a nicely defined region, so as to not let it contaminate their inner experience.

But even I do the second option. When I try to understand certain aspects of certain things. Things like "How is my subjectivity created?" and "How is the universe here/where did it come from/whatever way you want to phrase the question". Those sorts of questions, I sometimes consider them by removing all empirical knowledge, so that I can get that particular angle on the subject.

AG . . . the problem is you are underestimating the inner thing I am talking about. You are not going to comprehend it so leisurely. I have been at it 30 years, both as a pratitioner and as a scholar, and I still consider myself a student. But then maybe I am just dimwitted and that's the problem.

You have the objective part nicely figured out, and as far as "normal" subjectivity, you seem on target there too. I am talking about certain individuals who found a way to develop subjectivity in an entirely different way than you would ever have heard of unless you take the time to investigate it. One of the most famous people for this, and someone the least contaminated by religious hyperbole, is the Buddha. But there are lots more too.

My only point really is not to make you interested in or convinced of anything, but rather to try to get you to be more careful with your statements about what sorts of consciousness disciplines have been effective. If you are unaware of an entire realm of consciosness development, then how can you speak so assertively about science and material philosophy being the only effective avenues to knowledge?

Zero

Aug10-03, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
AG . . . the problem is you are underestimating the inner thing I am talking about. You are not going to comprehend it so leisurely. I have been at it 30 years, both as a pratitioner and as a scholar, and I still consider myself a student. But then maybe I am just dimwitted and that's the problem.

You have the objective part nicely figured out, and as far as "normal" subjectivity, you seem on target there too. I am talking about certain individuals who found a way to develop subjectivity in an entirely different way than you would ever have heard of unless you take the time to investigate it. One of the most famous people for this, and someone the least contaminated by religious hyperbole, is the Buddha. But there are lots more too.

My only point really is not to make you interested in or convinced of anything, but rather to try to get you to be more careful with your statements about what sorts of consciousness disciplines have been effective. If you are unaware of an entire realm of consciosness development, then how can you speak so assertively about science and material philosophy being the only effective avenues to knowledge?

Can you site any objective evidences of these approaches showing some sort of measurable insight? Or is it just the general wisdom of anyone with some common sense, with or without spending 10 years eating treebark and sleeping in a cave?

Pyrite

Aug10-03, 01:39 AM

Personally, I've found myself situated right smack dab in the middle, between Materialism and Idealism. I think that many here are saying that all Materialists believe that only material things exist. this is not true, or so i gather from Zero and Another God's posts. What i think they are saying, and what i am saying, is that we cannot state, as a fact, what is or is not real. And we cannot assume that something is real. We also cannot assume that it is not.

I agree with Zero's post that meditation can help you find things about yourself.

I further go on to say (without interpreting anything from them) that in my opinion, nothing can ever be proven to be real, and it might not matter anyway. What is most important is finding out what does matter. for me, and many others, it is hapiness. there are many ways this can be achieved, and it also seems that it cannot last forever, for without the lack of it, there would be nothing to give it definition. but if it turns out that there is something more to it, (gods will, understanding, Kharma, whatever) then that is what we need to strive to achieve. This exists completely seperate from, as Zero put it, "The way things are."

Once we have figured out the meaning to our life, knowing how the universe works may help us achieve it. or not. It may be that understanding the universe will not allow us to be happy. (or insert whatever other meaning of life here.) but it also may be that it helps us in a great way. but we cannot know, and I am unwilling to assume.

Zero

Aug10-03, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by Pyrite
Personally, I've found myself situated right smack dab in the middle, between Materialism and Idealism. I think that many here are saying that all Materialists believe that only material things exist. this is not true, or so i gather from Zero and Another God's posts. What i think they are saying, and what i am saying, is that we cannot state, as a fact, what is or is not real. And we cannot assume that something is real. We also cannot assume that it is not.

I agree with Zero's post that meditation can help you find things about yourself.

I further go on to say (without interpreting anything from them) that in my opinion, nothing can ever be proven to be real, and it might not matter anyway. What is most important is finding out what does matter. for me, and many others, it is hapiness. there are many ways this can be achieved, and it also seems that it cannot last forever, for without the lack of it, there would be nothing to give it definition. but if it turns out that there is something more to it, (gods will, understanding, Kharma, whatever) then that is what we need to strive to achieve. This exists completely seperate from, as Zero put it, "The way things are."

Once we have figured out the meaning to our life, knowing how the universe works may help us achieve it. or not. It may be that understanding the universe will not allow us to be happy. (or insert whatever other meaning of life here.) but it also may be that it helps us in a great way. but we cannot know, and I am unwilling to assume.

I think I can 9reservedly) support the viewpoint of this post. While I am all for looking into possibilities, the only things I can feel confident about are those which have some sort of empirical data to support them. "The way things are" is very important to me, and to suggest changing them based on wishful thinking on the way "things should be", to me is a dangerous viewpoint.

Another God

Aug10-03, 02:16 AM

Les, we seem to have covered each of our understanding of the universe etc a little better now, do you wish to go back to the ethics thread, and see if we can sort something out there?
(PS: if you want a greater insight into my view of ethics, then two great threads have just been discussed through by myself, Russ and a couple of others. Check them out too if you are interested. (Is it wrong to kill, and the Where is morality going))

Another God

Aug10-03, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by Zero
"The way things are" is very important to me, and to suggest changing them based on wishful thinking on the way "things should be", to me is a dangerous viewpoint. This is interesting, and is possibly worth a whole new thread on its own actually (depending on what you actually mean).

Obviously, there are certain things which 'are the way they are' and we can't really change them, but we can subjectively pretend they aren't they way (which obviously, both you and I are against). But then there are things, that 'are the way they are' because some people believe that they should be that way, and so it has come to pass that they are. (Ethics, laws, social structure, language etc) Are you opposed to changing them to the way 'they should be'? (immplying of course, that someone has a new better concept of how things should be, over what the person in history believed it should be)

Zero, did you participate on those two ethics threads I just mentioned (I have forgotten already!!! [g)])?

Do you think there is a 'Should' at all? And how do you think of it?

Zero

Aug10-03, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by Another God
This is interesting, and is possibly worth a whole new thread on its own actually (depending on what you actually mean).

Obviously, there are certain things which 'are the way they are' and we can't really change them, but we can subjectively pretend they aren't they way (which obviously, both you and I are against). But then there are things, that 'are the way they are' because some people believe that they should be that way, and so it has come to pass that they are. (Ethics, laws, social structure, language etc) Are you opposed to changing them to the way 'they should be'? (immplying of course, that someone has a new better concept of how things should be, over what the person in history believed it should be)

Zero, did you participate on those two ethics threads I just mentioned (I have forgotten already!!! [g)])?

Do you think there is a 'Should' at all? And how do you think of it?
Well, I try to isolate 'should' from 'is', if that makes any sense? Because 'should' arguments lead to alot of the strawmen we've seen in this thread so far, and many others that aren't specific to this thread. For instance 'materialism leads to amorality' or 'evolution is a racist idea'. I feel that the 'facts' lead to what they lead to, regardless of social problems that may arise. In fact, I believe(pure faith on my part!) that a more materialist viewpoint is socially positive, in that it beings us all to a consistant understanding of reality, and leaves little room for religious-type strife.

As far as ethics, well...that is a debate better left in the other threads, in which I have lurked more than posted, not because I don't have a deep level of ethics, but because I find it surpremely difficult to articulate those thoughts. I have a certain reputation outside PF for almost a 'religious' sense of ethics, but that is neither here nor there.

rocket art

Aug10-03, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by heusdens
Selfishness and greed have nothing to do with philosophical materialism.

Materialism does not claim that matter only exists in visible form, and the exploration of nature through science is proof of that.
Nobody has "seen" electrons or protons or magnetic fields and such.

What mystery and essence are you speaking of here, please reveal us that mystic concept of your thought so we can explore that "truth". [QUOTE]Originally posted by heusdens

For an inidividual to insist on materialism as the only path, I believe it is inevitable for such individual to succumb to greed and selfishness, for other than the abstract concepts of morality or values, that is the only thing he sees for survival.

For an individual to insist that only materialism is the practical path to "truth", already is a subjective bias to materialism.

When I refer to "seen", figuratively I included those that can be analysed, electrons or protons, although in quantum mechanics it even shows the capability of even a mere "observer" to affect subparticles, and the inevitability when attempting to define one part, the other part hides(position, momentum).

If I define the concept of mystery or essence for others, then they cease to become what they are. Preferably let it be exploredwith subjective approach (not subjective definition) by each individual. Even when they were neither revealed by analysis or definition, or even when its abstract concept may only be felt, but then it inevitably is present in the reality that human beings experience.

Consider then such concepts as mystery, whether the undefinable, as part of the big picture of Truth. To deny itwill render such "Truth" incomplete, and to insist that this incompleteness is what truth is merely because it was analyzed or explored or defined, then it may become a lie.

To find real truth, we may as well explore freedom. Matter sets boundaries. Materialism may be a tool, but to insitutionalise it would render humanity to boundaries and lack of freedom.

Zero

Aug10-03, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by rocket art
[QUOTE]Originally posted by heusdens

For an inidividual to insist on materialism as the only path, I believe it is inevitable for such individual to succumb to greed and selfishness, for other than the abstract concepts of morality or values, that is the only thing he sees for survival.

Good for you...that is why only us higher-types can handle being materialists!![6)]

Les Sleeth

Aug10-03, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Can you site any objective evidences of these approaches showing some sort of measurable insight? Or is it just the general wisdom of anyone with some common sense, with or without spending 10 years eating treebark and sleeping in a cave?

I went through this at the old PF with DT Strain where no matter how many different ways I put it, he never seemed to hear what I was saying. I say that because if you only knew how much this statement -- "Can you site any objective evidences of these approaches showing some sort of measurable insight?" -- does not make sense.

In another post I said that the standards for knowing (and evaluating) the material world and the inner world are very different. An objectifying method is totally appropriate for studying objects. But how are you going to apply an objective research method to something that is not an object, and can only be experienced inside a person? The best you might do is notice someone's body and brain waves are running calmer, but then you will miss what people are really doing because that part of the inner experience does not register on anything (as far as I know).

What you are doing is applying your intellect to this, and the intellect doesn't work with it. It has absolutely nothing to do with thinking and intellectual understanding. What it does have to do with is . . . hmmmmmm, finding a term that won't be misinterpreted . . . let's call it sensitivity.

It is possible to learn to become very still, so still one’s mind is utterly quiet. Achieving that alone can take years, but that’s just the beginning. In that silence and stillness one can, if one feels and listens “inward,” detect an inner brightness and pulse which does not seem physical. If one can follow it without disturbing it in any way (another skill that takes a lot of practice), something can happen which traditionally has been called union in the West, or samadhi in the East. It is a sort of merging of consciousness with that bright pulse, and once merged one experiences something very lovely indeed. The merging only lasts a short while, especially at first, but with practice one can stay with it for longer and longer periods.

I absolutely love it, am addicted to it, and look forward to it every morning first thing. The effects aren’t just during actual union; afterwards everything seems so clear, and I feel happy and content inside. (Now, that’s practical don’t you think? Think how much insanity goes on because people are discontent and unhappy.) Also, and this is how I think it contributes to wisdom, the experience unifies consciousness so that one becomes acutely aware of the “whole” view of reality. When I debate here, I am always relying on that view to help me think about the various “parts” of reality we all discuss. Having that contrast is invaluable to me.

Now imagine practing union for decades, feeling that day after day, until some part of you becomes convinced of certain things from what that experience has shown you. How are you going to “prove” it to others? It is impossible, and so I would never try. What I will do however, is point to the long and distinquished history of it, and how some of the worlds most esteemed people have recommended it.

So when you and others say “there is no effective system for acquiring knowledge than an objective method,” I have to dispute that. That may be all you know about, and maybe all you care about. But I know for a fact that there is a subjective method, practiced in a VERY precise way, which is every bit as rigorous as sound objectivity is, and that produces significant results with one’s own consciousness. If you opt to ignore it and it’s long history, choosing instead to participate only in material study, then you will certainly become informed about material processes won’t you? But you will know nothing about union and its benefits, and therefore ethically [:D] should refrain from blanket statements about inner practices, as well as claiming material study is the only effective kind of study.

heusdens

Aug10-03, 10:35 AM

LW Sweeth:

Please tell me what is the use of finding "truth" in staring at one's navel for years..

What good is it? What will it solve?

Zero

Aug10-03, 10:37 AM

But does it DO anything? Are you claiming it does anything? Apparently you are only making the claim that it makes you feel happy and whatnot, right?!?

Iacchus32

Aug10-03, 01:10 PM

Well you guys, you can't judge a book by its cover -- which, is exactly what you're doing. Hmm ... Is this all that materialism has to offer? ... A superficial "exterior" explanation to things?

I'm afraid if you want to find anything deep, you're going to have to "go inside." [;)]
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." (Matthew 6:5-6).

Zero

Aug10-03, 01:19 PM

Bring us back some sort of proof that there is an 'inside', and get back to us![;)]

Fliption

Aug10-03, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Zero
But does it DO anything? Are you claiming it does anything? Apparently you are only making the claim that it makes you feel happy and whatnot, right?!?

I've watched this discussion go on. Let me add a few words to see if I can muck it up good[:)]. Actually I would like to tie what AG, Zero and LWS have been saying together.

AG has recognized that all experience is subjective. Even our experience of the objective is subjective. He claims this to be a reason why we may never know the complete truth. If we think about our own conscious experience we all know that it is not perfect because some days things just look different than other days. That's part of being human. So we try to objectify things by verifying results in multiple subjective experiences. IOW, we have other people make the same inquiries. So in a way we can think of our subjective nature as a filter of objective reality. And as AG said, we try to control it so that it doesn't interfere with our gaining knowledge of the objective world.

Now I will risk making Les gringe. [:)] I will admit I know practically nothing compared to Les on this experience that he speaks of so my point here will be completely intellectual to try to connect with the opponents of it. If you don't agree Les, please say so.

We all know that consciousness has many levels ranging from deep sleep all the way to running for your life. The higher the level of conscious, the more accurate the subjective view of the objective world is likely to be. I hope we all can agree on that. When you're asleep and dreaming, many times you don't even know your asleep and dreaming. WHAT IF..... the experience that Les is speaking of is a way to tap into the "reality" of a higher level of consciousness? It does not give him any answers. It doesn't "do anything" as Zero put it. It only allows him to remove more of the filter and see more clearly objective reality. So perhaps he has an even better view into "the way things are"! Science is currently trying to understand consciousness. Is there any evidence to suggest that 1 million years from now, evolution wouldn't provide for an even higher level of consciouness? Perhaps this is why it is so difficult for us ape-like [:)] creatures to reach this level? Our brains are not fully developed for it yet. The problem then is that we cannot objectify this clear view of reality because no one who would be in a position to objectfy it is willing to consider it as a possibility. Tsk tsk.

Sometimes I think like this... Imagine you exists before life ever happened, witnessing everything around you in nature. Could you have ever imagined of such a thing as consciousness? Forget about the obvious flaw that it would take conciousness for you to do this exercise(Don't miss the point). I could never have imagined of such a thing. So how can I be too sure what nature has in store in the next million years?

I don't think we even understand our current level of consciousness, let alone make any statements about anything higher. I do agree with Zero's approach, however. So it follows that all we can do is continue to study and explore consciouness and be open to the possibilities.

Bottom line: I think Les has a point. A being at a lower level of consciouness making statements about consciouness as a whole is like trying to hammer shingles on a roof from the basement.

A sleeping person can rant on about all kinds of irrational stuff until they "wake up" and then they realize how foolish they were. Makes sense that this same thing could happen at any level of consciouness.

Iacchus32

Aug10-03, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Bring us back some sort of proof that there is an 'inside', and get back to us![;)] So where does the "depth" of meaning come from anyway? If not through "our soul?" And how does one develop "depth in character" if one relies exclusively on the edicts of science? ... i.e., an "external" answer which, for all intents and purposes has no meaning (according to science anyway).

Maybe you're just too lazy? [;)]

Les Sleeth

Aug10-03, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
Please tell me what is the use of finding "truth" in staring at one's navel for years..

[:(] I did not say one stares at one's navel.

If you read my last post, you should be able to understand why it bothers me to have people speak inaccurately and carelessly about what a serious inner practice really is. If I came to PF and acted goofy, made claims about being enlightened, argued in favor of supernaturalism, prophesied, etc., then I could understand being lumped in with those who do. But I participate here as a philosopher, not a bodhisattva or guru or sage or prophet or anyone else who’s supposed to be spiritually accomplished. And I dare say I hold my own when it comes to logic and reason and citing supporting evidence.

I am really quite conservative when it comes to calling something the “truth.” I only believe what I experience, and even after all the years of inner experience, I am not sure what it is (I do have some pretty strong opinions). I know I like it, and I believe it has made me wiser. That last claim, that it has contributed wisdom, is because of gaining the ability to look at things with a quiet mind. Without one’s mind constantly going, it easier to see things without bias. Such stillness also, as I stated in my last post, accentuates the “wholeview.” That I find to be incredibly useful to understanding things.

But in the end, I just love the feeling of it, and I personally don’t need any other reason beyond that to practice.

Originally posted by heusdens
What good is it? What will it solve?

It is good for me, and it solves nothing. So what? We already have a wonderful tool for solving things, and that is science. What more does one need in the way of that kind of tool?

This is a tool for feeling good and seeing more clearly. One can love it and one can love science . . . there is absolutely no conflict unless, that is, you are determined to say only one is to be allowed. To me, that is exactly what a materialist does, and that is exactly what an idealist does. Both are precisely the same as far as I am concerned: biased. [;)]

Zero

Aug10-03, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Fliption

Bottom line: I think Les has a point. A being at a lower level of consciouness making statements about consciouness as a whole is like trying to hammer shingles on a roof from the basement.

A sleeping person can rant on about all kinds of irrational stuff until they "wake up" and then they realize how foolish they were. Makes sense that this same thing could happen at any level of consciouness. Not to ba a nag(ok, I'm being a nag), but you are making the assumption that there is a higher level than we are at now! It is like sitting in a basement, and trying to guess how many floors the building has...or more like sitting in a closed box, and speculating on whether or not there is anything outside of it at all.

Zero

Aug10-03, 01:59 PM

Zero

Aug10-03, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
[:(] I did not say one stares at one's navel.

If you read my last post, you should be able to understand why it bothers me to have people speak inaccurately and carelessly about what a serious inner practice really is. If I came to PF and acted goofy, made claims about being enlightened, argued in favor of supernaturalism, prophesied, etc., then I could understand being lumped in with those who do. But I participate here as a philosopher, not a bodhisattva or guru or sage or prophet or anyone else who’s supposed to be spiritually accomplished. And I dare say I hold my own when it comes to logic and reason and citing supporting evidence.

I am really quite conservative when it comes to calling something the “truth.” I only believe what I experience, and even after all the years of inner experience, I am not sure what it is (I do have some pretty strong opinions). I know I like it, and I believe it has made me wiser. That last claim, that it has contributed wisdom, is because of gaining the ability to look at things with a quiet mind. Without one’s mind constantly going, it easier to see things without bias. Such stillness also, as I stated in my last post, accentuates the “wholeview.” That I find to be incredibly useful to understanding things.

But in the end, I just love the feeling of it, and I personally don’t need any other reason beyond that to practice.

It is good for me, and it solves nothing. So what? We already have a wonderful tool for solving things, and that is science. What more does one need in the way of that kind of tool?

This is a tool for feeling good and seeing more clearly. One can love it and one can love science . . . there is absolutely no conflict unless, that is, you are determined to say only one is to be allowed. To me, that is exactly what a materialist does, and that is exactly what an idealist does. Both are precisely the same as far as I am concerned: biased. [;)]

Based solely on this post, I can't imagine me and you having any disagreement. I think introspection and 'quieting the mind' are perfectly valid things to do. No, you haven't made any claims as far as seeing things that aren't there, or whatever, and what benefit you gain from your meditations seems perfectly valid from where I'm sitting.

Zero

Aug10-03, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So where does the "depth" of meaning come from anyway? If not through "our soul?" And how does one develop "depth in character" if one relies exclusively on the edicts of science? ... i.e., an "external" answer which, for all intents and purposes has no meaning (according to science anyway).

Maybe you're just too lazy? [;)] Well...ok, on a second look, if all you are claiming is that you can develop yourself through meditation, that is fine by me...if you are claiming that you can get some sort of supernatural power from it, I'll have to draw the line there!

(BTW, the common, non-supernatural benefits of meditation fall well within materialism, IMO)

Fliption

Aug10-03, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
[:(] One can love it and one can love science . . . there is absolutely no conflict unless, that is, you are determined to say only one is to be allowed. To me, that is exactly what a materialist does, and that is exactly what an idealist does. Both are precisely the same as far as I am concerned: biased. [;)]

Linking to my last post, I would ask, if this will allow for a clearer, less biased view, then why wouldn't science want to explore it? It would be the perfect scientific tool! The perfect situation is that scientist performing science are actually experiencing it while they are working. Lol. Is this not useful? Or have I over-simplified it? I'm thinking higher level. I understand that no one scientists today could ever accomplish a perfect situation.

Iacchus32

Aug10-03, 02:11 PM

Yeah, what do you say we get our minds together and comtemplate on it! [;)]

Les Sleeth

Aug10-03, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Now I will risk making Les gringe. [:)] I will admit I know practically nothing compared to Les on this experience that he speaks of so my point here will be completely intellectual to try to connect with the opponents of it. If you don't agree Les, please say so.

We all know that consciousness has many levels ranging from deep sleep all the way to running for your life. The higher the level of conscious, the more accurate the subjective view of the objective world is likely to be. . . . WHAT IF..... the experience that Les is speaking of is a way to tap into the "reality" of a higher level of consciousness? It does not give him any answers. It doesn't "do anything" as Zero put it. It only allows him to remove more of the filter and see more clearly objective reality. So perhaps he has an even better view into "the way things are"!

Well said Fliption. I avoid the word "higher" so I don't make anyone think there is "lower," but essentially I do see a true inner practice as evolving one's consciousness. Hey, maybe with that the evolution process itself evolves!

And yes, I really do see it as removing filters in a sense because if you can look at things without your mind already going in a certain direction, then it is going to reflect more accurately.

Iacchus32

Aug10-03, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Well...ok, on a second look, if all you are claiming is that you can develop yourself through meditation, that is fine by me...if you are claiming that you can get some sort of supernatural power from it, I'll have to draw the line there!

(BTW, the common, non-supernatural benefits of meditation fall well within materialism, IMO) Yes, but if we do have such a capacity, why do we have this means at our disposal? And, why is it that for some reason, the whole thing has been handed down in the name of God? Both of which go back a long ways by the way ...

Therefore, why would it be so wrong to consider the possibility that this might be the means by which to make the "God connection?" It only seems like the "next logical" thing to do. [;)]

Les Sleeth

Aug10-03, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Based solely on this post, I can't imagine me and you having any disagreement. I think introspection and 'quieting the mind' are perfectly valid things to do. No, you haven't made any claims as far as seeing things that aren't there, or whatever, and what benefit you gain from your meditations seems perfectly valid from where I'm sitting.

Now that we've made up [:D] I hate risk spoiling it but I suppose I should be totally accurate.

When I said before that I still don't know what the inner experience is of, but that I have some strong opinions, I do feel this bright pulse I spoke of inside is not material or derived from materiality. I still do not know what it is except that it seems powerful, and gets me high when I am able to join with it.

I realize there are ways one could explain the experience by way of our physiology. Mine is just an impression, so it's not going to stand up in court even though it is an impression left from many years of practice. Yet I don't really care if I understand it thoroughly or not, it has been a unfailing friend whatever it is.

Fliption

Aug10-03, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Well said Fliption. I avoid the word "higher" so I don't make anyone think there is "lower," but essentially I do see a true inner practice as evolving one's consciousness. Hey, maybe with that the evolution process itself evolves!

And yes, I really do see it as removing filters in a sense because if you can look at things without your mind already going in a certain direction, then it is going to reflect more accurately.

yeah I cringed a bit on the word "higher" my self. Perhaps "more evolved" is better?

Zero

Aug10-03, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And, why is it that for some reason, the whole thing has been handed down in the name of God?

Because who would believe it if you told the truth, that it was handed down by your great-uncle Skip?

Iacchus32

Aug10-03, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Because who would believe it if you told the truth, that it was handed down by your great-uncle Skip? Yeah, a miraculous thing indeed, how the mind works! Whereas what would we be, without being conscious?

Thus when you realize it, and get right down to it, this all we really have. Hmm ... Maybe consciousness is the source of gravity? -- at least to "our beings" anyway.

Zero

Aug10-03, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yeah, a miraculous thing indeed, how the mind works! Whereas what would we be, without being conscious?

Thus when you realize it, and get right down to it, this all we really have. Hmm ... Maybe consciousness is the source of gravity? -- at least to "our beings" anyway. LOL, now you are just making stuff up!!

Iacchus32

Aug10-03, 04:26 PM

While I suppose meditation could just be a means by which to access the dopamine in the brain? In which case that would be the "natural" cause and effect of the whole thing now wouldn't it? [;)]

Hmm ... even so, maybe they could use meditation as a means to treat/prevent Parkinson's disease?

Pyrite

Aug10-03, 04:53 PM

So really the whole argument was just a misunderstanding. So many things end that way.

Of course, the Idea that any scientifically minded person on this thread is avoiding, (and that I suppose i can say without ridicule, since I don't necessarily believe in it.) is that it may infact be the human soul, and that what one percieves as "moving with the pulse" is actually connecting with it, which brings us closer to who we are.

(This is, of course, speculation. I don't plan on starting a new religion, despite the tax benifits.)

Iacchus32

Aug10-03, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Pyrite
Of course, the Idea that any scientifically minded person on this thread is avoiding, (and that I suppose i can say without ridicule, since I don't necessarily believe in it.) is that it may infact be the human soul, and that what one percieves as "moving with the pulse" is actually connecting with it, which brings us closer to who we are.Yes, and if science were somehow in its "speculative nature" of objectivity able to determine this, just think of all the recalculations that would have to be made! [;)]

Zero

Aug10-03, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Pyrite
So really the whole argument was just a misunderstanding. So many things end that way.

Of course, the Idea that any scientifically minded person on this thread is avoiding, (and that I suppose i can say without ridicule, since I don't necessarily believe in it.) is that it may infact be the human soul, and that what one percieves as "moving with the pulse" is actually connecting with it, which brings us closer to who we are.

(This is, of course, speculation. I don't plan on starting a new religion, despite the tax benifits.) We aren't avoiding it, we're still waiting for some sort of EVIDENCE!

You didn't read the whole thread, did you?

Pyrite

Aug10-03, 09:26 PM

this post was a mistake. sorry.

Zero

Aug10-03, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Pyrite
this post was a mistake. sorry. LOL

Pyrite

Aug10-03, 09:35 PM

I was posting in two forums, and i posted the one for the other forum here.

anyway, This is the second time i've worked so hard to read an entire thread just to be accused of having not read it. yes, I read all 10 pages. It took a half a day.

anyway... yeah.

We aren't avoiding it, we're still waiting for some sort of EVIDENCE!
this kind of statement is part of the bias against materialists. It's not just that you wont believe that which isn't proven to you, you don't even bother to discuss it. I noticed that not even the person writing about it had dared to say that this might be it (make no mistake, I am not saying that it is.)

Another God

Aug11-03, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
if this will allow for a clearer, less biased view, then why wouldn't science want to explore it? It would be the perfect scientific tool! The perfect situation is that scientist performing science are actually experiencing it while they are working. Lol. Is this not useful? Or have I over-simplified it? I'm thinking higher level. I understand that no one scientists today could ever accomplish a perfect situation. Science does explore meditation.

Part of my job in working in the UNSW Biomedical library, is photocopying articles for students studying off campus (honours, PHD sort of students). And one of those students is quite obviously studying the effects of meditation (or something), because each month I probably photocopy about 30 or 40 articles on Meditation. This has been happening for about 8 months now. There is TONS of research on Meditation.

But hmm...I think I have a contention with your earlier post... I'll come back to that when I have finished reading all of the posts.

Another God

Aug11-03, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
When I said before that I still don't know what the inner experience is of, but that I have some strong opinions, I do feel this bright pulse I spoke of inside is not material or derived from materiality. I still do not know what it is except that it seems powerful, and gets me high when I am able to join with it.

I realize there are ways one could explain the experience by way of our physiology. Mine is just an impression, so it's not going to stand up in court even though it is an impression left from many years of practice. Yet I don't really care if I understand it thoroughly or not, it has been a unfailing friend whatever it is. I respect you for having avoided saying it, and now expressing it as an 'opinion' etc, but I do just want to take this moment to observe that this is exactly the sort of thing that Zero and myself (as well sa many others) get annoyed at with the anti-materialists...

When they do something like what you do, and then go about claiming that this stands as proof of a soul. Or even evidence. This doesn't even stand as evidence in my mind, and I would maintain that stance even if I was to experience it myself (because of the pure subjective nature of it) (although, hmmm....good counter point right about here would be: Of course the soul is purely subjective.)(But I don't like that option. I probably have a reason for not liking it which isn't detrimental to the second argument you presented, but I can't be bothered thinking of it right now...)

Another God

Aug11-03, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
AG has recognized that all experience is subjective. Even our experience of the objective is subjective. He claims this to be a reason why we may never know the complete truth. If we think about our own conscious experience we all know that it is not perfect because some days things just look different than other days. That's part of being human. So we try to objectify things by verifying results in multiple subjective experiences. IOW, we have other people make the same inquiries. So in a way we can think of our subjective nature as a filter of objective reality. And as AG said, we try to control it so that it doesn't interfere with our gaining knowledge of the objective world. Let mne just reiterate a few points : Experience = subjective, and objective cannot be experienced. Objective must be translated into subjective before it can be experienced. How accurately it is translated is the issue.

What that experience means...that is entirely subjective. There is no objective meaning.

A huge proportion of Science is interpretting the data. Trying to discern meaning in the results...

We all know that consciousness has many levels ranging from deep sleep all the way to running for your life. The higher the level of conscious, the more accurate the subjective view of the objective world is likely to be. I hope we all can agree on that. When you're asleep and dreaming, many times you don't even know your asleep and dreaming. WHAT IF..... the experience that Les is speaking of is a way to tap into the "reality" of a higher level of consciousness? It does not give him any answers. It doesn't "do anything" as Zero put it. It only allows him to remove more of the filter and see more clearly objective reality. So perhaps he has an even better view into "the way things are"! Perhaps. but what sparked this insight? Why would you postulate that?
Science is currently trying to understand consciousness. Is there any evidence to suggest that 1 million years from now, evolution wouldn't provide for an even higher level of consciouness? Perhaps this is why it is so difficult for us ape-like [:)] creatures to reach this level? Our brains are not fully developed for it yet. The problem then is that we cannot objectify this clear view of reality because no one who would be in a position to objectfy it is willing to consider it as a possibility. Tsk tsk.Linking with my statements above, do you really think 'Objectifying' our perception of reality would help? Do you think taking meaning away from our daily lives would help?

I believe we are perfectly* evolved to interact with out environment. We percieve our objective environment on a perfectly well balanced subjective ground, and then that perception is understood quickly and meaningfully.

The scientific requirement to reduce things to lower levels of objective understanding is a strange one, and only appropriate in that isolated sphere. (ie: In the sphere of making absolute statements about what things are, or how things work) Once we know how things work etc, then we need to understand that and apply our meanings to it (without forgetting that it, in itself, contains no inherent meanings).

So in reply to the concept at large being discussed here: The concept of meditation allowing you access to a special type of perception: I doubt it is possible. Meditation may serve many many practical things: EG Meditation is an internal way of accessing the typically subconscious controls of your body. It is likely that meditation allows the meditator to alter physiological aspects which are normally below the conscious control level, and it may allow the meditator to access particular mental drugs etc which normally only occur with particular external stimulus etc....but these effects are in no way a reflection of external universal truths. (other than the fact that for every subjective experience, an objective brain function is occuring. (as it by todays understanding mostly likely seems to be.)

Zero

Aug11-03, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Pyrite
I was posting in two forums, and i posted the one for the other forum here.

anyway, This is the second time i've worked so hard to read an entire thread just to be accused of having not read it. yes, I read all 10 pages. It took a half a day.

anyway... yeah.

this kind of statement is part of the bias against materialists. It's not just that you wont believe that which isn't proven to you, you don't even bother to discuss it. I noticed that not even the person writing about it had dared to say that this might be it (make no mistake, I am not saying that it is.) Jeez, you DID read all of it? DAMN!

Well, what is there to discuss? Seriously, tell me which point would you like to discuss, specifically, and we'll do it up proper!

Another God

Aug11-03, 12:32 AM

PS: If introspection was truly able to reveal any functional truths about the universe, about nature, about the mind, about the soul, or even about subjectivity itself, then why has no progress been made in any of these fields over the past 2000 years that introspection has been applied to it?

Why has the only degree of understanding that has been gained, all come from external inspection? (science)

The Correlation is obvious. The causation is undeniable.

PPS: I am not denying the beneficial aspects of meditation, prayer, introspection etc...Just observing the non-productive nature of them in the field of human understanding and progress.

Another God

Aug11-03, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Pyrite
We aren't avoiding it, we're still waiting for some sort of EVIDENCE!

this kind of statement is part of the bias against materialists. It's not just that you wont believe that which isn't proven to you, you don't even bother to discuss it.
There is good reason for that. If we were to discuss every topic that 'could be' then there would be an infinite high pile of papers requesting science to address the possibility.

The burden of proof is a practical thing, which has very important consequences.

We will discuss anything, as long as there is a reason to discuss it other than "I think..." or "This book says..." or "I had a dream..."

Zero

Aug11-03, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Another God
PS: If introspection was truly able to reveal any functional truths about the universe, about nature, about the mind, about the soul, or even about subjectivity itself, then why has no progress been made in any of these fields over the past 2000 years that introspection has been applied to it?

Why has the only degree of understanding that has been gained, all come from external inspection? (science)

The Correlation is obvious. The causation is undeniable.

PPS: I am not denying the beneficial aspects of meditation, prayer, introspection etc...Just observing the non-productive nature of them in the field of human understanding and progress.

Yeah, but you don't get to feel all groovy when you deal with 'cold hard facts', you know?

Pyrite

Aug11-03, 01:19 AM

Jeez, you DID read all of it? DAMN!
Yep. though I can't say I didn't think about just skipping ahead.}:)
Well, what is there to discuss? Seriously, tell me which point would you like to discuss, specifically, and we'll do it up proper!
In this issue, not much. I was just injecting it into the conversation because i felt it was being avoided. Also, it would fit with you're idea that meditation only helps us see ourselves.

Les Sleeth

Aug11-03, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by Pyrite
It's not just that you wont believe that which isn't proven to you, you don't even bother to discuss it. I noticed that not even the person writing about it had dared to say that this might be it (make no mistake, I am not saying that it is.)

I was going to say it "might" be it, but my computer crashed while I composed, and then I got caught up in other things.

The problem with throwing around a term like "soul" is that we don't know what the person who first applied it referred to. Worse, today everybody, whether fer it or agin' it, has their own conception of soul.

To try an analogy, say you grew up in the middle of a desert, and the biggest body of water you, and everyone else living there, ever saw was a reflection at the bottom of a well.

Then you get a chance to travel, and on your journey you visit the Mediterranean. You go back to your village and desribe what you experienced, and people write it down to save it for posterity.

Two thousand years elapse, and during that time this account of a sea is famous. There are scholars working on it, there are cults devoted to it, and there are anti-sea people who hate the concept because they've never seen such a thing.

What is really strange is that every single person debating the possibililty of a sea has never personally taken the time to travel and go see for themselves!!!

So we are back to . . . what does the word "soul" refer to? I admit I suspect what I feel inside is something keeping me alive . . .breathing me, blinking my eyes, and making wounds heal. Is it my "soul"? [8)]

Les Sleeth

Aug11-03, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by Another God
Science does explore meditation.

Part of my job in working in the UNSW Biomedical library, is photocopying articles for students studying off campus (honours, PHD sort of students). And one of those students is quite obviously studying the effects of meditation (or something), because each month I probably photocopy about 30 or 40 articles on Meditation. This has been happening for about 8 months now. There is TONS of research on Meditation.

But hmm...I think I have a contention with your earlier post... I'll come back to that when I have finished reading all of the posts.

Meditation is just a word, and people apply it to lots of things. If you sit quietly and relax your body from head to toe, that is called meditation. If you repeat a mantra, that is called meditation. If you stare at a candle, that is called meditation. As I mentioned in an earlier post, all that has proven to be physically beneficial.

No one has ever studied union. Not ever. And if some fool were stupid enough to submit to a study, it would not reveal a single solitary thing about what is going on inside.

This is exactly why I didn't want to talk about it . . . I will never learn! You are turning it around, defining it so you can fit it into some little box you have all ready, and then dismissing it with sophist gems like this, "If introspection was truly able to reveal any functional truths about the universe, about nature, about the mind, about the soul, or even about subjectivity itself, then why has no progress been made in any of these fields over the past 2000 years that introspection has been applied to it? Why has the only degree of understanding that has been gained, all come from external inspection? (science) The Correlation is obvious. The causation is undeniable."

Who defines progress? You? How do you know what sort of progress has been made by the people I mentioned? Did you go study them after all? You know, what is the point of debating this. You are going find a way to state what you believe is the Truth, and you aren't going to let anything so trivial as history or evidence not to your liking stand in the way. As for me . . . I am done with this ridiculous exercise in self affirmation.

Royce

Aug11-03, 09:36 AM

Science is the tool with which we study and come to know material and objective reality.

Meditation is the tool with which we study and come to know ourselves and subjective reality.

We can use meditation also to better understand what science has shown us. This is IMO simply because with a quiet mind we are better able to see the relationships between different ideas. Our minds are not too busy being cognizant of everything going on around us and within us that it can better see the big picture.

As AG pointed out, we cannot really seperate the objective and subjective for it is only through our sujective knowlege that we can know the objective. Meditation allows us to see reality as it really is rather than as our distorted image of it just as it allows us to see ourselves as we really are rather than as our self image.

Les has discribed what we sometime experience better than anyone I have ever read and certainly better than I could try to myself. Possibly because of my upbringing or culture, When I am experiencing such a 'union' I feel or sense or am aware of a presence that is an intregal part of me yet is not me. It is as real if not more real than I am. This is why I am so spiritual. To me this presence is the spirit of God within me. Through this spirit I come to know and understand reality better. It isn't magical nor mystical. It is not fairytales nor Santa Claus. It is real, more real than what we normally think of as reality and it is natural, more natural than we think of as nature. It is the epitome of reality and nature itself.

It is intensely personal and meaningful to me so when Zero and others make light of it even in humor it sometimes offends me or ruffles my feathers and I become defensive. This is my shortcoming and I am coming to realize it. It is still so new and so meaningful to me that I am sensative about it as when I entered puberty and was sensative to the changes taking place in my body. As I mature I will become less sensative and better able to see the humor behind such statements just as I have come to appreciate Zero's humor more and more. There are times still that I have to remind myself that this is just his style and hopfully humor. Only then can I LOL and really think its funny.
Zero, could this too be part of your sensitiity to our idealistic or subjective remarks?

FZ+

Aug11-03, 07:20 PM

Gee... I missed a 178 post long joyous argument? Damn.

Ok, I'll throw some random points in and see if any of them have any relevance. Or if any turn out to be right. [;)] Prepare to hate me!

There seems to be some confusion over materialism, and reductionism. Materialism is the idea that things are explainable by observable, independently real rules, and elements. Reductionism is that the behaviour of the elements are the overiding part of the system. The one does not neccessarily follow the other! It is very well possible to talk about the mind as a holistic, but definitely material process, and that thoughts fit into this as exhibitions of behaviour on a complex scale.

The second problem is "reality". In materialist terms, reality refers to only the external, independent reality. As correctly stated, this is accessable only via subjective perceptions, and so to a materialist, what you feel is only a virtual reality. To a spiritualist, the reverse is true - seeing is believing, literally, and what is real is what is perceived as real. In effect, we are talking in two difference languages here. So, is the feeling of union "real". In spiritualist terms, it is what is given to the mind, and so it is more or less defined as real. In materialist terms, as it is not reflected in a solid external reality, it is at best a construct of different effects.

As well as this, the idea of knowledge itself is different. In materialist terms, knowledge = an improvement of our internal view of the universe to be more reflective of manifestations of the "real" external reality. In spiritualist terms, we mean an extension to our quality of understanding, our texture of thought, our sense of beauty. (There are of course overlaps.) So, in response to the meditation point, both are in fact correct - the meditation obviously adds no material knowledge, but it also obvious improves the subjective "quality of thought", and hence gives spiritual understanding. Like the study of an equation that is unconnected to the real world, but is beautiful in the mind.

(I probably hold the blame for starting the Santa Claus thing, once upon a time. But the point originally made was to analyse WHY we ridicule it, and so to point out an apparent inconsistency between the way we ridicule ideas we don't like, but reject the same attack on ideas we do. Or maybe I was just drunk.)

Ok, time now to draw the vast, exaggerated conclusion. In the end, we can't really say that either materialism or idealism/spiritualism is proven to be wrong. To a materialist's side, the other side is clearly and logically inconsistent with materialism, and so is hence "wrong". And vice versa. BUT this is a reflection on the priorities and criterias we put on what is true, and so we can't use one to disprove the other. In the end, they probably exhibit different facets of the way the mind thinks of things and so you can't put down one as right. And so, we can't say that bias against materialism is justified, only cautioning against absolutes of either position. The two can't mix (we can't confuse spiritual feeling for material causes), but should stand together. With a minor restraining order.

Ok, I henceforth order everyone to hug and make up, or stone me to a pulp.

Fliption

Aug11-03, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Another God
Let mne just reiterate a few points : Experience = subjective, and objective cannot be experienced. Objective must be translated into subjective before it can be experienced. How accurately it is translated is the issue.

I understand this. Based on some of your comments below, it seems you have misunderstood me.

[/b] Perhaps. but what sparked this insight? Why would you postulate that?

As Les has been telling you AG, there is a long History of people who have an experience here that apparently has NOT been studied. So I would postulate this because something may need to be postulated.

[/b]Linking with my statements above, do you really think 'Objectifying' our perception of reality would help? Do you think taking meaning away from our daily lives would help?

I think you have mis-understood. You have claimed that this experience that Les is speaking of is all subjective. And these subjective endeavers cannot reveal truth. But then you admit that all experience is subjective. So what's the difference? The difference is that when science is willing to look at something it can verify it by having multiple people witnessing the same experience. I used the word "objectify" and perhaps that is what threw you off. Verify is a better word. So my point was that this should be no different. We can verify this experience by having multiple people do it. Once you do this you may find that it is actually "less" subjective than your current view because it removes more of the filters. But I then said that we have not been able to reach this "verification" stage because no one who would be in a position to verify it (scientists) are willing to consider it.

I believe we are perfectly* evolved to interact with out environment. We percieve our objective environment on a perfectly well balanced subjective ground, and then that perception is understood quickly and meaningfully.

Thats' it AG. Nail them shingles down from the basement! I am sure that worms, dogs, and insects all think the same things but many people would argue that they are all at different levels of awareness from humans. If your statement above were not true then you would not be around to say it. I don't think this rebuttal means very much.

The concept of meditation allowing you access to a special type of perception: I doubt it is possible.

You should have told me that you doubted this AG. I would never have spent anytime talking about it if I had only known. Now I know it is bogus [:)]

Meditation may serve many many practical things: EG Meditation is an internal way of accessing the typically subconscious controls of your body. It is likely that meditation allows the meditator to alter physiological aspects which are normally below the conscious control level, and it may allow the meditator to access particular mental drugs etc which normally only occur with particular external stimulus etc....but these effects are in no way a reflection of external universal truths. (other than the fact that for every subjective experience, an objective brain function is occuring. (as it by todays understanding mostly likely seems to be.)

I agree with Les on this. In my readings the word metitation is placed on just about any activity that people do that makes them feel like a deep person. I don't even bother reading most of it. All of your comments above may be true. As are all my comments. The only way to know for sure is not to "doubt it" and then ignore it. Study it.

Fliption

Aug11-03, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
Ok, I henceforth order everyone to hug and make up, or stone me to a pulp. [/B]

You will get no stone from me FZ. There are a few targets much more worthy of every stone I have[:)]. That was a great post. I'll need to read over it a few times to see where I may have questions but the picture you paint is somewhat complicated but yet so typical. The "black and white" minded people would never think deep enough to see the real issue you have pointed out. Good thoughtful post.

Zero

Aug12-03, 02:16 AM

I don't know if any of that was 'deep' or not.

Royce

Aug12-03, 07:51 AM

Good to see you back FZ+. Unfortunately you missed the stoning ritual too. We're all being so nice and considerate its almost sickening. Even Zero has somewhat curbed his acerbic tongue. Your post was well put. I'll throw no objective stones; but it did seem a bit tame for you.

Is christmas coming or something or is just me. All this warm fuzzy feeling that we may be reaching if not a concensous at least a neutral ground where we can all agreeably agree to disagree is not at all like our normal no quarter asked and none given attitude.

Enough of this. Turn loose the dogs of war and let the games begin. Yes I know I'm mixing metaphors, next I'll be resorting to punjitsu.

Another God

Aug12-03, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by FZ+
Gee... I missed a 178 post long joyous argument? Damn.Thank God you still made it though. This was great work. Thanks again to people like you who come in and straighten out the basic facts which everyone seems to forget/misplace in the midst of a heated discussion. It is crazy how easy it is to forget your own beliefs when you are being challenged on other fronts...

Strange too.

In the end, we can't really say that either materialism or idealism/spiritualism is proven to be wrong. To a materialist's side, the other side is clearly and logically inconsistent with materialism, and so is hence "wrong". And vice versa. BUT this is a reflection on the priorities and criterias we put on what is true, and so we can't use one to disprove the other. In the end, they probably exhibit different facets of the way the mind thinks of things and so you can't put down one as right. And so, we can't say that bias against materialism is justified, only cautioning against absolutes of either position. The two can't mix (we can't confuse spiritual feeling for material causes), but should stand together. With a minor restraining order.

This gave me a couple of new thoughts.

1. this isn't really new, but a definite belief of mine: There is a Truth, and it is real, and it is singular. It is the Objective (no matter what type of universe this is, there is still objective factuality about it, and that factuality is the truth (whether anyone can know it or not)

2. Materialism seems to be able to postulate reasonable explanations about how the subjective/spiritual stuff occurs, explaining why and how we experience what we do. Spiritualism doesn't explain the cause of experiences in any sort of reasonable way.

Hows that for a reason to believe that "Objective causes Subjective" and that Materialism, as a stance for investigation of truths of the universe, is a much more benefitting method of inquiry. ?

Iacchus32

Aug12-03, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Another God
2. Materialism seems to be able to postulate reasonable explanations about how the subjective/spiritual stuff occurs, explaining why and how we experience what we do. Spiritualism doesn't explain the cause of experiences in any sort of reasonable way.Rubbish! Aside from the fact that you're a human being (in lineage at least), you are in no ways "qualified" to make such an assumption.

Hows that for a reason to believe that "Objective causes Subjective" and that Materialism, as a stance for investigation of truths of the universe, is a much more benefitting method of inquiry. ?Once again, nothing but "superficial" reasoning. Spiritual stuff? ... How superficial can you get? [s(]

Zero

Aug12-03, 12:01 PM

One of the main objections to a materialist worldview, I think, is that there are rules and boundaries. You are NOT allowed to simply make up ideas and concepts as you see fit. If you want to know something, you actually have to pick up a book, or do an experiment, instead of doing breathing exercises in yout bedroom. In a materialist worldview, some ideas are simly 'wrong'(unsupported by evidence.)

With a more 'spiritual' worldview, things are more democratic. Anyone with a harebrained, crackpot idea can join in, and is allowed just as much say as someone who has actually put in some sort of work into it. The best part of it is, you can always simply create excuses for the failures of any idea, since the idea is often completely imaginary to begin with. And, of course, unlike materialism, you can always attack the other side for not being open-minded enough. Materialists don't have to be too awfully open-minded, after all...

...WE HAVE EVIDENCE![6)]

Royce

Aug12-03, 01:12 PM

I'm sorry but brainwave activity or MRI scans do not prove that subjective thought is solely caused by the electrochemical property of brain cells. There is no way to prove that thought and knowledge is completely objective in origin. That thought and measured brain activity are linked is fairly obvious; but, Which caused which is not yet proved.

To say that the subjective is caused by the objective is totally unsupported. You have evidence; but of what. I too have evidence that supports that the subjective causes the objective at least within the human brain and body, to which you too say "but, of what."

Zero, for the hundreth time, lack of evidence is proof on nothing nor support of anything. As pointed out, prior to the invention of the mircoscope there was absolutely no evidence that bacterial or single celled life existed. Not so long ago it was a biological accepted truth that no living organism could be less than 200 microns in diameter so none were searched for below that size. Not long ago evidence of fossil life 100 mircons in diameter was accidently found.
Want me to list more? The moons of Jupitur, sunspots, subatomic particles, quarks, quantum, galaxies, expansion of the universe. In short every finding of science at one time was totally unsupported by evidence and thus by your and others thinking proved not to be possible.

Zero

Aug12-03, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Royce
I'm sorry but brainwave activity or MRI scans do not prove that subjective thought is solely caused by the electrochemical property of brain cells. There is no way to prove that thought and knowledge is completely objective in origin. That thought and measured brain activity are linked is fairly obvious; but, Which caused which is not yet proved. Yeah, but generally, the evidence suggests the materialist outlook, and there is NO evidence for any other explanation.

To say that the subjective is caused by the objective is totally unsupported.Except the collected evidence of the last century...I suppose we ignore it because it doesn't make us feel good? You have evidence; but of what. I too have evidence that supports that the subjective causes the objective at least within the human brain and body, to which you too say "but, of what." We're waiting for teh evidence chum...what page is this thread on?

Zero, for the hundreth time, lack of evidence is proof on nothing nor support of anything. As pointed out, prior to the invention of the mircoscope there was absolutely no evidence that bacterial or single celled life existed. Not so long ago it was a biological accepted truth that no living organism could be less than 200 microns in diameter so none were searched for below that size. Not long ago evidence of fossil life 100 mircons in diameter was accidently found. And until someone invented a microscope, people were absolutely CORRECT to discount the idea of microorganisms!
Want me to list more? The moons of Jupitur, sunspots, subatomic particles, quarks, quantum, galaxies, expansion of the universe. In short every finding of science at one time was totally unsupported by evidence and thus by your and others thinking proved not to be possible. But you notice how science keeps refining its act, while the 'other team' continues to make the exact same claims for sometimes thousands of years, and still nothing that could be considered evidence turns up?

FZ+

Aug12-03, 02:00 PM

Royce: Yessir! I will begin the verbal punishment promptly!

Another God:
1. this isn't really new, but a definite belief of mine: There is a Truth, and it is real, and it is singular. It is the Objective (no matter what type of universe this is, there is still objective factuality about it, and that factuality is the truth (whether anyone can know it or not)

2. Materialism seems to be able to postulate reasonable explanations about how the subjective/spiritual stuff occurs, explaining why and how we experience what we do. Spiritualism doesn't explain the cause of experiences in any sort of reasonable way.

Hows that for a reason to believe that "Objective causes Subjective" and that Materialism, as a stance for investigation of truths of the universe, is a much more benefitting method of inquiry. ?
Ok, as all knows, I am partially playing the devil's advocate here, as I am a materialist, and generally agree in the greater importance of the material side.

But...
The point I made is that Spiritualism isn't really about finding a cause in terms of objective truth. What is shown above is that spiritualism doesn't match up to the materialist mode of thinking.

As an example, say we look at biology, and ask why do birds have wings? (This may not be exactly right as an example, but I'll daringly press on anyways) The strict materialist cause is that the birds have it coded in the genes, which leads to the production of proteins etc culminating in the production of a wing. The spiritualist answer, which emphasises abstract value is that birds have wings to allow them to fly.

Now, which is the "right" answer?

Clearly in this case, as in most cases, materialism provides the more "fundamental answer" as far as physical reality is concerned. The spiritualist answer however isn't wrong - it doesn't explain how it really happens, but it provides internal understanding. But the thing pivots on the aspect of "benefit". In terms of material benefit, of course materialism explains more materially.

Side note: I am distinguishing spiritual answers from "vague material answers". In effect, IMHO, to say that a spirit causes rain is in reality a material answer, based on the physical action of an object (a spirit) that just happens to be undetected as of yet. It's just a difference in the name, not the nature of the statement. If we rename soul to say, "mind particle", then we can pretty much tell that the existence of an entity in the traditional sense being physically reponsible for mind functions is very much a materialist problem.

Where spiritualists really get into the problem is in terms of the whole of the brain. The way the individual cells act to each other is pretty much a material case, but the spiritual arguement is that the final way it works, the flow of the charges, has greater significance than an electrochemical reaction. Ie. the essential nature of the brain isn't ion channels etc, but an abstract value called the mind. It's the overall quality of how it acts that is considered, not the material details. Spiritualist answers are almost by definition things that cannot be proven or disproven by material evidence.

Objective materially causes subjective. (Though LG's old mind hypothesis is an alternative, his Ubermind is just objective in disguise) Subjective spiritually is what makes objective important, or accessible, or interesting, or real. Two sides of a coin, sort of.

Any questions?

Fliption

Aug12-03, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Zero
One of the main objections to a materialist worldview, I think, is that there are rules and boundaries. You are NOT allowed to simply make up ideas and concepts as you see fit. If you want to know something, you actually have to pick up a book, or do an experiment, instead of doing breathing exercises in yout bedroom. In a materialist worldview, some ideas are simly 'wrong'(unsupported by evidence.)

With a more 'spiritual' worldview, things are more democratic. Anyone with a harebrained, crackpot idea can join in, and is allowed just as much say as someone who has actually put in some sort of work into it. The best part of it is, you can always simply create excuses for the failures of any idea, since the idea is often completely imaginary to begin with. And, of course, unlike materialism, you can always attack the other side for not being open-minded enough. Materialists don't have to be too awfully open-minded, after all...

...WE HAVE EVIDENCE![6)]

I thought with FZ's post we had moved beyond these simplistic black and white conceptions, no?

Iacchus32

Aug12-03, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
Ok, as all knows, I am partially playing the devil's advocate here, as I am a materialist, and generally agree in the greater importance of the material side.Okay, just so long as we understand. I thought maybe you had taken a brief "spiritual reprieve" and were meditating on top of a mountain or something? Now you just knock it off, okay? [;)]

FZ+

Aug12-03, 04:54 PM

No, I might just be possessed by the spirit of the transcended master Carlos...(Send orders for my bath water today!)

But hey, only partially devil's advocate! I'm saying spiritualism and materialism can both exist.. maybe.

Royce

Aug12-03, 05:30 PM

Maybe because I'm a computer hardware man I have a mind set that wires and switches relatate to neurons and synapsi (sp?). None of what a computer actually does has any meaning to us unless we give it meaning in the form of codes and programs. "Let 110101110101 = 'Mind' and then do this with it." Even the one's and zero's are symbols for the presence or absence of a voltage level.
I see the same thing happening in the brain. The brain with all of its neurons and interconnections and electrochemical activity is just the hardware that makes the mind possible. It is the mind, FZ+'s spirit, that gives it meaning. The brain is the objective and the mind the subjective of our mind/brain. One is no good without the other.

AS I have said so many times I am convinced that the objective material realm is real and science is the best tool at present that we have to study it. I also believe that the subjective or mental realm is just as real and contains science but science has no way to study it. Example: knowledge. We all know what it is and we all have at least some part of it. Science is used to advandce our knowledge of the objective world. Ask science what knowledge is and it hasn't got a clue. (Duh, its in the brain and its what we get when we study and learn. Okay proff what klearn and how do we do it? Duh quantum physics explains all of that and we have evidence but nonscientist cannot understand it. But we got proof.)

I also believe that the spiritual realm is just as real and sperate from the objective and subjective realm but part of the greater reality. Spirituality is not really the subject here and I don't want to open that can of worms any more than FZ+ has already.

Iacchus32

Aug12-03, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I might just be possessed by the spirit of the transcended master Carlos...(Send orders for my bath water today!)Would that be for drinking purposes or anointing purposes? [g)]

But hey, only partially devil's advocate! I'm saying spiritualism and materialism can both exist.. maybe.Okay, so here's my take on "the truth" ...

From the thread, The search for truth (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2878&perpage=15&pagenumber=3) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by Another God
Objective cannot be experienced, it can only be interpretted, meaning placed on it. Hence we use science to create truths for us, and that is all we will ever know.How about the "truth of the matter," which is always true? Or else how could we possibly relate to it? -- "the fact" that we're consciously aware. And since when did we need science to determine that? [;)]To carry this a little further, I'm saying that reality is "ever-present," and the truth to that reality will vary significantly, depending upon circumstances. And, although we may wish to call this "subjectivity," it is reality nonetheless. You know, like the reality of who your parents were, the reality of the date you were born, the reality of the house you lived on Second Street, the reality of whether you had measles as a kid or not, etc., etc. In other words it's the reality of "the situation."

So what am saying? ... That everybody has the means by which to establish "the truth," irrespective of the existence of science or not. Meaning, this could very well be the "the truth" -- "of reality" -- that we take with us when we pass on. [;)]

rocket art

Aug13-03, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Good for you...that is why only us higher-types can handle being materialists!![6)]

(hey, I have to reply)

That's weird, that's not how I tend to see materialists to be. Frankly it bores me for what use does asking questions that already have answers except that it goes round in circles set up at certain boundaries. It would be more challenging for me to find that answers are like questions waiting to unfold (figure that[6)])

Iacchus32

Aug13-03, 02:55 AM

Indeed ...

Whereas without consciousness -- the very "ground of our being" -- hmm ... what was that you say about gravity? -- we would not be discussing any of this, let alone discussing the nature "of truth." Which is to say, science is not the end all to the discovery of truth, but consciouness is.

Just think of it, where would we all be if we weren't capable, through consciousness, of acknowledging the fact that we exist? There would be no means to judge that anything was ever here! [;)]

So you tell me where the beginning of the discovery of truth lies? ...

NOT WITH SCIENCE!!!

Zero

Aug13-03, 02:58 AM

Hmmmm...when we know that reality can only be discerned though evidence, and we dislike that notion, we start talking about 'truth', a concept that has no objective meaning. Sure, yeah, whatever.

Iacchus32

Aug13-03, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmm...when we know that reality can only be discerned though evidence, and we dislike that notion, we start talking about 'truth', a concept that has no objective meaning. Sure, yeah, whatever. Isn't the fact that I'm sitting at my chair typing on the computer evidence enough? Doesn't that belie reality itself? Do I really need to take it any further than that?

Why don't you "get real" man! [;)]

Iacchus32

Aug13-03, 03:11 AM

Yes, the beginning of the discovery of truth begins with both you and me ...

Royce

Aug13-03, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, but generally, the evidence suggests the materialist outlook, and there is NO evidence for any other explanation.

No it doesn't. The evidence suggests that the material world exists and suggests, models how we think it may work. That is all that the evidence suggests. It does not even look at the subjective. How can scientific evidence suggest anything about something that it does not even acknowledges exists in the first place.

Except the collected evidence of the last century...I suppose we ignore it because it doesn't make us feel good? We're waiting for teh evidence chum...what page is this thread on?

I'm waiting for the same thing pal. Where is your evidence that's been collected for the last hundred years that thought, ideas and knowledge is nothing more than chemistry and neurons, supposition, speculation and inquiery, yes, proof or evidence, no. "What else could it be since I don't acknowledge anything else exists." does not constitute proof, Zero.

And until someone invented a microscope, people were absolutely CORRECT to discount the idea of microorganisms! But you notice how science keeps refining its act, while the 'other team' continues to make the exact same claims for sometimes thousands of years, and still nothing that could be considered evidence turns up?

Hey, you guys are still looking. We found it 3,000 years ago. We try to tell you guys but no you keep looking. Maybe someday you'll find it too, then we'll say; "Told ya so." [:))]

Zero

Aug13-03, 10:17 AM

You didn't find anything 3000 years ago, exacept a comfortable myth, to replace the question with a flase answer, to shut up the nagging voice in your head. 3000 years ago, what did people know? For everything they got right, they got something else completely wrong. People managed to build pyramids, but they thought that being stuffed and keeping your organs in jars was the key to eternity. People measured the movement of stars and planets, and scheduled human sacrifice to sun gods at appointed times of the year. Even when they finally figured out that disease wasn't caused by angry spirits, they had no clue but hunches as to what to do about it.

[Let's talk about diseases for a minute. In the materialist worldview, disease is caused by bacteria, viruses, etc., and each disease has a perfectly physical cure. In the non-materialist world, there are auras to be manipulated, magnets cure everything, or you can taked dried rhino penis pills. Sometimes a good fix is to rearrange your furniture(based on 3000 year old decorating for demon-prevention, apparently), or to drink water in which a chemical has been diluted to nonexistance.]

I'm waiting for the same thing pal. Where is your evidence that's been collected for the last hundred years that thought, ideas and knowledge is nothing more than chemistry and neurons, supposition, speculation and inquiery, yes, proof or evidence, no. "What else could it be since I don't acknowledge anything else exists." does not constitute proof, Zero. ONe side has some sort of evidence, the other side has no sort of evidence, except a 'feeling', based mostly on ego, I think.

Royce

Aug13-03, 11:18 AM

Zero, somewhere around 3-4,000 years ago the Jewish faith started with Abraham according to the bible and one of the first things it did was do away with human sacrafice and false fire, weather, fertility, etc Gods. This is what I was referring to when I said we found IT. This then can be my evidence that religion changes and for the better.

To reply to your last "feel good" statement: How do you know something? How do any of us actually know something and know it to be true, even something as simple as electrons have a negative charge.? We don't know what an electron is but we know that they exist. We don't know what a charge is but we know that they exist and an electron normally has one that we call negtive but sometimes it can have a positive charge. Okay, that is perfectly acceptable, well know and varifiable; but, how do we know this and how do we know that it is true? How do we know that we know and what is true?

Is it that we feel good, all warm and fuzzy when we think about it and because we want it to be that way because we read it in a fairytale book? No of course not that's absurd.

We could talk all day about what we know and don't know about one particle/wave we call electrons. The point is, we know that they exist and have certain properties and we can make predictions about their behavior. The question remains HOW DO WE KNOW? and HOW DO WE KNOW THAT IT IS TRUE?

Tell me that, my friend, and I will then tell you how I know that God is and how I know that God created the universe. It ain't because I read it in a fairytale book or a bible or a Physics 101 book either.

Iacchus32

Aug13-03, 11:39 AM

Everything that begins with and ends with the truth and, the perception of reality, begins with consciousness, which is strictly a human trait. Which, and I will grant you this much, science -- itself a part of the "human endeavor" -- becomes the "extension of."

Zero

Aug13-03, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Zero, somewhere around 3-4,000 years ago the Jewish faith started with Abraham according to the bible and one of the first things it did was do away with human sacrafice and false fire, weather, fertility, etc Gods. This is what I was referring to when I said we found IT. This then can be my evidence that religion changes and for the better.

To reply to your last "feel good" statement: How do you know something? How do any of us actually know something and know it to be true, even something as simple as electrons have a negative charge.? We don't know what an electron is but we know that they exist. We don't know what a charge is but we know that they exist and an electron normally has one that we call negtive but sometimes it can have a positive charge. Okay, that is perfectly acceptable, well know and varifiable; but, how do we know this and how do we know that it is true? How do we know that we know and what is true?

Is it that we feel good, all warm and fuzzy when we think about it and because we want it to be that way because we read it in a fairytale book? No of course not that's absurd.

We could talk all day about what we know and don't know about one particle/wave we call electrons. The point is, we know that they exist and have certain properties and we can make predictions about their behavior. The question remains HOW DO WE KNOW? and HOW DO WE KNOW THAT IT IS TRUE?

Tell me that, my friend, and I will then tell you how I know that God is and how I know that God created the universe. It ain't because I read it in a fairytale book or a bible or a Physics 101 book either.

I don't know...but the evidence certainly suggests it. See, this is why I avoid words like 'truth'...they have slippery diefinitions. I prefer to be more exact, like saying 'experimentally verifiable'.
You believe in God because it suits your temperment, I'm sure.

Royce

Aug13-03, 12:15 PM

I you can hosestly say that you believe in science because it suits your temperment then yes I will agree that that is why I believe I in God.

You seem to have lost interest in this thread too. It has become somewhat of an extension of the last one we were involved in. I do think we've exhausted this subject. We need to find another egually interesting subject that we can go at one another over. I quit but don't concede!
[;)]

Zero

Aug13-03, 12:32 PM

I win!!

amadeus

Aug13-03, 12:32 PM

If I may offer my opinion, I think the problem with materialism is that it is essentially inconsistent with our experiences as a whole but no one can easily prove it, for the very fact that materialism is consistent with most aspects of our experience taken in isolation. Because self-consistency in such a large system as the whole of our knowledge is virtually impossible to evaluate on a conscious level, we can only have an intuitive 'feeling' that something is missing, but we have a very hard time understand exactly what is missing.

If we consider a large dictionary as a metaphor, materialism is equivalent to the position that the dictionary is self-explanatory - it doesn't matter which word you look up, the word is always clearly defined in terms of other words in the same dictionary. One may easily get the illusion that all it takes to understand the meaning of all words in the dictionary is to learn their definitions from the dictionary itself. Unless we can clearly demonstrate that, as a whole, all dictionaries are either circular or incomplete, the "materialist" will have an easy time arguing that all there is to know about language is defined in dictionaries.

Of course on an intuitive level most people can understand that dictionaries cannot possibly be complete or un-circular. And here I offer what to me is a very solid argument: when it comes to completeness and circularity, there is no difference whatsoever between a dictionary and the whole of our knowledge, for the simple reason that everything we know can be expressed in words. So the average person understands perfectly why there is and there always will be a gap between our knowledge of reality and reality itself. So the average person comes up with a loosely defined (rather, undefinable) concept which represents that gap. In our culture, the average person refers to that undefinable concept as "God".

Notice that, according to that line of reasoning, when it comes to a rational discussion the materialist will always get the better of it, even if he's ultimately wrong. As far as I'm concerned, the answer to the question "why the bias against materialism" is simply "because it's misleading". But of course that can only be understood in an intuitive manner, which is not to say it's less of a truth, only that it may be very hard to prove.

People managed to build pyramids, but they thought that being stuffed and keeping your organs in jars was the key to eternity.

Just for fun, I'd like to point out that 3,000 years from now people might see far more significance in the custom of burying people in wooden coffins and placing flowers on their tombs than we actually do. We understand very well what coffins and flowers have to do with death; 3,000 years from now people will be deprived of that understanding. You might want to reconsider our beliefs about what people of 3,000 years ago believed - it might turn out we are the foolish ones.

Most respectfully,

Amadeus

Zero

Aug13-03, 12:36 PM

Amadeus, I would say that your 'intuitive' feeling also comes from a material sourse: your brain. Just because psychology is complicated, that doesn't mean it points to anything besides misplaced survival traits. I'm sure that it has been useful for our survival as a species to grasp for new knowledge, but that doesn't mean that we continue to grasp when we reach understanding, even though our brains may tell us otherwise.

Royce

Aug13-03, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I win!!

NO FAIR!! I said I QUIT not I CONCEDE!!

What is this reducto axhausto?

amadeus

Aug13-03, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Amadeus, I would say that your 'intuitive' feeling also comes from a material sourse: your brain. Just because psychology is complicated, that doesn't mean it points to anything besides misplaced survival traits. I'm sure that it has been useful for our survival as a species to grasp for new knowledge, but that doesn't mean that we continue to grasp when we reach understanding, even though our brains may tell us otherwise.

Well, where does the concept of "misplaced survival traits" come from? The same brain I'm not supposed to trust?

You have just touched the circularity I'm talking about! In order to assert itself, materialism has to turn against the very thing which created it: the brain. In order to deal with what amounts to philosophical matricide, the materialist asserts that the brains of materialists are superior to the brains of non-materialists based on the assumption that materialism is superior to non-materialism.

I notice most materialists have no trouble accepting the logical limitations of any philosophy, materialism included, if they didn't think a denial of materialism necessarily leads to some form of theism. If that is your concern, then I agree with you, materialism is far superior to theism as an explanation of reality. My only point is that materialism is not as solid a position as materialists try to make it.

Iacchus32

Aug13-03, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by amadeus
I notice most materialists have no trouble accepting the logical limitations of any philosophy, materialism included, if they didn't think a denial of materialism necessarily leads to some form of theism. If that is your concern, then I agree with you, materialism is far superior to theism as an explanation of reality. My only point is that materialism is not as solid a position as materialists try to make it. Hey, who turned out the lights! [;)]

FZ+

Aug13-03, 04:10 PM

amadeus:
I think the problem with materialism is that it is essentially inconsistent with our experiences as a whole but no one can easily prove it
Any idea is fundamentally indeterminate as to it's consistency - such is Godel's theorem. The gist of materialism is the reduction of such inconsistency with regard to physical observation to the limits of possibility. It is not the real stance of materialism to claim in its perfection, and to realise that shortcoming neccessarily exists in all isn't bias against materialism at all. Rather, the stance that a final Truth is attainable, bears less marks of Materialism or Science than of the worst cases of religion. You are talking about absolutism, not materialism/science.

Royce: I agree with most of what you say. But, I'll touch on the religion bit.

How do you know that the progression from human sacrifice was for the better? In objective terms, there is no real thing that states that human sacrifice is bad - turning it around, it can be said that religion has degenerated from such states. (A lighter version of which is currently used by "Evangelicals" in the anti-gay arena) The matter shows the gap here. In terms of religion, it is not really possible to use the quantitative system of materalism. You can only judge such a dynamically changing thing in terms of personal senses of "values". Ie. which is better with respect to you. The way religion changes for the "better" is very different for the way in which science, or materialist views of the world changes for the "better".

I you can hosestly say that you believe in science because it suits your temperment then yes I will agree that that is why I believe I in God.
Technically, that can be said to be true. I believe... or I assume in the effectiveness of science because it suits the way I see the world - as a concrete existence seen through smoked and blurry subjective glass. I don't believe in God, because I find the view beyond more significant than the glass itself.

Zero

Aug14-03, 01:20 AM

My problem with the non-materialist crowd reminds me of a Brazilian mechanic who came to my workplace promising to make a machine run better. He was trying to make a heat-hardening machine run alot faster than it was designed to do, and as the metallurgist it was my job to test how well he was progressing. Well, the samples got better, then worse, then better again, and all the while he is just sort of humming and jotting down notes.
Come to find out, he has been changing every variable every single time he brought me a sample, which I didn't catch until he brought me a sample of a different thickness than the previous ones. I tried to explain to him, to no avail, that if he would tweak one variable at a time, get a little more methodical in his tinkering, he could solve the problem more quickly. His hit-and-miss method never did create a solution, because when he did stumble across an effective combination of variables, he had no clue which one caused the improvement.
It is that sort of flailing around for an answer that characterizes non-materialists to me. If they happen to stumble across something useful, they give it a spiritual label, and can't truly say that what they did had any true effect.

Iacchus32

Aug14-03, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by Zero
My problem with the non-materialist crowd reminds me of a Brazilian mechanic who came to my workplace promising to make a machine run better. He was trying to make a heat-hardening machine run alot faster than it was designed to do, and as the metallurgist it was my job to test how well he was progressing. Well, the samples got better, then worse, then better again, and all the while he is just sort of humming and jotting down notes.
Come to find out, he has been changing every variable every single time he brought me a sample, which I didn't catch until he brought me a sample of a different thickness than the previous ones. I tried to explain to him, to no avail, that if he would tweak one variable at a time, get a little more methodical in his tinkering, he could solve the problem more quickly. His hit-and-miss method never did create a solution, because when he did stumble across an effective combination of variables, he had no clue which one caused the improvement.
It is that sort of flailing around for an answer that characterizes non-materialists to me. If they happen to stumble across something useful, they give it a spiritual label, and can't truly say that what they did had any true effect. Perhaps because we're asked to defend that which is more of a personal and private matter, which is not normally brought up over the typical course of a conversation, and doesn't require we spend a lot of time trying to "convince" others of what we know ... that is, until somebody turns up the heat and puts us on the grill! [;)]

I don't know but with me, it seems like every time I'm confronted in this way -- and yes, confronted is the best choice of words -- I'm required to do some sort of "special trick," you know like pull a rabbit out of my hat? All the while with you jeering at me in the background saying, "Where's the proof!?" Indeed a most "untypical" way of conducting business don't you think? And neither does it belie the type of relationship I have with God.

Aside from that though, I've already forgotten about what I've said here. Do you know why? Because it's most "inappropriate" to dwell on such negative things. In which case I can't help you much there either. In the meantime I'll just go back to "knowing that I don't know" (in an unbiased sense), and that's pretty much the end of it. It was like it never happened. [;)]

Royce

Aug14-03, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by FZ+

How do you know that the progression from human sacrifice was for the better? In objective terms, there is no real thing that states that human sacrifice is bad - turning it around, it can be said that religion has degenerated from such states. (A lighter version of which is currently used by "Evangelicals" in the anti-gay arena) The matter shows the gap here. In terms of religion, it is not really possible to use the quantitative system of materalism. You can only judge such a dynamically changing thing in terms of personal senses of "values". Ie. which is better with respect to you. The way religion changes for the "better" is very different for the way in which science, or materialist views of the world changes for the "better".
[/B]

Within the context of what later became the Judeo-Christian religion and its morale/ethical system, human sacrafice was bad and polytheism was bad. Doing away with these practices was good, better, right within their belief system. This, IMO, is the only why we can judge a society, culture or belief system, see the thread "Where is Morality Going." In absolute terms we can't say that those changes were better or worse but then I don't believe that there is such a thing as absolute right, wrong better or worse even in my theistic belief system.

I don't see how the concepts of better or worse could even exist in a self-consistant materialistic paradigm. But then, in my view, "self-consistant materialstic paradigm is an oxymoron.

As for the rest of these later posts I think that AG, amadeus, have it right or at least more to my way of thinking. The objective material world exists and is real. We can only know this physically real world subjectively. All knowledge is subjective and the subjective exists in reality every bit as much as the material.

Subjectivity however is not material. This I think is where the problem arises. How can something immaterial have actual existence in the real world? This is dependent on our definition and understanding of the term existence. It takes a bit of brain expansion to accept the real existence of something that is purely immaterial.

How can I explain it to an 8 year old in terms that s/he could understand much less to a determined materialist in terms that s/he could and would accept. I have not been able to do so with Zero and he is one of the better minds that I have run into lately. He will at least discuss it where most won't even listen or hear my words much less consider my ideas. We, of course, have to pay the price for his indulgence by reading his abusive quips and acerbic attempts at humor. But then, I love(d) Don Rickles humor.

Iacchus32

Aug14-03, 09:43 AM

What about the guy they hung up on a cross? Wouldn't that be called human sacrifice? And what about the rest of the "Christians" that were put to their death?

Royce

Aug14-03, 10:58 AM

No, that was criminal punishment done by the polytheistic Romans.

Iacchus32

Aug14-03, 03:28 PM

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:38). I'm not so sure that there's anything about Christianity (or, perhaps religion in general) that doesn't require us to make some sort of sacrifice. Indeed, I think it was readily understood, that in order to take up the faith, one may very likely be putting their life on the line.

FZ+

Aug14-03, 05:11 PM

Funny you say that, because there is some evidence that the Romans doing the persecution considered the Christians to be a religion based on anarchy and canabalism(!).

(Also, might note rise in belief in martyrdom as a possible replacement for human sacrifice. But I think that is missing the point.)

As for materialist better, we can say that the theory of general relativity is "better" than Newton's universal gravitation, as it is more consistent with known facts.

Zero

Aug15-03, 02:21 PM

As far as I am concerned, everything has a physical cause. That is the whole point of this long thread. If something exists, it has a basis in the physical. Any claims for a non-physical existance are necessarily flaws, because for a thing to exist, it must be physical. Period.

TENYEARS

Aug15-03, 02:56 PM

This conversation must have been how the jews felt during their stay in the mud pits for a few hundred years. Time to make the mud bricks.

Zero, glad to see you have now become religous because spiritual is not not physical. Had to reogranize a large amount of soil which was buried beneath concrete. I busted it up and buried the four tons of concrete in a hole I had dug(200$ to be dumped at the dump). In replacing the soil that now had new purpose I thought about how to keep the finest soil at the top. I got some old fence and screen with different size holes and starting sifting. The largest rocks went down first. Then the smaller and so on. When it came to the finner soil it went through the smallest screen I had.

The question here would be simple. Is it that the there was nothing else because nothing stayed upon the finest screen which I had or is it that the screen by it's nature had holes to large to contain that which was smaller.

When you hit smallest only then may you question gravity or anything else. I will not say spiritual because there is no separation between anything.

You have all the clues you need here. I would not pass on the salad this time.

FZ+

Aug15-03, 04:42 PM

May I point out how utterly irrelevant that previous post was?

Iacchus32

Aug15-03, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Zero
As far as I am concerned, everything has a physical cause. That is the whole point of this long thread. If something exists, it has a basis in the physical. Any claims for a non-physical existance are necessarily flaws, because for a thing to exist, it must be physical. Period. What about motives, or intent? Could this be construed as a physical cause? It's certainly not physical is it?

Zero

Aug15-03, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
May I point out how utterly irrelevant that previous post was?

I'm sure everyone who read it agrees...Jews and mud pits?!? Concrete?

Something I find interesting is that some non-materialists seem driven to spout intellectual-sounding but empty phrases, as though by being obscure, we won't see that they don't have a solid leg to stand on.

Zero

Aug15-03, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What about motives, or intent? Could this be construed as a physical cause? It's certainly not physical is it?

Human motives or intent would come from the mental processes of a perfectly physical human brain.

Iacchus32

Aug15-03, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Human motives or intent would come from the mental processes of a perfectly physical human brain. And yet we're willing to call these things abstract of subjective now aren't we? Which really has nothing to do with "objective materialism" now does it?

Zero

Aug15-03, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet we're willing to call these things abstract of subjective now aren't we? Which really has nothing to do with "objective materialism" now does it?

Whetever are you talking about? Even subjective things, like thoughts and feelings, come from a material source(the brain).

Iacchus32

Aug15-03, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Whetever are you talking about? Even subjective things, like thoughts and feelings, come from a material source(the brain). What about the radio waves we recieve over the radio? Do they come from the radio itself? How do you know that our thoughts and feelings come from our brains? How do you know that we don't actually live in a matrix?

Zero

Aug15-03, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What about the radio waves we recieve over the radio? Do they come from the radio itself? How do you know that our thoughts and feelings come from our brains? How do you know that we don't actually live in a matrix?

Radio waves are a readily explained physical phenomena.

Do we live in a matrix? A Toyota hatchback wouldn't hold all of us, I don't think...

Iacchus32

Aug16-03, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Radio waves are a readily explained physical phenomena.Even so, the radio is only a receptacle. In which case how do we know that our mind is not just a receptacle either? Or, say part of a "grand stage," where everything is broadcast live? ... and we're just part of the "live" entertainment. [;)]

Do we live in a matrix? A Toyota hatchback wouldn't hold all of us, I don't think... Was this from "The Matrix Reloaded?" Haven't seen that one yet.

Fliption

Aug16-03, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Zero
As far as I am concerned, everything has a physical cause. That is the whole point of this long thread. If something exists, it has a basis in the physical. Any claims for a non-physical existance are necessarily flaws, because for a thing to exist, it must be physical. Period.

Have you ever tripped over the laws of physics? Me either. But I'm sure they exist.

Iacchus32

Aug16-03, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Have you ever tripped over the laws of physics? Me either. But I'm sure they exist. Yeah, maybe we could try skipping rope with it! [:D]

heusdens

Aug16-03, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What about the radio waves we recieve over the radio? Do they come from the radio itself? How do you know that our thoughts and feelings come from our brains? How do you know that we don't actually live in a matrix?

Actually you are right. Our thinking originates from our left toe (except in the rear cases, in which actually a radio source near pluto sends the thought signals to the right toe) , and our head... well that is just a cooling device, so that our blood cools down.

I hope this clears your problem.

Iacchus32

Aug16-03, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
Actually you are right. Our thinking originates from our left toe (except in the rear cases, in which actually a radio source near pluto sends the thought signals to the right toe) , and our head... well that is just a cooling device, so that our blood cools down.

I hope this clears your problem. Actually compared to the complexity of the brain a radio is pretty crude. And yet it clearly illustrates the fact that it's possible to send and receive signals from a remote source. In which case it would seem the brain is far more capable of pulling something off like the "matrix scenario."

Iacchus32

Aug17-03, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually compared to the complexity of the brain a radio is pretty crude. And yet it clearly illustrates the fact that it's possible to send and receive signals from a remote source. In which case it would seem the brain is far more capable of pulling something off like the "matrix scenario." And yet the very evidence of the reality that exists behind "reality" is exhibited by our dreams.

From the thread, The Mystery Within (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=611&perpage=15&pagenumber=3) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Who are we and what are we in relationship to that which we dream about? I know for me there's always some sort of interaction going on, and it's hard to believe it's merely a by-product of some electro-chemical process going on in the brain. What are these other so-called "enitities" experiencing when they experience me? It's like I had always been there, and yet separate, as if I were a separate entity. Which, is pretty much the way I experience them.

And yet there are times when I become more concsious in this state and I say, "By the way, I haven't died yet." And they all look at me with puzzled faces and say, "What do mean? It's always been this way. This is it man (reality)." And it's about this time that I begin to wake up, and realize that I'm laying in bed, and there they are still looking at me! And I say, "Hey, I tried to explain it you!" Soon after they would all depart and I would go back to my being unaware of them.Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually it's this kind of "lucid dreaming" state that I believe would account for what people term "alien abduction," for which reason I think the idea of abduction is very unlikely.

Now as for a "spiritual encounter," that would be another story. For if in indeed our dreams were like a portal to another dimension, then it would be much easier to explain the existence of God, than that of extraterrestrial existence.From the thread, Heaven? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1696) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by kyle_soule
I see no reason for Heaven to have dimensions, it would basically be another place. Heaven perhaps is another dimension, but not multidimensional.

Although, I think the idea of Heaven and the possibility of it being another dimensions is a weak attempt by people to tie science into religion.

If Heaven truely exists, there is no physical evidence of it, so one would only assume its a state of un/consciousness. Let me ask you this? Do you dream in three dimensions? Or, is that just illusory? Don't our dreams also reflect our state of mind and being?

If we can do it in our dreams, which is merely an introduction to the spiritual world, then why not even more so in heaven?

heusdens

Aug17-03, 08:29 AM

Hee Iacchus32

Just a reminder, you started talking to yourself again.

Just in case you lost sight of reality.

Iacchus32

Aug17-03, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
Hee Iacchus32

Just a reminder, you started talking to yourself again.

Just in case you lost sight of reality. Oh, I get it! [;)]

You don't think it expounds on what I said previous to that?

Zero

Aug17-03, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Have you ever tripped over the laws of physics? Me either. But I'm sure they exist.
They don't 'exist' in a physical sense. Mental constructs are not 'real' in the material sense. Anyhoo, don't try to make one of those uncalled for leaps from 'concept X 'exists', and isn't physical, therefore any nonsense I want to believe MUST exist too!'

Zero

Aug19-03, 02:48 PM

See, grrrrrr...

Been reading threads by certain folks, which seek to show flaw3s in science based on...well, based on absolutely nothing but gut feelings and the results of meditation. That's absolutely teh WORST way to go about things!!

amadeus

Aug19-03, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Zero
See, grrrrrr...

Been reading threads by certain folks, which seek to show flaws in science based on...well, based on absolutely nothing but gut feelings and the results of meditation. That's absolutely teh WORST way to go about things!!

So what makes science superior to gut feelings or the results of meditation?

Obviously science can never be flawed when the criteria for flawlessness is set by scientists themselves. But shouldn't science, or gut feelings, or meditation, be judged by independent, unbiased sources?

Fliption

Aug19-03, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Zero
They don't 'exist' in a physical sense. Mental constructs are not 'real' in the material sense. Anyhoo, don't try to make one of those uncalled for leaps from 'concept X 'exists', and isn't physical, therefore any nonsense I want to believe MUST exist too!'

I will pay you money if you can find where I ever argued for any nonsense simply because I wanted to believe it. This consistent lack of respect you have for anyone that disagrees with you is a bit tiring and I'm positive not in line with the intended spirit of this site.

I was simply responding to this ill conceived quote...

"Any claims for a non-physical existance are necessarily flaws, because for a thing to exist, it must be physical. Period."

This quote is NOT consistent with this one ...

"They don't 'exist' in a physical sense. Mental constructs are not 'real' in the material sense."

I ask again "Do mental constructs not exists?" They're not real in a "material" sense you say? So in what sense are they real? I'm a bit confused. It is either real or it is not.

FZ+

Aug19-03, 06:57 PM

But shouldn't science, or gut feelings, or meditation, be judged by independent, unbiased sources?
Easy. There are no such thing as independent, unbiased sources in such matters.

Suppose someone looks at meditation. It is not possible to look at it without defining a position from which you can study - you can either study it as a material phenomenon, in which case your a biased materialist, or you can focus on the experience, in which case you are a biased spiritualist. The only way to be independent is not to look. Kinda like an example of QM...

Zero

Aug20-03, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by amadeus
So what makes science superior to gut feelings or the results of meditation?

Obviously science can never be flawed when the criteria for flawlessness is set by scientists themselves. But shouldn't science, or gut feelings, or meditation, be judged by independent, unbiased sources?

Science isn't perfect, no one here has made that claim(at least not since Alexander was around![;)]), but the difference is, one sort of thinking can be independently confirmed, while the others cannot.

I could have a gut feeling that my car has been stolen, but don't you think I should go look and see for sure before I call the cops?

Zero

Aug20-03, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
I will pay you money if you can find where I ever argued for any nonsense simply because I wanted to believe it. This consistent lack of respect you have for anyone that disagrees with you is a bit tiring and I'm positive not in line with the intended spirit of this site.

I was simply responding to this ill conceived quote...

"Any claims for a non-physical existance are necessarily flaws, because for a thing to exist, it must be physical. Period."

This quote is NOT consistent with this one ...

"They don't 'exist' in a physical sense. Mental constructs are not 'real' in the material sense."

I ask again "Do mental constructs not exists?" They're not real in a "material" sense you say? So in what sense are they real? I'm a bit confused. It is either real or it is not.

I wasn't refering to you, so you can take off your indignant armor now...and any lack of respect I have is for obviously ill-concieved responses to posts...for instance, if I had replied to your post with 'My dog is blue, see the tears roll down the mountain', I would expect you would call that a nonsense post, right?

As far as the rest of your post(now that you are done with the obligatory Zero-bashing...do you have a crush on me?), a physical law is not a thing that has existance, it is a mental construct that exlains observed facts. It is different sort of 'existance' than what this thread is addressing.

Fliption

Aug20-03, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I wasn't refering to you, so you can take off your indignant armor now...

Oh Sorry. I assumed it was geared toward me since it was my quote that it appeared to be responding to. If my quote is sitting there I assume your response is aimed to it directly.

and any lack of respect I have is for obviously ill-concieved responses to posts...for instance, if I had replied to your post with 'My dog is blue, see the tears roll down the mountain', I would expect you would call that a nonsense post, right?

Right. Pure nonsense. But I thought you were responding to my post. I wasn't interested in whatever garbage someone else may be posting.

As far as the rest of your post(now that you are done with the obligatory Zero-bashing...do you have a crush on me?), a physical law is not a thing that has existance, it is a mental construct that exlains observed facts. It is different sort of 'existance' than what this thread is addressing.

Ok well then I would recommend that everyone else involved in the thread express their opinion on that. To me this is just more evidence that many of the discussions going on here are the result of semantic problems. I have already expressed earlier in the thread that a definition that begs the question by simply building the conclusion into itself is not useful. I have also suggested that this isn't the same definition that others are using.

First you said that nothing exist unless it is physical. I said the laws of physics, math, nature, whatever, is real but is not physical. Then you said that these things are not real in a material sense. So you're 2 statements put together equal = "Nothing exists in a material sense unless it is physical". Duh! [:)]

So again, with these definitions you are simply assuming the conclusion and end up making these obviously true but useless statements.

Iacchus32

Aug20-03, 07:55 PM

By the way Zero, the "idea" of God which, is merely a thought, has to come from somewhere. And if as you say, thoughts and feelings are only physical, then how would you account for a "Spiritual God," if in fact He exists?

So in that case there has to be something "metaphysical" about consciousness, or not? ... Whereas similar to the notion of God, Scientists still can't explain what consciousness is? Hmm ...

And yet what is it about consciousness that doesn't "underscore" our very existence?

Another God

Aug21-03, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
similar to the notion of God, Scientists still can't explain what consciousness is? Hmm ...
For christs sake.... Go back 100 years and look at all the things 'Science Still can't explain...' Then go back 200 years, then go back 300 years.... That argument will always be available on some level, because there will always be something that Humans can't explain at any given time. Our pursuit of knowledge is constantly pushing back the boundary, not revealing everything in one big foul swoop.

So what if we can't explain consciousness (still) what indication have you got that it is inexplainable?

Zero

Aug21-03, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
So again, with these definitions you are simply assuming the conclusion and end up making these obviously true but useless statements.

It does seem to be a semantic problem. Physical laws aren't things...they are descriptions of the behaviors of things. I don't see how a law has anything that would be considered 'existance', if you see what I mean?

Zero

Aug21-03, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
By the way Zero, the "idea" of God which, is merely a thought, has to come from somewhere. And if as you say, thoughts and feelings are only physical, then how would you account for a "Spiritual God," if in fact He exists?

So in that case there has to be something "metaphysical" about consciousness, or not? ... Whereas similar to the notion of God, Scientists still can't explain what consciousness is? Hmm ...

And yet what is it about consciousness that doesn't "underscore" our very existence?

None of this makes any sense...

Iacchus32

Aug21-03, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by Zero
None of this makes any sense... Maybe because you're not conscious? Consciousness is the standard to existence. It's the only thing that determines anything. First and foremost you have to be conscious.

What does that mean? Screw science! For without our ability to be conscious which, science by itself is not capable of -- because it has "no soul" -- then how would we be able to determine that we were even here?

If it weren't for the fact that we were conscious we wouldn't exist, neither would science.

Zero

Aug21-03, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Maybe because you're not conscious? Consciousness is the standard to existence. It's the only thing that determines anything. First and foremost you have to be conscious.

What does that mean? Screw science! For without our ability to be conscious which, science by itself is not capable of -- because it has "no soul" -- then how would we be able to determine that we were even here?

If it weren't for the fact that we were conscious we wouldn't exist, neither would science. Or, maybe you JUST DON"T MAKE ANY SENSE!!

*pant pant* Whew, I had to get that out!

We aren't talking about 'souls' or feelings, and those things have NOTHING to do with the physical world that we live in. So, in other words, your anti-science ramblings have nothing to do with the topic of this thread, except to show your senseless bias against any sort of logic.

Iacchus32

Aug21-03, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Or, maybe you JUST DON"T MAKE ANY SENSE!!

*pant pant* Whew, I had to get that out!

We aren't talking about 'souls' or feelings, and those things have NOTHING to do with the physical world that we live in. So, in other words, your anti-science ramblings have nothing to do with the topic of this thread, except to show your senseless bias against any sort of logic. The only reason why I say screw science is because everything begins with, and ends with, consciousness. Science is "only" an endeavor which has come about by means of consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is it!

Zero

Aug21-03, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The only reason why I say screw science is because everything begins with, and ends with, consciousness. Science is "only" an endeavor which has come about by means of consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is it!

So? There is no evidence that there is anything magical or non-physical about consciousness. Therefore, I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand.

Another God

Aug21-03, 04:48 AM

It's hard to be conscious without a brain.

If you doubt this, go stick your head on some train tracks during peak hour and then come back and tell me I am wrong.

Zero

Aug21-03, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by Another God
It's hard to be conscious without a brain.

If you doubt this, go stick your head on some train tracks during peak hour and then come back and tell me I am wrong.

And if he does it, it proves you can have a brain and not be conscious!

Iacchus32

Aug21-03, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by Zero
So? There is no evidence that there is anything magical or non-physical about consciousness. Therefore, I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand. It also suggests that we shouldn't forsake those things which happen on a personal level, for indeed, the fact they we're conscious overrides everything -- even science. In which case it puts God on the same "plausibility" level of science.

If you can't even conceive of it, "consciously," then there's no way you can possibly ever experience it.

Now you don't have to construe what I'm saying here as evidence if you like, but it is evidence nonetheless, and it only goes to show how biased and narrow-minded people can really be.

Another God

Aug21-03, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If you can't even conceive of it, "consciously," then there's no way you can possibly ever experience it.Of course not, because experience is a conscious phenomenon. Der.

Now you don't have to construe what saying here as evidence if you like, but it is eviedence nonetheless, and it only goes to show how biased and narrow-minded people can really be.
But where does your consciousnes come from?

Iacchus32

Aug21-03, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Another God
It's hard to be conscious without a brain.

If you doubt this, go stick your head on some train tracks during peak hour and then come back and tell me I am wrong. A brain don't mean sh*t either if you ain't conscious. Sorry, overruled! [;)]

Zero

Aug21-03, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It also suggests that we shouldn't forsake those things which happen on a personal level, for indeed, the fact they we're conscious overrides everything -- even science. In which case it puts God on the same "plausibility" level of science.

If you can't even conceive of it, "consciously," then there's no way you can possibly ever experience it.

Now you don't have to construe what saying here as evidence if you like, but it is eviedence nonetheless, and it only goes to show how biased and narrow-minded people can really be.

Your problem is, you make these huge leaps from A to Z without demonstrating the intermediate steps...maybe that is why I don't understand a single thing you post?!?

I'm biased against ideas that have no logical basis, besides making you feel like you are smarter than you really are. And you should skip the 'narrow-minded' comments, they are very nearly proof that you have no foundation for your arguments.

Iacchus32

Aug21-03, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Your problem is, you make these huge leaps from A to Z without demonstrating the intermediate steps...maybe that is why I don't understand a single thing you post?!?

I'm biased against ideas that have no logical basis, besides making you feel like you are smarter than you really are. And you should skip the 'narrow-minded' comments, they are very nearly proof that you have no foundation for your arguments. The evidence is the fact I am here, and conscious. Which is more than you can say for science.

And, when you break it down to the least common denominator, do you know what you get? Consciousness.

You can even construe this as evidence too if you like, but please don't accuse me of not having presented anything. [;)]

Another God

Aug21-03, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
A brain don't mean sh*t either if you ain't conscious. Sorry, overruled! [;)] Depends from who's perspective. If i became unconscious, but my brain maintained every single function that i carry out now in such a way that everyone around me couldn't notice the difference, then everyone around me would be forced to disagree with you.

The thing here, is that you are taking things from 'My perspective' and then proclaiming that 'My perspective' is all that matters. (ie: Without my consciousness, i can't experience anything, therefore nothing else matter)

The problem with that stance though, is that you are ignoring everything else outside of your experience, including all of the other billions of perspectives outside your own.

The only way to actually acknowledge the Conscious experience of other people, is to acknowledge the objective nature of reality, and the manifestation of the mind as a consequence of the objective brain.

Zero

Aug21-03, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The evidence is the fact I am here, and conscious. Which is more than you can say for science.

And, when you break it down to the least common denominator, do you know what you get? Consciousness.

You can construe this as evidence too if you like, but please don't accuse me of not having presented anything. [;)] Existing isn't evidence for anything except existance. Existance and consciousness are not evidence for any half-baked idea that someone decides to come up with after a few too many beers, or a rough childhood, or any source of mental instability. Your posts are the same as me saying "I exist and am conscious, therefore there are aliens from Altair IV, who created teh universe and are pumping my thoughts into my body by invizible Z-waves that cannot be detected by rational, narrow-minded science!"

Iacchus32

Aug21-03, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Another God
Depends from who's perspective. If i became unconscious, but my brain maintained every single function that i carry out now in such a way that everyone around me couldn't notice the difference, then everyone around me would be forced to disagree with you. Sorry, you wouldn't even have a perspective if you weren't conscious. Overruled! [;)]

Zero

Aug21-03, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Sorry, you wouldn't even have a perspective if you weren't conscious. Overruled! [;)]

You are a judge now? Stop hijacking my thread, it is bad enough you can't stay on topic in the ones you start!

Iacchus32

Aug21-03, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Existing isn't evidence for anything except existance. Existance and consciousness are not evidence for any half-baked idea that someone decides to come up with after a few too many beers, or a rough childhood, or any source of mental instability. Your posts are the same as me saying "I exist and am conscious, therefore there are aliens from Altair IV, who created teh universe and are pumping my thoughts into my body by invizible Z-waves that cannot be detected by rational, narrow-minded science!" No, I'm saying I base everything by the fact that I exist. Don't you? If not, then you're not your own person and are speaking someone else's words. Am afraid that's the truth.

Iacchus32

Aug21-03, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by Zero
You are a judge now? Stop hijacking my thread, it is bad enough you can't stay on topic in the ones you start! I am the judge of my own situation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Zero

Aug21-03, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I'm saying I base everything by the fact that I exist. Don't you? If not, then you're not your own person and are speaking someone else's words. Am afraid that's the truth. Again, you jump from "I'm saying I base everything by the fact that I exist. Don't you?" all the way to "If not, then you're not your own person and are speaking someone else's words" without any rhyme or reason!!

By teh way, in case you didn't read the last time I said it, your existance is on;y proof of your existance, nothing else. Can you address that statement, or is it too concrete for you to deal with?

Iacchus32

Aug21-03, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Again, you jump from "I'm saying I base everything by the fact that I exist. Don't you?" all the way to "If not, then you're not your own person and are speaking someone else's words" without any rhyme or reason!!

By teh way, in case you didn't read the last time I said it, your existance is on;y proof of your existance, nothing else. Can you address that statement, or is it too concrete for you to deal with? Why do you wish to argue about it? Without consciousness, and "knowing" that we exist, we would have no means by which to experience this "objective reality" you speak of. And by not realizing this, and accepting what we know "objectively" -- in other words, "consciously" -- the most we can expect to do is repeat what somebody else has told us.

Iacchus32

Aug21-03, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Another God
But where does your consciousnes come from? Am afraid only our consciousness will tell. You can consider that evidence too if you like. [;)]

The source of our "knowing" is consciousness, not some test tube in a laboratory.

Zero

Aug21-03, 10:19 AM

STOP HIJACKING MY THREAD WITH YOUR NONSENSE!!!

Fliption

Aug21-03, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Zero
It does seem to be a semantic problem. Physical laws aren't things...they are descriptions of the behaviors of things. I don't see how a law has anything that would be considered 'existance', if you see what I mean?

Let's think of the laws of math for instance. The fact that the diameter of a circle multiplied by Pi equals it's circumference is an algorythm that is true. The laws of nature are full of many other algorythms that do exists to allow the universe to operate the way it does. These things are no different from the software code behind Windows. I'm not talking about a material paper printout of the code. I'm talking about the holistic information content built into the code itself. It is a real existing thing. And it is not physical.

Heh maybe my new motto will be "If god exists then he is an algorythm!"[:D]

Zero

Aug21-03, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Let's think of the laws of math for instance. The fact that the diameter of a circle multiplied by Pi equals it's circumference is an algorythm that is true. The laws of nature are full of many other algorythms that do exists to allow the universe to operate the way it does. These things are no different from the software code behind Windows. I'm not talking about a material paper printout of the code. I'm talking about the holistic information content built into the code itself. It is a real existing thing. And it is not physical.

Heh maybe my new motto will be "If god exists then he is an algorythm!"[:D]

I think you are approaching it from the wrong direction. I don't see physical laws as being 'programed into' matter, and therefore a real thing, but as a basic property that is as much a description of an object as weight. We don't say that 'weight' exists, we say 'an object has weight'...do you see what I am trying to get across? We don't say that 'red' exists as a thing unto itself, it is a way of describing something that exists.

Iacchus32

Aug21-03, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Let's think of the laws of math for instance. The fact that the diameter of a circle multiplied by Pi equals it's circumference is an algorythm that is true. The laws of nature are full of many other algorythms that do exists to allow the universe to operate the way it does. These things are no different from the software code behind Windows. I'm not talking about a material paper printout of the code. I'm talking about the holistic information content built into the code itself. It is a real existing thing. And it is not physical.

Heh maybe my new motto will be "If god exists then he is an algorythm!"[:D] Or, at the very least it "testifies" to the intelligence behind the design. [;)]

By the way Zero, the only nonsense that exists is inside your head. I'm just an observer man, reporting to you what I've seen.

Zero

Aug21-03, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32

By the way Zero, the only nonsense that exists is inside your head. I'm just an observer man, reporting to you what I've seen.

What? You haven't actually reported seeing anything, except things you imagined. I've read lots of your posts, and most of the time you imagine stuff, then come to unfounded conclusions based on your imaginings.

Fliption

Aug21-03, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I think you are approaching it from the wrong direction. I don't see physical laws as being 'programed into' matter, and therefore a real thing, but as a basic property that is as much a description of an object as weight. We don't say that 'weight' exists, we say 'an object has weight'...do you see what I am trying to get across? We don't say that 'red' exists as a thing unto itself, it is a way of describing something that exists.

But what about Microsoft Windows itself? Does it exists? My point isn't isolated to the laws of physics. I'm arguing that "information" does exists and it is not physical. Whether the laws of nature or math are in this category may be debatable but I know we can agree on a program written by humans. So does Windows exists?

Also, to your point on the laws of nature,I do see what you're saying, but I do see a distinction. I agree that color and things like that are simply ways of describing and distinguishing one object from another. But these laws that I am referring to are not subject to subjective interpretation from the observer. They are constant. The program running inside of DNA has a holistic existence. Yet it is not material. It doesn't matter whether someone programmed it or whether it was programmed blindly over the course of millions of years. The code is information.

Zero, I'm not sure if you've glanced at it yet but if you haven't you might want to check out the post and link that Wuli provided called "the holographic Universe" I believe. It is an article in scientific american. This idea is not entirely new but it is making the point (and we are slowing realizing this) that "information" is as much a component of the universe as matter and energy. And in my mind information is not a material thing.

Zero

Aug21-03, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
But what about Microsoft Windows itself? Does it exists? My point isn't isolated to the laws of physics. I'm arguing that "information" does exists and it is not physical. Whether the laws of nature or math are in this category may be debatable but I know we can agree on a program written by humans. So does Windows exists?

Also, to your point on the laws of nature,I do see what you're saying, but I do see a distinction. I agree that color and things like that are simply ways of describing and distinguishing one object from another. But these laws that I am referring to are not subject to subjective interpretation from the observer. They are constant. The program running inside of DNA has a holistic existence. Yet it is not material. It doesn't matter whether someone programmed it or whether it was programmed blindly over the course of millions of years. The code is information.

Zero, I'm not sure if you've glanced at it yet but if you haven't you might want to check out the post and link that Wuli provided called "the holographic Universe" I believe. It is an article in scientific american. This idea is not entirely new but it is making the point (and we are slowing realizing this) that "information" is as much a component of the universe as matter and energy. And in my mind information is not a material thing.

Information doesn't have a separate existance from the physical medium which carries it, is the point I am trying to get across...

Fliption

Aug21-03, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Information doesn't have a separate existance from the physical medium which carries it, is the point I am trying to get across...

So you're saying that Windows is no different than PC hardware?

I strongly disagree with this. Software is not a physical thing. The paper, cd, or harddrive it is printed on is a totally different thing.

Zero

Aug22-03, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
So you're saying that Windows is no different than PC hardware?

I strongly disagree with this. Software is not a physical thing. The paper, cd, or harddrive it is printed on is a totally different thing.

You know, it makes perfect sense in my head, and I am just not explaining it right...let me think some more on it, ok? Your criticism would be spot-on, if I meant what you think I mean, which I don't.[g)]

Another God

Aug22-03, 03:09 AM

In the interest of coherency, I have decided to write my reply a second time, and make it a little more succinct [:D]

Originally posted by Fliption
Software is not a physical thing. The paper, cd, or harddrive it is printed on is a totally different thing.

This all appears to me to be essentially the same as the Objective - Subjective thing. You cannot deny that we are subjective....but how does subjectivity come about? I mean, we have the objective brain things (collection of cells transmitting electro-chemical signals etc) and from those things, somehow, our subjective point of view arises.

I think our subjectivity can be simply explained (although we don't know how to) as a direct consequence of the physical make up of our brain.

Now, the Software not being a physical thing: I think the substratum of the software is the only actual existence of the information. It exists as a CD, and nothing else. Our perception of 'Information' as if it was something else, is just a consequence of our subjectivity: just as we experience lightning, although lightning is nothing more than static electricity. To look at paint and see paint, but then get magic atom glasses and look at the atoms that make up the paint, and see atoms, is to miss the point that the atoms actually are the paint.

For instance, the red example: Where we experience red, there is actually only light of a particular wavelength. Just because we experience Red, does not mean that 'Light carries the information for Red', but rather that something in the subjectivity creating factory in our brains is triggered by light hitting it, which makes us experience red. Cause and effect. 'Information' above and beyond the existence of the light wave is not required. Just as information above and beyond the existence of the particle (which has mass be definition) is not required, and just as the structure of the 'bits' on the CD require no extra information above and beyond the physical structure of those bits. Although the consequence of the structure ends up being quite meaningful to our subjectivity, that is simply a causal relationship that flows through the CD, to the CD player, into the Processor, through the RAM, into the monitor/speakers etc, into our eyes ears etc, into our subjectivity factory in the brain.

Train of cause and effect, no 'information' above and beyond the mere existence of the intermediate particles, behaving in their characteristic ways is required.

Hope I could help....?

Royce

Aug22-03, 07:50 AM

AG, From my understanding of what I'm reading yo are saying the there is no difference between a blank CD that I can buy for $2-3 and a CD with information on it that may cost me $200-300.

As I am a frugel man I would obviously but the blank CD but try as I might to load the program into my computer I get nothing.

Knowledge is. Information is. Our physical brain is the hardware on which the information and knowlege reside and operate. The electrochemical processes supply the energy and electrons to allow the hardware to run the software.

I can buy the most expensive complicated and advanced computer in the world and set it up and plug it in and turn it on. Even it I buy all he CD's in the world written or un written and load them onto my computer, the computer is not going to do anything until I tell it to do something and the it is only go to do exactly what I tell it to do, not necessarily what I want it to do. It is the same with our brains and minds. Every living human being has a funtioning brain. Every living human being does not know how or use his brain with the same efficency or to do the same thing. Even if we spent 20 years loading information into a number of brains as in education people, the results will differ drastically from one individual to another.

All phd's are not the same. If it were just a matter of physical brains there would not be that much difference in final results.

Fliption

Aug22-03, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Another God
This all appears to me to be essentially the same as the Objective - Subjective thing.

Train of cause and effect, no 'information' above and beyond the mere existence of the intermediate particles, behaving in their characteristic ways is required.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. The color red is a subjective interpretation of a light wave. But the function of a software program is distinct and can have real effects on the world whether a human being is around to see it or not. To go back to the laws of nature... the fact that circumference divided by diameter always equals Pi is NOT subjective. It is a universal rule that is not physical. (I understand that all these math labels are man made, but that doesn't change the fact that the ratio is constant in nature.)

Another God

Aug22-03, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Royce
AG, From my understanding of what I'm reading yo are saying the there is no difference between a blank CD that I can buy for $2-3 and a CD with information on it that may cost me $200-300.
Wow...I explained it THAT bad?

What I am saying does not mean that at all. In fact, it says the very opposite. It says that the $200 CD is much more worth it, because the CD has a very important part of it altered so that the computer which interacts with it does something impressive. The $2 CD does not have this alteration, and so makes for a very boring interaction.

I am simply saying that you do not pay $200 for the CD with the funky alterations, and the information that comes with it. The information is only a consequence of the funky alterations.

Of course, I say the above with an attempt at Objectivity, and I only say it that way because of the context of the discussion. It is true that in daily usage I would say "The $200 CD is worth it, because of the information it contains"....but that is a euphemism, a way of talking, a convenient expression to get a point across. It is important not to confuse 'ways of talking' with how things are, which is precisely what I think Fliption has done in this instance.

Fliption

Aug22-03, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Another God
Wow...I explained it THAT bad?
It is important not to confuse 'ways of talking' with how things are, which is precisely what I think Fliption has done in this instance.

What I say here I say because of many things I've read on the topic. So it isn't just me.

Another God

Aug22-03, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. The color red is a subjective interpretation of a light wave. But the function of a software program is distinct and can have real effects on the world whether a human being is around to see it or not. Absolutely in agreeance there, my point is that it only appears as 'information' because thats what us humans subjectively call it...it has a predictable causal relationship, a complex one at that, and so we call this particular example information.

In this way, we could call everything information. DNA holds information of the base pairs, the light waves holds the information of the the colour it will impart into the human consciousness, the atom holds the information of its mass and dimensions, the snooked ball holds the information of its momentum, and it even acts to impart some of this information into the snooker ball it collides with...not only that, but it instantaneously calculates a complicated trajectory equation, and the momentum is transformed in the passing.

But it becomes silly to talk about 'information' in this way. The fact is, these things are just acting in the way they act. Doing what they do. it is not that the ball carries the information of its momentum with it...it is that the ball is momentus (if thats not a word, then it is now) (the ball is in motion).

Now how you want to name that, how you want to say, how you want to think of it is your own deal, but don't confuse human simplification of the matter with how it is.

Having said that, I do have a slight suspicion that the universe is simply the consequence of a neat little mathematical relationship, and that equation dictates everything...which i guess would mean that everything 'is only information'...but thats just the same, but looked at oppositely, and so I am not completely contradicted. I still claim that there is not 'A ball AND the information with it', the is not "The CD AND the Software on it" There is only one unified entity.

Zero

Aug22-03, 09:37 AM

Fliption

Aug22-03, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Another God
Having said that, I do have a slight suspicion that the universe is simply the consequence of a neat little mathematical relationship, and that equation dictates everything...which i guess would mean that everything 'is only information'...but thats just the same, but looked at oppositely, and so I am not completely contradicted. I still claim that there is not 'A ball AND the information with it', the is not "The CD AND the Software on it" There is only one unified entity.

Nothing you are saying is refuting the fact that in order to have the universe, you have to have the things in the universe and then the rules which govern how those things interact. I don't care what you call it; information or not information. These rules are not material yet they do exists.

Fliption

Aug22-03, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Zero
No, you don't understand what I'm saying.*grins* But, I'm still having a hard time explaining. Software is physical. Sure, ok, software is physical! And 'pi' doesn't exist, roundness does. 'Red' doesn't exist, but the visible light spectrum does.

I was referring to AG. I'll concede that I may not understand what you're trying to say if you say I don't.

But the ratio of Pi DOES exists. If humans were not present it wouldn't be known as Pi but this has no bearing on the fact that the universe is contructed in a certain way according to certain rules and constants. These rules are not physical in and of themselves but they DO exists.

Iacchus32

Aug22-03, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
I was referring to AG. I'll concede that I may not understand what you're trying to say if you say I don't.

But the ratio of Pi DOES exists. If humans were not present it wouldn't be known as Pi but this has no bearing on the fact that the universe is contructed in a certain way according to certain rules and constants. These rules are not physical in and of themselves but they DO exists. Yeah, let's get metaphysical baby!

Zero

Aug22-03, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yeah, let's get metaphysical baby!
Nothing metaphysical about it. As I said, roundness exists, as a property of matter, described by pi.

Zero

Aug22-03, 10:58 AM

This is starting to sound like the return of Alexander's 'math created the universe' threads, isn't it?

Iacchus32

Aug22-03, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Zero
This is starting to sound like the return of Alexander's 'math created the universe' threads, isn't it? Are you referring to me here? Just give me a chance to finish the post on my other thread, A Flaw in the Theory of Natural Selection? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4758&perpage=15&pagenumber=4), and we'll see if we can't get you to eat some of your own words, Okay? [;)]

Give me about ten or fifteen minutes. I can assure you you won't be dissapointed!

Zero

Aug22-03, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are you referring to me here? Just give me a chance to finish the post on my other thread, A Flaw in the Theory of Natural Selection? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4758&perpage=15&pagenumber=4), and we'll see if we can't get you to eat some of your own words, Okay? [;)]

Give me about ten or fifteen minutes. I can assure you you won't be dissapointed!
LOL

Fliption

Aug22-03, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Another God
Absolutely in agreeance there, my point is that it only appears as 'information' because thats what us humans subjectively call it...it has a predictable causal relationship, a complex one at that, and so we call this particular example information.

"Ask anybody what the physical world is made of, and you are likely to be told "matter and energy."
Yet if we have learned anything from engineering, biology and physics, information is just as crucial an ingredient. The robot at the automobile factory is supplied with metal and plastic but can make nothing useful without copious instructions telling it which part to weld to what and so on. A ribosome in a cell in your body is supplied with amino acid building blocks and is powered by energy released by the conversion of ATP to ADP, but it can synthesize no proteins without the information brought to it from the DNA in the cell's nucleus. Likewise, a century of developments in physics has taught us that information is a crucial player in physical systems and processes. Indeed, a current trend, initiated by John A. Wheeler of Princeton University, is to regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals."

This is the first paragraph of the cover story of the most recent Scientific American. I'm not posting it because it necessarily contradicts anything you have said. I am posting it because by using the same language as this article, you claimed I was confused in terminology. I recommend you read the entire article.

But it does appear to contradict what Zero is saying. This article at least makes the distinction between information and it's media.

Zero

Aug22-03, 01:49 PM

I don't think that this is anything for me to worry about, really. It is a new way of looking at the same stuff, and I don't think it violates anyt of the main points I make.

Fliption

Aug22-03, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I don't think that this is anything for me to worry about, really. It is a new way of looking at the same stuff, and I don't think it violates anyt of the main points I make.

That would depend on the definition of "information" that is being used by these scientists. While they don't mention materialism directly, it certainly sounds like they are describing "information" as a non-physical concept. Nonetheless, they are clearly distinguishing information from it's media. This alone contradicts what you've said.

Zero

Aug22-03, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
That would depend on the definition of "information" that is being used by these scientists. While they don't mention materialism directly, it certainly sounds like they are describing "information" as a non-physical concept. Nonetheless, they are clearly distinguishing information from it's media. This alone contradicts what you've said.

Well, it contradicts one aspect of what I have said...patience, Flip, I'm sure when THEY figure out what they are talking about, it will fit perfectly fine in my outlook.

Fliption

Aug23-03, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, it contradicts one aspect of what I have said...patience, Flip, I'm sure when THEY figure out what they are talking about, it will fit perfectly fine in my outlook.

Lol. I agree. I am confident that whatever they discover the truth to be that you will perceive it to be consistent with your worldview. How can it not be with this openminded attitude? lol [:)]

Zero

Aug23-03, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Lol. I agree. I am confident that whatever they discover the truth to be that you will perceive it to be consistent with your worldview. How can it not be with this openminded attitude? lol [:)] I know you are being sarcastic, but it is true. I AM open-minded, to the results of properly done scientific inquiry.

Fliption

Aug23-03, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I know you are being sarcastic, but it is true. I AM open-minded, to the results of properly done scientific inquiry.

I meant to say at the bottom that I assume you were kidding. But who knows? Maybe you weren't.

The question is "will you actively pursue looking into progress in this area or will it be forgotten until someone brings it up in another "bash everyone who disagrees with me thread"?

Another God

Aug24-03, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by Fliption

"A ribosome in a cell in your body is supplied with amino acid building blocks and is powered by energy released by the conversion of ATP to ADP, but it can synthesize no proteins without the information brought to it from the DNA in the cell's nucleus."

This is the first paragraph of the cover story of the most recent Scientific American. I'm not posting it because it necessarily contradicts anything you have said. I am posting it because by using the same language as this article, you claimed I was confused in terminology. I recommend you read the entire article. Hmm, well, it seems I may disagree with the author of this article, and the editors who deemed this article good enough to post in New Scientist.

I don't mind that.

It basically comes down to the assertion that DNA carries information with it. I mean, yes, the structure of the RNA can be said to interact with the ribosome in a way so as to translate to 'information' into proteins...But this is only a consequence of the structure of that particular RNA molecule.

Either the author of this article realises that he is using the word information, as a human created concept, imposed upon simply characteristics of our universe, or he is claiming that characteristics of our universe exists, and information may be 'held' by those things, or he is confusing language in his attempt to objectively analyse nature, and so making a fool of himself.

I will agree with the first one, the second one is a big conjecture for which I will need some sort of proof (ie: Seperate the information from the matter that carries it), and then the third one is simply a result of...well, lets call it miseducation.

Thats my belief anyway.

Zero

Aug24-03, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Another God
Hmm, well, it seems I may disagree with the author of this article, and the editors who deemed this article good enough to post in New Scientist.

I don't mind that.

It basically comes down to the assertion that DNA carries information with it. I mean, yes, the structure of the RNA can be said to interact with the ribosome in a way so as to translate to 'information' into proteins...But this is only a consequence of the structure of that particular RNA molecule.

Either the author of this article realises that he is using the word information, as a human created concept, imposed upon simply characteristics of our universe, or he is claiming that characteristics of our universe exists, and information may be 'held' by those things, or he is confusing language in his attempt to objectively analyse nature, and so making a fool of himself.

I will agree with the first one, the second one is a big conjecture for which I will need some sort of proof (ie: Seperate the information from the matter that carries it), and then the third one is simply a result of...well, lets call it miseducation.

Thats my belief anyway.

That's what I was thinking...or that ;information' is being used as a desciptive term different in the context from what it is in normal usage.

Fliption

Aug24-03, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Another God
I will agree with the first one, the second one is a big conjecture for which I will need some sort of proof (ie: Seperate the information from the matter that carries it), and then the third one is simply a result of...well, lets call it miseducation.

Thats my belief anyway.

Then I would recommend that you do alot more reading on it. This is certainly not the only place where this is discussed. I'm positive you will have to cast aside the credibility of more than just one scientists in order to keep your world view.

Zero

Aug24-03, 11:04 AM

Fliption

Aug24-03, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I don't see why...this hypothesis is going to have to be backed by empirical data...which is the main point of our philosophy.[:)]

So you're claiming that other scientists are claiming things without evidence? Anyway, this has less to do with evidence as it does the usage and definition of the term "information" by scientists. Let me note again that they make a distinction between information and it's medium. And this is definitional. Semantics doesn't require evidence.

"BTW, love the use of the word "our" in "our philosophy". [:D]

Zero

Aug24-03, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
So you're claiming that other scientists are claiming things without evidence? Anyway, this has less to do with evidence as it does the usage and definition of the term "information" by scientists. Let me note again that they make a distinction between information and it's medium. And this is definitional. Semantics doesn't require evidence.

"BTW, love the use of the word "our" in "our philosophy". [:D]

Yeah, as a matter of fact, semanitics should actually require evidence, or shall I start calling you a 'toad', because I can make up meanings of words to suit me?

Zero

Aug24-03, 01:14 PM

And, in addition, are these scientists claiming that the 'information' carried by DNA is subjective?

Fliption

Aug24-03, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Zero
And, in addition, are these scientists claiming that the 'information' carried by DNA is subjective? I'm not sure they address that topic. Are you suggesting that subjectivity doesn't exists?

Fliption

Aug24-03, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, as a matter of fact, semanitics should actually require evidence, or shall I start calling you a 'toad', because I can make up meanings of words to suit me?

So you're saying that if serveral scientists are using a different definition from you than they are making it up? lol

Zero

Aug24-03, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
So you're saying that if serveral scientists are using a different definition from you than they are making it up? lol No, I am saying they need to make sure to clarify terms, if'n you get my point?

You know, like when the creationists call 'Intelligent Design' a theory, they don't use the word the way a scientist would, confusing some people into believing that ID is science, when it is not. You know, that sort of thing.

Fliption

Aug24-03, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Zero
No, I am saying they need to make sure to clarify terms, if'n you get my point?

You know, like when the creationists call 'Intelligent Design' a theory, they don't use the word the way a scientist would, confusing some people into believing that ID is science, when it is not. You know, that sort of thing.

Yeah I know what you mean. In this case, these are scientists and I know there is alot you can read about this if you actually wanted to get a clear understanding.

I think we should hold the same standards of explanation to people of all views.

Zero

Aug24-03, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Yeah I know what you mean. In this case, these are scientists and I know there is alot you can read about this if you actually wanted to get a clear understanding.

I think we should hold the same standards of explanation to people of all views.

I do hold them to the same general standards, which is why I am dismissive of the ID supporters, while I respect the research into this whole 'information is the fundamental building block of reality' idea. I don't think that they are right, but I also think they might be onto something, as far as a useful way of describing things. And, if they are right, it doesn't make me 'wrong' in a practical sense.

Fliption

Aug24-03, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I do hold them to the same general standards, which is why I am dismissive of the ID supporters, while I respect the research into this whole 'information is the fundamental building block of reality' idea. I don't think that they are right, but I also think they might be onto something, as far as a useful way of describing things. And, if they are right, it doesn't make me 'wrong' in a practical sense.

The way I think of information, it can exists objectively. Whether or not this understanding of mine is consistent with what these scientists think, I can't be sure right now. But it certainly seems as if they are talking about the same thing I have in mind.

Zero

Aug25-03, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
The way I think of information, it can exists objectively. Whether or not this understanding of mine is consistent with what these scientists think, I can't be sure right now. But it certainly seems as if they are talking about the same thing I have in mind.

I think I know why I am resistant to the idea. I believe when they say 'information', they mean something very specific. I am afraid that some people will take that to mean that information in the broadest sense is objective, and then make wild claims that those scientists never intended and wouldn't support.

Another God

Aug25-03, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Then I would recommend that you do alot more reading on it. This is certainly not the only place where this is discussed. I'm positive you will have to cast aside the credibility of more than just one scientists in order to keep your world view. So which one do you think it is, and which one do you think they think it is?

1 Information is a human created concept, imposed upon characteristics of our universe

2 Characteristics of our universe exists, and information may be 'held' by those things

3 "DNA contains information...now we just have to find where that information that it contains..." (ie: Semantic confusion. Category Error)

Zero

Aug25-03, 02:17 AM

AG, you forget that he doesn't have opinions...except that any position I support must be wrong, axiomatically.

Fliption

Aug25-03, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Another God
So which one do you think it is, and which one do you think they think it is?

1 Information is a human created concept, imposed upon characteristics of our universe

2 Characteristics of our universe exists, and information may be 'held' by those things

3 "DNA contains information...now we just have to find where that information that it contains..." (ie: Semantic confusion. Category Error)

Number 1 is true but it is true for everything. All words are "human created concepts imposed on characteristics of our universe." This goes for material things as well.

In number 2 I don't like the word "held".

And I don't understand number 3.

Do you believe there are laws of nature? Do you think they exists? Or do you believe they are just a byproduct description of the behavior of matter and energy? It's sorta like "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" So which came first in your mind?

Fliption

Aug25-03, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Zero
AG, you forget that he doesn't have opinions...except that any position I support must be wrong, axiomatically.

Very mature. I have no clue whether you're wrong or right Zero. Couldn't care less either. I just dislike your disrespectful, insulting, condescending attitude and blatant disregard for any effort to defend your position other than to state "I'm right because I know I'm right".

I have given you my opinion on this topic and it differs from yours. So this is what that turns into? While I disagree with you I am open to being wrong. But I'm not waiting on someone to prove it to me. I have actually read through many websites and picked up several books since this thread started trying to more thoroughly understand the definitions being used by scientists studying this. I supposed you've done the same? Of course you have.

Zero

Aug25-03, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Very mature. I have no clue whether you're wrong or right Zero. Couldn't care less either. I just hate your disrespectful, insulting, condescending attitude and blatant disregard for any effort to defend your position other than to state "I'm right because I know I'm right". You just hate me because I'm beautiful...and probably because I gave you hell over that 'Intelligent Design' nonsense last year.

I still think you have a crush on me, too.

Fliption

Aug25-03, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Zero
You just hate me because I'm beautiful...and probably because I gave you hell over that 'Intelligent Design' nonsense last year.

I still think you have a crush on me, too.

That's hilarious because in my view you've done nothing in any thread discussion with me that "gives me hell". If anything you make yourself look like a hardheaded jackass who can't defend his position. LOL

Zero

Aug25-03, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
That's hilarious because in my view you've done nothing in any thread discussion with me that "gives me hell". If anything you make yourself look like a hardheaded jackass who can't defend his position. LOL What have you presented that I need to defend myself against? Let's get this back on topic, now that you have resorted to name-calling. Hopefully you have gotten it out of your system. Good?

Let's get on with the show!

Zero

Aug25-03, 12:49 PM

Actually, I think part of teh problem is that people seem to think that I have a dogma, or some list of facts that I approve of. That is an incorrect assumption. I have a bias towards a way of looking at the world, which is different altogether. There aren't any facts that dispute my worldview, because for them to actually be a fact, they fit right in. I know it seems circular, but it is no more so than peole claiming that the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible. And, unlike a religious dogma, the facts which I accept(provisionaly, always provisionally accept)can change as new evidence is discovered.

Fliption

Aug25-03, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Zero
What have you presented that I need to defend myself against? Let's get this back on topic, now that you have resorted to name-calling. Hopefully you have gotten it out of your system. Good?

Let's get on with the show!

I have given some examples of things that do not fit into your worldview. I then provided an article from a reputable science magazine that expands on the very same concept as a real, existing thing. The very existence of this article contradicts your view. From this article it would be easy to then get additional information on this topic. So there is no lack of information here.

And your response was "They will agree with my view once they figure out what they're talking about". Ridiculous, Zero. Absolutely ridiculous. And now you want me to provide you more? LOL. Sure, I love wasting my time.

Zero

Aug25-03, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
I have given some examples of things that do not fit into your worldview. I then provided an article from a reputable science magazine that expands on the very same concept as a real, existing thing. The very existence of this article contradicts your view. From this article it would be easy to then get additional information on this topic. So there is no lack of information here.

And your response was "They will agree with my view once they figure out what they're talking about". Ridiculous, Zero. Absolutely ridiculous. And now you want me to provide you more? LOL. Sure, I love wasting my time. No, I said that I will likely agree with them, once they work it all out, there's a distinction.

Crybaby.

Fliption

Aug25-03, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Zero
No, I said that I will likely agree with them, once they work it all out, there's a distinction.

Crybaby.

Crybaby? Lol. Nice. What's next "My daddy can beat your daddy up?"

This is what you said. It is on page 20 of this thread for anyone who wants to see it first hand....

"...patience, Flip, I'm sure when THEY figure out what they are talking about, it will fit perfectly fine in my outlook."

Keep digging.

Zero

Aug26-03, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Crybaby? Lol. Nice. What's next "My daddy can beat your daddy up?"

This is what you said. It is on page 20 of this thread for anyone who wants to see it first hand....

"...patience, Flip, I'm sure when THEY figure out what they are talking about, it will fit perfectly fine in my outlook."

Keep digging.

Well, if tehy have evidence, as accepted by the majority of scientists, it will fit into my philosophy. I don't see the contradiction. After all, if you look back, I stated that I would have no problem with the existance of something like ESP, if there was a scientific study that showed it to work.

sascha

Aug26-03, 03:16 AM

Lately I've been reading through the whole of this thread. I am astonished that somehow the dialogue partners never get really to the crucial point. To my sense the question of the thread being "Why a bias against Materialism?" is misleading insofar as it does not address the more primal fact that Materialism itself introduces a bias in its world view, which must thus be justified and can legitimately be doubted. Its bias is in believeing the world is somewhere "out there", in the "things" believed to be real because they are perceivable. As has been hinted at several times on this thread, in this view reality does not consist also of the laws and forces that constitute the things, because these are not perceivable. As much Fliption as Zero made this point several times, from opposing sides. In Materialism, reality is being thought from the parts to the whole -- which can be fulfilled only in approximations, never in a strict way. On a materialist path, one can never know the overall order, because one has excluded an access to that from the outset, by imposing the basic split into the existent and the nonexistent -- even though, for actual intelligibility, the nonexistent part (eg. laws and forces) is decisive. The grasp of Materialism is self-limited by its very principle. But I get the impression that the opponents do not clarify the very basis and therefore do not talk about the same problem. In such situations it is not astonishing that they cannot agree.

On August 5, Fliption posted a need to define what one is talking about. Quite some time later, FZ+ did some nice summing up between Materialism and Idealism. As yet no one has mentioned the third one of the possible positions (Hylozoism / Panpsychism), in spite of the fact that it is implicitly quite widespread now because Materialism leads there when wanting to deal with the principle of life (eg. Prigogine tends to think this way). This is the position that attributes some alive quality to the allegedly fundamental material entities, since everything is assumed to consist of these. It is thus a scientific form of animism. Genetics is being nudged there, even if it does not like the idea. Saying information can exist on its own tends in this direction too, because information is always about something, while information about itself is a difficult thing in today's ways of thinking: none of the scientific systems can handle complete self-reference (the more formalized, the more they are self-limited).

Zero says he believs in science "as accepted by the majority of scientists". But this attitude does not offer the required certainty. The materialist position offers no secure criterion for securing fully against collective error. Not long ago, a majority believed eg. in the Ptolemaian system, or in phlogiston, or in atomism. Limited thinking is fine as long as people are tinkering around at a miniature scale. But now, by our "knowing" and doing, we are producing ozone holes and other global changes. Nothing to experiment with, because on the global scale we need totally secure knowledge. As a consequence of its primal bias, especially the materialist stance cannot develop any conceptual (categoreal) means with which to think securely and in a strictly complete way from the whole to the parts. As a consequence of this fact, the materialist stance must shift its question onto ever new levels. In this way, the atomistically imagined 'fundamental pieces' of matter dissolved into ever smaller entities. In the standard model one my say there are fundamental fermions, but there are problems which even the GUTs and SUSY do not fully solve. The inevitable trend still is to be pushed into ever more little pieces, compelled to add ever more epicyles to the basic system. This is the fate of wanting to think from pieces towards the whole.

Postulating a need for evidence can only reveal parts of what is relevant, because it remains in the incomplete idea stated above. The conceptual / categoreal problems are not solved by this postulate. Some people sense the weakness in this stance, and they oppose it. Is this really not legitimate, Zero? I don't think there is much hate in the opponents; to my sense, the situation is rather like two types of language encountering each other. This can exasperate some temperaments.

Zero

Aug26-03, 03:33 AM

Wow. That was a hell of a post![:D]

I know we got a bit off track with this one. I know earlier, I was trying to explore the notion that a materialist worldview is very practical, in that it is an approach which has the advantage of giving concrete answers most of the time. Does that sound reasonable? If it does, then why would anyone want to reject materialism? I would agree that it is a rough tool, that can always be sharpened further, but I see a situation where people abandon it completely, which seems counterproductive to me.

As far as the two sides 'speaking over each others' heads', I would have to agree. There seems to be a communication barrier, and I think that the position that Fliption has presented most recently is closer to agreeing with my position than he realizes. Oh well, back to running in circles on it![g)]

As far as a weakness in the materialist's viewpoint, I would appreciate you clarifying a bit more? Actually, if you could just zoom in on this single issue, I think we can narrow this thread back to something approaching its initial intent.

Zero

Aug26-03, 03:43 AM

Oh, and use layman's terms, if you would? You are a philosopher, while I am simply the smartest himan being alive...[6)]

Another God

Aug26-03, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Number 1 is true but it is true for everything. All words are "human created concepts imposed on characteristics of our universe." This goes for material things as well.True, but it is important to see a distinction between words for things which are supposed to actually exist as tangible items, and then words which exist just to express ideas, or concepts.

As such, the point I am making with my option is that information is a human created 'concept' applied to a thing (the thing having its own name: Matter). The concept does not actually exist, only the matter does.

In number 2 I don't like the word "held".OK. So change it. I am curious to know what you think, and what you think they think... I am not sure that I understand their position yet.

And I don't understand number 3.
A category error, is a mistake where you basically miss the forest for the trees (in the most literal sense.) "Where's the forest? I only see a whole bunch of trees..." When obviously, the forest IS the collection of trees

And so: Are they, because of a language confusion, looking at matter, and wondering where the Information is, how the information exists, what information really is etc???? When in reality, the matter right in front of them IS the information.

Do you believe there are laws of nature? Do you think they exists? Or do you believe they are just a byproduct description of the behavior of matter and energy? It's sorta like "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" So which came first in your mind? Well, my personal belief, as entirely unfounded and uneducated as it is (I am the first to admit that) is that the Universe is most likely a mathematical function in action...and matter is just some sort of perverse consequence of that.

But that isn't really important. Look back at my explanation of Option 3 and you will hopefully understand better how I think it works. Information and the medium that holds that information is not a matter of cause and effect. They are the one thing.

Oh wait, OK, it is true, my view is important to it. The 'laws' came first in my mind, and matter is a consequence. And it is because of the laws that matter = information, because matter is just a manifestation of the laws...

that makes some sort of sense to me.

Iacchus32

Aug26-03, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by sascha
Postulating a need for evidence can only reveal parts of what is relevant, because it remains in the incomplete idea stated above. The conceptual / categoreal problems are not solved by this postulate. Some people sense the weakness in this stance, and they oppose it. Is this really not legitimate, Zero? Yes, I agree. [;)]

And just as sure as day follows night, we are all part of the "overall design."

Fliption

Aug26-03, 09:03 AM

[i]Originally posted by Another God
Oh wait, OK, it is true, my view is important to it. The 'laws' came first in my mind, and matter is a consequence. And it is because of the laws that matter = information, because matter is just a manifestation of the laws...

that makes some sort of sense to me. [/B]

OK I'm glad you answered that wya because it will be easier for me to explain what I'm thinking. Assuming what you've said is true, then the laws are the instructions by which all matter operates. The laws are information. Where are they? The laws aren't "held" by any matter are they? Hopefully you can see why I struggled with the word "held".

Also, let me go ahead and clarify before someone goes ballistic. I use the word "instructions" not to mean anything about intent or design. I use it to draw the analogy to software which is also just a set of instructions that directs the hardwares behavior.

Zero

Aug26-03, 10:11 AM

Well, Fliption, if you thing about it, there is alot of information 'held' by even the simplest matter, that 'instructs' it on how to behave. Say you have an atom of carbon. The mass of the nucleus 'instructs' the atom on how to 'react' to gravity. The number of electrons 'instruct' the atom on how to form chemical bonds, react to a magnetic field, etc. I'm sure there's lots more 'information' in a single atom when you get into quantum stuff.

Some people would ask: how does DNA 'know' what to do? I would counter that it doesn't know any more than a single carbon atom knows about bonding to other atoms...but it does it the same way every time in the same situation.

sascha

Aug26-03, 11:21 AM

Zero, I agree fully that a materialist worldview is practical (and I will try to use only laymen's words in my posts -- thanks for the hint). Insofar it is quite reasonable.

Did the fight not start when some tried to think everything in materialist terms, i.e. not just specific aspects -- eg. tools, gadgets -- for which this perspective is adequate? For finding laws, the presently fashionable form of science operates by 'generalization'; so some feel that something successful in one realm should be applicable in other, and -- swoosh -- they generalize eg, the materialist approach. The trouble with the priciple of generalization is that it can secure laws in a limited realm only, it can't secure strictly universal laws (eg. even the law of entropy is subject to entropy -- while there are universal laws: eg. the principle of truth is subject to truth).

So I don't think the problem is that people would not admit practical solutions to real problems, but that some refuse to accept the materialist position as the solution for everything. It is no coincidence, for example, that since the upsurge of materialism a new wave of ethics arose -- because knowing how to manipulate things does not warrant knowing about the context as a whole, into which all manipulations must fit.

The weakness in the materialist's viewpoint is in its wanting to handle material things while choosing a way of setting out that limits understanding the ultimate nature of material things. On this path, one can caclulate bits and pieces to an amazing degree, but not know what they are in their own right. On this path, one can't know what it is to be an electron, or a quark. Or mass / energy and information. We can depict such structures in many systems, and they make sense depending on the system. The crux shows fully with the aliveness of living beings. And while we can't say we have really understood the nature of the things -- not even of inert matter, for that matter -- the principle itself of approaching things in looking at them from outside limits the potential as such of this attempt. This approach seems to offer objectivity, but it is limited already because no empirical data can cover everything. Insofar, the idea that one day one will eg. be able to understand even difficult things such consciousness is not a secure idea. One can depict aspects of awareness to some extent, eg. in real time on a tomograph, but that is not the actual nature of awareness, it is only a picture of it. One may know what somebody is thinking about, but that does not improve human understanding. For getting along with each other, we don't need such gadgets. This does not exclude that some will believe what such gadgets show is the reality of their awareness, just as there are always some who robotize themselves, or believe they are in reality Napoleon. One can produce even collective beliefs (look at what the media are doing).

Some time ago there was debate on this thread about cultural dangers of the materialist viewpoint. You did not seem convinced that there is one, but I think if a culture were to rely only on this viewpoint, it would incur severe dangers, up to a moral decay. Look at how already small kids learn to kill off their emotional responsiveness by seeing everything only in terms of a manipulative control over things, up to cold killing that can be learnt in video games. For sanity to be possible, there must be an overview. It is important that all this is the effect of conditioning. The interesting challenge is thus to find a world view that does not foster forms of disintegration, or impose a fundamentalist ideology, but allows to integrate properly all the -isms, letting all things 'fall into place'. That's my sort of work. I am trying to develop an approach that is not self-limited by assumptions. That's not just academic daydreaming, but also quite practical (even though it is not limited to the materialist stance). IMO this approach would allow also a better understanding even of the nature of material matter, and finally a better integration of the diverse physical theories (while not necessarily treading eg. the GUT path, which is still based on a 'look from outside'). To my sense, a physics is possible that integrates life fully.

But maybe I have not yet hit on the head the nail that you had in mind?

Zero

Aug26-03, 11:51 AM

This is nonsense, you are all mad, I give UP!!

Fliption

Aug26-03, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, Fliption, if you thing about it, there is alot of information 'held' by even the simplest matter, that 'instructs' it on how to behave. Say you have an atom of carbon. The mass of the nucleus 'instructs' the atom on how to 'react' to gravity. The number of electrons 'instruct' the atom on how to form chemical bonds, react to a magnetic field, etc. I'm sure there's lots more 'information' in a single atom when you get into quantum stuff.

Some people would ask: how does DNA 'know' what to do? I would counter that it doesn't know any more than a single carbon atom knows about bonding to other atoms...but it does it the same way every time in the same situation.

Oh I don't think I would necessarily disagree with the idea that some information is held by matter. I just don't think that being "held" by matter is a necessary condition for information. As I am trying to illustrate with AG and the laws of nature.

Also, I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the mass of a nucleus is information. That is just a physical attribute. That is simply a variable in the equations of nature to help determine the result. The variables or inputs into the equations are part of matter but the underlying equation itself is the information.

Zero

Aug26-03, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Oh I don't think I would necessarily disagree with the idea that some information is held by matter. I just don't think that being "held" by matter is a necessary condition for information. As I am trying to illustrate with AG and the laws of nature.

Also, I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the mass of a nucleus is information. That is just a physical attribute. That is simply a variable in the equations of nature to help determine the result. The variables or inputs into the equations are part of matter but the underlying equation itself is the information. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point, don't you? I don't think either of our views is wrong, based on the evidence. I think it is more of an interpretation difference.

Royce

Aug26-03, 02:15 PM

Hey, Zero, I thought you gave up (days after declaring yourself the winner). If a law or formula is information then the variabes that are plugged into the formula are information too. Mass therefore would be information as well as an attribute or it could not be plugged into an informational formula. Is it all math and information then like whatshisface said or is math and information the means and rules of behavior for matter/energy. What form does this information take? Is it carried with or part of a photon or electron or quark?
This is really getting too deep for me. I'll have to think about this for a while. It would make a great new thread rather than hiding it 20 page deep in another entirely unrelated thread. Just a thought.

Fliption

Aug26-03, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Hey, Zero, I thought you gave up (days after declaring yourself the winner). If a law or formula is information then the variabes that are plugged into the formula are information too. Mass therefore would be information as well as an attribute or it could not be plugged into an informational formula. Is it all math and information then like whatshisface said or is math and information the means and rules of behavior for matter/energy. What form does this information take? Is it carried with or part of a photon or electron or quark?
This is really getting too deep for me. I'll have to think about this for a while. It would make a great new thread rather than hiding it 20 page deep in another entirely unrelated thread. Just a thought.

Yes, Royce you could make the argument that it is information. But I've been trying to isolate the existence of a certain type that is not material since that's what a few people have been denying and is the topic of the thread.

Zero

Aug27-03, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Yes, Royce you could make the argument that it is information. But I've been trying to isolate the existence of a certain type that is not material since that's what a few people have been denying and is the topic of the thread. Sorry to say, but I am almost 100% sure that you can't find evidence for information in the absence of matter...which may be a limitation of our perception as much as a statement about the universe.

sascha

Aug27-03, 03:29 AM

Is madness something relative or absolute? Against what is it 'measured'? Should we not be careful in applying such judgments? It is amusing, for example, that those in the loony bin believing that in reality they are Napoleon believe that the wardens are mad because they do not recognize this 'fact'.... In our debate, which are the ultimate facts that determine what is a wider rationality than previously adopted, and what is real madness? (To my sense, as long as a madness is only transitory, it can be useful for transcending previous thought barriers. Trouble arises when a madness becomes rigid and is institutionalized, as eg. in an ideology).

With a clarification of the interrelation between laws of nature and information we will advance more securely. In this domain, I distinguish strictly between the partial forms of order (as manifest in any given law of nature, which never covers the whole) and the overall order (the totality of all laws, which regulates that things arise and vanish just as it regulates that in certain query perspectives there is a need for ideas about laws of nature, forces, etc.).

In a first approach, the relevant point between laws of nature, information, matter, and energy, is not so much whether they exist separately -- eg. information in the absence of matter -- but rather that for a complete understanding we must distinguish conceptually the aspects (in this case of information versus matter; by the way, the originators of information theory -- people like Shannon and Weaver -- made this distinction very clearly; only lately there has been a certain sloppiness about it). In this sense, the overall order of all laws may be present in the universe as a whole. But a non-contradictory 'thinkability' of the whole requires the said distinction.

Beyond that, it is of little use to believe that information necessarily requires matter for existing. After all no phenomenon can show directly the overall law it obeys, since its appearing and disappearing is part of that law. This is why the postulate of palpable evidence is simultaneously a self-limitation in the laws that it allows to discover. The overall order of any process, phenomenon, 'thing', and especially of the universe as a whole, is occulted by applying this postulate. It allows to know aspects, but not the ultimate rule of the game.

Another God

Aug27-03, 04:33 AM

Zero

Aug27-03, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Another God
Photon?

No thanks, I've already had lunch.

amadeus

Aug27-03, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by sascha
Is madness something relative or absolute? Against what is it 'measured'? Should we not be careful in applying such judgments? It is amusing, for example, that those in the loony bin believing that in reality they are Napoleon believe that the wardens are mad because they do not recognize this 'fact'.... In our debate, which are the ultimate facts that determine what is a wider rationality than previously adopted, and what is real madness?
A little off-topic perhaps, but I'd like to mention it:

There's a mistaken notion that crazy people are crazy because they can't think straight. A little chat with a madman is enough to reveal the misconception. Crazy people are as rational as anyone else, quite often far more so. They have explanations for everything, including the fact that no one agrees with their explanations. Everything in a madman's mind makes perfect sense - which happens to be exactly the problem.

The really striking thing about insane people is not that they are poor at thinking, but rather that they are too good at it for their own sake. No one is as certain of his own ideas, as self-assured as a lunatic. Ordinary people always think they might be wrong about anything; insane people do not consider that a possibility.

Many people are bothered by the idea that, if they go mad, they won't be able to realize it. Which is true, but only because mad people are the only ones who don't worry about their mental health. So long as you think you might be mad, you're probably sane. As soon as you become certain you're not mad, you've already got one foot in the asylum. From then on, rational thinking does the rest.

sascha

Aug27-03, 02:17 PM

Thanks, Amadeus, that's a neat insight. Not really off topic, since having or not having it determines much of what we say, also here.

Fliption

Aug27-03, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Sorry to say, but I am almost 100% sure that you can't find evidence for information in the absence of matter...which may be a limitation of our perception as much as a statement about the universe.

Another option could be just poor semantics. No one has directly responded to why their definition is absolutely correct. I've heard that "it is not possible" and that we have to "agree to disagree" but yet I've seen no explanation for why instructions of nature aren't a nonmaterial existence.

Zero

Aug27-03, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Another option could be just poor semantics.
Uh huh...[g)]

Fliption

Aug27-03, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by amadeus
[B] Ordinary people always think they might be wrong about anything; insane people do not consider that a possibility.

Hmmm... seems we have a few lunatics participating in this thread then. But I could be wrong [:D]

Zero

Aug27-03, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Hmmm... seems we have a few lunatics participating in this thread then. But I could be wrong [:D] You very well could be wrong...I've seen it before!

sascha

Aug27-03, 03:02 PM

For clarifying some more this issue of information and its role in matter, I would like to draw the attention to a conceptual problem. Here we have heard the opinion that information actively does something. As eg. Zero put it lately: "The mass of the nucleus 'instructs' the atom on how to 'react' to gravity. The number of electrons 'instruct' the atom on how to form chemical bonds, react to a magnetic field, etc." Adopting this idea implies attributing to information some kind of agency, a force aspect. This is not what information is generally meant to be (at least the link between regularity and agency should be clarified more exactly). What is going on in the minds here? A clear insight? (I don't think so, but what do the others say?) A conceptual conflation, by non-distinction? (This is what I feel is the case; such conflations are what usually pushes into having to pursue the problem -- here of information versus energy, in my jargon law versus force -- into ever smaller entities, which however does not solve the problems, as long as the conceptual conflation remains). Note that the empirical evidence is the same; only the interpretations vary -- according to the differences in the chosen concepts / categories at the outset.

Fliption

Aug27-03, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Zero
You very well could be wrong...I've seen it before!

Lol, if you understood all the subtleties of that quote from me you wouldn't have posted that [:)]. You fell for it! You so crazzzy!

Zero

Aug28-03, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Lol, if you understood all the subtleties of that quote from me you wouldn't have posted that [:)]. You fell for it! You so crazzzy! Well, I figured you went through all the trouble to set that up and all...[;)]

Zero

Aug28-03, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by sascha
For clarifying some more this issue of information and its role in matter, I would like to draw the attention to a conceptual problem. Here we have heard the opinion that information actively does something. As eg. Zero put it lately: "The mass of the nucleus 'instructs' the atom on how to 'react' to gravity. The number of electrons 'instruct' the atom on how to form chemical bonds, react to a magnetic field, etc." Adopting this idea implies attributing to information some kind of agency, a force aspect. This is not what information is generally meant to be (at least the link between regularity and agency should be clarified more exactly). What is going on in the minds here? A clear insight? (I don't think so, but what do the others say?) A conceptual conflation, by non-distinction? (This is what I feel is the case; such conflations are what usually pushes into having to pursue the problem -- here of information versus energy, in my jargon law versus force -- into ever smaller entities, which however does not solve the problems, as long as the conceptual conflation remains). Note that the empirical evidence is the same; only the interpretations vary -- according to the differences in the chosen concepts / categories at the outset. I didn't say that 'information does something'...I was trying to make the opposite point. Material objects do things, and we call it information. Or something...semantics, really.

Iacchus32

Aug28-03, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I didn't say that 'information does something'...I was trying to make the opposite point. Material objects do things, and we call it information. Or something...semantics, really. Except that "action" is only accomplished out of that which is functional as "a whole," and so belies the "motive or intent" -- not some random occurrence.

Zero

Aug28-03, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except that "action" is only accomplished out of that which is functional as "a whole," and so belies the "motive or intent" -- not some random occurrence. It doesn't follow that something 'non-random' has 'motive' or 'intent'...no matter how many times you post it.

Iacchus32

Aug28-03, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Zero
It doesn't follow that something 'non-random' has 'motive' or 'intent'...no matter how many times you post it. No, the fact that motive and intent do exist, suggest that things don't happen by chance, but by "design."

Whereas if something wasn't complete and fully functional -- or, at least endowed with that capacity -- then that rules out the faculty of choice, which can only be achieved through the stability (equilibrium) of the overall design. Hence without a choice there would be no intent, or motives, and "no glue" which binds things together.

heusdens

Aug28-03, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, the fact that motive and intent do exist, suggest that things don't happen by chance, but by "design."

Whereas if something wasn't complete and fully functional -- or, at least endowed with that capacity -- then that rules out the faculty of choice, which can only be achieved through the stability (equilibrium) of the overall design. Hence without a choice there would be no intent, or motives, and "no glue" which binds things together.

Was the "sun" designed, is the way molecules and atoms interact "designed"?

This are just stupid notions, since the physical laws can not have been designed.

Even in realms of human society, the term "design" is not what it seems to be. Is the car concept as we have it now "designed"?
No. There has just been development (started with the "invention" of the wheel) and then later improvements.

Non one had a thought before about the actual nowday design of a car. And every improvement is first tested, to see if it improves anything.

So, there is just a continual interaction between the mind and the material world, which changes car design and develops old concepts into new ones.

Iacchus32

Aug28-03, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by heusdens
Was the "sun" designed, is the way molecules and atoms interact "designed"?And yet why does the sun bother to hold itself together if it wasn't "designed" that way? Why does it even exist, if there wasn't some principle (or glue) to tell it to cohere together?

This are just stupid notions, since the physical laws can not have been designed.Except that we use these same physical laws and turn around and use them to "design" everything we see around us which is "artificial." Which is to say it didn't come together naturally, and on its own.

Even in realms of human society, the term "design" is not what it seems to be. Is the car concept as we have it now "designed"?
No. There has just been development (started with the "invention" of the wheel) and then later improvements.And I suppose everyobdy just stood around and watched while it happened, Right? I don't think so. And, while a design is merely the blueprint which demonstrates functionality, it's the functionality of the design that we can't do without.

And what was it about the Japanese designing better cars than us, and we having to get off "our duffs" and say, "Well maybe we better come up with some better designs ourselves?" You don't think there was any conscious will or intent involved with that? You're fooling yourself if you don't.

Non one had a thought before about the actual nowday design of a car. And every improvement is first tested, to see if it improves anything.You make it sound like it almost came about by "magic."

So, there is just a continual interaction between the mind and the material world, which changes car design and develops old concepts into new ones. You just go ahead and keep thinking random thoughts and let us know when you come up with something interesting, Okay? [;)]

Of course we might be in for a long wait, give or take few billion years! [:D]

sascha

Aug28-03, 01:23 PM

The argument from design is, to my sense, not helpful for an ultimate understanding, because the basis for motive and intent is not clarified as yet by it. In the end the argument from design must resort to another belief, so the explanation in a strict sense is still not achieved. This is why I prefer to operate in universal categories, i.e. which reflect securely the overall order and are applicable as much to inert as to alive structures (this distinction requires additional criteria).

Now with this you still don't know what these universal categories are. For that we could go through the systematic developing steps of the approach I propose (which is published, even if partly only in German), or we might proceed more pragmatically, as we are doing. So, before we go into that approach in detail I will try the pragmatic path. As necessary we can switch to the other or not, or I might offer an abridged version of this approach.

We talk about information versus energy (in my process categories: law versus force), in relation to matter (which appears in my categories as structures of force defined by two precise conditions of dynamic equilibrium; alive structures have the possibility to affect one of them). My point is that Zero saying 'material objects do things, and we call it information' is not just 'a question of semantics' (which is a phrase that really says nothing), because the qualifications that make an entity capable of acting are not clarified in saying so (while this is done in the categories I propose; but for knowing why they are justified we would have to go through the systematics...).

There is the basic difficulty in today's science to tell what principle makes an entity be alive or not. Physics, genetics, or economics: any science postulating material entities to be active, without being able to tell what makes them active, is self-coerced by its non-universal categories to the same fate: it must shift its real question into ever smaller entities while never reaching total clarity (atoms; genes; deciding agents: all sciences using the same postulate experience the same fragmentizing effect). To say 'material objects do things, and we call it information' is conceptually just as unprecise as saying 'information does something'. Neither inert matter nor information can act on their own. Such sayings are merely ad hoc hypotheses. We should achieve better than that.

Heusdens' dialectical materialism has a certain point insofar as it describes -- even if in Marxian style, still in Hegelian fashion -- the evolution of conceptual structures. But this is not the whole of the thjing. The link to the thinker (who has to move his thoughts) -- and on the other side to complete reality (in which there is a 'movens', some agency) -- is not completely clarified. But I don't want to go into the full length of this now.

So all in all I am not yet asserting positively very much (otherwise my post would be too long), I am mainly stating the problem as clearly as possible. But if we persevere in thinking properly in our debate, we will gradually reach the required precision. Hence the success of this debate depends on your participation, eg. in telling where you need more clarification.

Iacchus32

Aug28-03, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by sascha
The argument from design is, to my sense, not helpful for an ultimate understanding, because the basis for motive and intent is not clarified as yet by it. In the end the argument from design must resort to another belief, so the explanation in a strict sense is still not achieved.This would be great if everything were on autopilot.

This is why I prefer to operate in universal categories, i.e. which reflect securely the overall order and are applicable as much to inert as to alive structures (this distinction requires additional criteria).You have to break it up into category huh? All I can I tell you is that things tend operate better from the standpoint of functionality, and don't tend to work well at all when they're dissected and spilled all over the table.

Now with this you still don't know what these universal categories are. For that we could go through the systematic developing steps of the approach I propose (which is published, even if partly only in German), or we might proceed more pragmatically, as we are doing. So, before we go into that approach in detail I will try the pragmatic path. As necessary we can switch to the other or not, or I might offer an abridged version of this approach.What about one universal category, say the Universe itself?

sascha

Aug29-03, 02:04 AM

I don't see how you see the connection between the need for strict explanation and this implying any operation in an autopilot mode. Can you be more explicit? By "the standpoint of functionality", do you mean functionalism? And dissecting is not the same as distinguishing. Which do you mean? Precisely for not distinguishing eg. life from non-life, scientists must separate life from matter for their analyses, for being able to apply their non-universal categories. If they would distinguish, they would not need to dissect.

By the way, you too use categories, whether you like it or not. Any categoreality is formed by the foundational assumptions in the mind -- whatever these may be, whether conscious or forgotten, etc.. There is no way to have one universal category only, eg. the Universe itself as a category, because that is not a distinction by which you can think the subject matter. Maybe you mean taking the Universe itself as the ultimately relevant point of reference? Others might say truth, or totality, or completeness and certainty. This is a lot less problematic.

Iacchus32

Aug29-03, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by sascha
I don't see how you see the connection between the need for strict explanation and this implying any operation in an autopilot mode. Can you be more explicit? By "the standpoint of functionality", do you mean functionalism? And dissecting is not the same as distinguishing. Which do you mean? Precisely for not distinguishing eg. life from non-life, scientists must separate life from matter for their analyses, for being able to apply their non-universal categories. If they would distinguish, they would not need to dissect.What I'm saying is that science is so concerned with all the physical evidence, that it loses sight of the "navigator" which is at the controls, which is typically only operational from the standpoint of wholeness and being complete.

It would be much like taking a bucket of parts and using it to contruct a radio. Where you have the parts on the one hand, and a fully functional radio on the other which, is an entirely different medium than the parts themselves. In fact there's such a distinct difference between the two, that it's hard to imagine a relationship even existing in the first place, unless of course the radio becomes impaired or dysfunctional.

And here the parts themselves become relegated to the "subsconscious" aspect of the radio, and the broadcast medium, that for which the radio is designed, become its "consciousness." And yet science is so preoccupied with the "subconscious workings" of the radio, dissecting it and categorizing it, that it tends to lose sight of the broadcast medium itself, which is really the only reason it exists in the first place. You know, what's the point in having a radio if you can't listen to it?

Whereas the same as with the navigator. If the navigator expires, then what purpose does a clump of decomposing tissue and bones serve? In which case I would be more concerned about what the navigator has to say before he leaves?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that life can only be valued from a standpoint of wholeness, and so reflects "the medium" of life itself. And, that "wholeness itself," becomes the overall design.

Zero

Aug29-03, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What I'm saying is that science is so concerned with all the physical evidence, that it loses sight of the "navigator" which is at the controls, which is typically only operational from the standpoint of wholeness and being complete.

It would be much like taking a bucket of parts and using it to contruct a radio. Where you have the parts on the one hand, and a fully functional radio on the other which, is an entirely different medium than the parts themselves. In fact there's such a distinct difference between the two, that it's hard to imagine a relationship even existing in the first place, unless of course the radio becomes impaired or dysfunctional.

And here the parts themselves become relegated to the "subsconscious" aspect of the radio, and the broadcast medium, that for which the radio is designed, become its "consciousness." And yet science is so preoccupied with the "subconscious workings" of the radio, dissecting it and categorizing it, that it tends to lose sight of the broadcast medium itself, which is really the only reason it exists in the first place. You know, what's the point in having a radio if you can't listen to it?

Whereas the same as with the navigator. If the navigator expires, then what purpose does a clump of decomposing tissue and bones serve? In which case I would be more concerned about what the navigator has to say before he leaves?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that life can only be valued from a standpoint of wholeness, which reflects "the medium" of life itself. And, that "wholeness itself," becomes the overall design.

All of this is great philosophy, and makes you feel better, that is fine. The fact that it has absolutely no bearing on reality should be recognised, however.

amadeus

Aug29-03, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Zero
All of this is great philosophy, and makes you feel better, that is fine. The fact that it has absolutely no bearing on reality should be recognised, however.
Whose reality?

What do you see here:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/9609/pz/vaseface.gif

Can you contemplate the fact that it is a vase, two faces, both, and neither, all at the same time?

Reality is as simple as the mind which observes it...

Zero

Aug29-03, 11:01 AM

Iacchus32

Aug29-03, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by amadeus
Whose reality?

What do you see here:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/9609/pz/vaseface.gif

Can you contemplate the fact that it is a vase, two faces, both, and neither, all at the same time?

Reality is as simple as the mind which observes it... Hey, the image is not coming in. Or is it just me? I think what you need to do is take the "image tags" off the link. At least you can click on the link and view the image from there. You'll notice that's how it works on my post here. Or, maybe not? ...

By the way Zero, you -- your avatar -- looks bloody awful! [;)]

sascha

Aug29-03, 01:55 PM

Yes, Amadeus, everything is a problem of interpretation. But first I would like to go through the controversial point which Iacchus32 has raised. Then I will say something about optical illusions.

Probably what Iacchus32 calls "navigator" is -- with some modifications -- what I would call the overall order of an entity / process (when dealing concretely eg. with lithium, we refer to the overall order of lithium, not of something else). And what Iacchus32 seems to attribute to this overall order, if I understand him correctly, is something like an ability of putting together and steering the entity / process -- in the example of lithium, that a composition of 4 neutrons, 3 protons and 3 electrons actually results and is maintained (not producing eg. a lithium+ ion or a lithium 6 isotope).

I have a hunch that we don't find an agreement because we don't talk in a sufficiently precise way, or maybe even not about exactly the same. Some talk more about the aspect of law of nature of this entity / process. Usually physicists talk about the law of being eg. a lithium atom (while in this example I prefer to talk about the law of the process of lithium appearing, existing, and disappearing, because only this is the whole picture, not only an aspect). Others talk more about the aspect of agency, which produces the changes according to that law. And sometimes there is even a conceptual mixup. But for understanding, the two aspects are not the same, because no law can act on its own, while a force (agency) needs a law to obey. In any entity / process, both aspects operate together, but for understanding that entity they must be distinguished (which is precisely no act of dissection).

The trouble with what Iacchus32 says is that we cannot attribute the same type of overall order (i.e. of "navigator") to all entities. There is indeed a difference between inert and alive entities / processes, insofar as in an alive entity / process something (whether an entelecheia or some or genes is not defined yet) organizes the thing, while an inert entity / process is organized by its environment. The difference is that all alive entities can modify part of their own order (eg. they can move, they have a metabolism, etc.), while inert objects are fully determined by external elements. Many people believe chemistry proves that matter acts on its own. They forget that something must place the bits of matter so that -- in the words of Iacchus32 -- a radio results out of the bucket of parts, or in physics an atom of lithium out of neutrons, protons and electrons (not eg. some ion or isotope).

Sometimes science produces objectively unnecessary problems. In the given example, we can either see a vase or two faces, but not both simultaneously. The question is how we interpret this empirical fact. Zero seems to believes there are real optical illusions, that the senses cannot be trusted and that cognitive theory must be believed. BUT ... We can notice that once we saw both, we can decide which one to see, and switch at will. In this way we can experience what makes the real difference (since the percept as such is the same): the mental representation that we produce through our interpretation at will. Offhand we can coherently have only one representation at a time. Wanting to have both requires quite some effort: mere gazing at the lines won't yield the result, but people who are sufficiently trained mentally can remain even in the undecided state of mind. What they did is grasp the facts, thereby creating mentally a representation which encompasses both in the tertium comparationis. The choice at will is crucial — and precisely what the cognitive sciences will never be able to find, because it is unthinkingly excluded from their categoreal structure and can thus not appear in their query.

Summing up: I think for a real understanding of material structures it is necessary to operate in categories which allow to handle already the two opposed aspects of law and agency in an adequate way. This is not warranted in the usual terminology. In my approach I add another two opposed categories, two conditions of dynamic equilibrium, which allow to handle also the aspects of aliveness. My categoreal structure opens the door to a natural science that can handle all of life -- eg. in the face / vase example, the aspect of force / will (and for the details, the two conditions of dynamic equilibrium) makes an understanding effortlessly clear, as opposed to the results of science, where in the end you have to BELIEVE in something that is not totally clear (which must be shifted into smaller entities all the time), or in what somebody else (like a science guru) says.....

Esoteric

Aug29-03, 04:57 PM

Great thread

I side with the Materialist.

sascha

Aug31-03, 12:56 AM

Esoteric, your siding is revealing in a way you probably don't realize. I wonder whether you have read thoroughly the substance of this thread. I doubt you did, because otherwise you must have noticed that the purely materialist stance is useful for some limited practical questions, but on the theoretical level it has finally no foundation other than beliefs / myths, and can offer nothing but beliefs / myths -- no strict completeness of grasp, no absolute certainty of any sort. At the very end of any of its lines there is always some undecidability (Finsler, Goedel, Cohen, etc.), or a paradox, a trilemma (Agrippa / Fries / Albert), a "differance" (Derrida), a "differend" (Lyotard), etc., etc.: a new mystery of some sort, which is then laboriously shoved from one level of reality to the next, until believing it is overcome by having pushed it out of sight (which is of course never a durable solution). The mysterious features of QT (complementarity / nonlocality, which are illustrated but not explained by ideas of 'entanglement'), or the absence of an ultimately relevant frame of reference in RT (it can depict relative motion, but not account for the relevance of laws and forces) are examples from physics. Some still believe that the endless prolongation of this game is real progress. But it is in no way sure that we are not losing ourselves in an expensive hobby.

This whole tantrum is pointless because at the outset there are assumptions (in this case those of materialism) which close off the possible insight into the completeness of reality. Only partial laws can be found on this path, no strictly universal laws. The example with the "optical illusions" show how eg. the relevant will (agency, force) for finding the solution to what seem to be illusions can precisely not be accounted for in the purely materialist stance. As demonstrated a little bit on this thread, on the level of theory the only way out is to clarify fundamentally the role of the categoreal foundation in thinking. One of its essential elements is whether formally any assumptions are imposed, or whether a better (i.e. truly universal) path to structured openness is found. For example analytic philosophy cannot offer this, by its very principle. A real solution is feasible only by experiencing clearly the reality of thinking -- which the purely materialist stance has axiomatically excluded from the outset.

Zero

Aug31-03, 07:38 AM

sascha, you are absolutely full of it, did you know that?[6)] The POINT of this thread wasn't to say thata materialist worldview was perfect, but that it has more to offer than some of the ideas that are being used to replace it. We don't throw away an idea just because it is incomplete in some areas, we use other ideas to improve it. Materialism is 'right' in the way that Newtonian mechanics is 'right'. New theories come and explain the gaps in it, but for common, everyday use, it is as useful as ever.

For all your linguistic superiority, some of you are on the same level as some housewife with her magical candles, or a yuppie with his feng shui, or some quack selling colliodial silver to cure anything. Materialism excludes nonsense, and THAT is why there is a bias against it. You would prefer to create answers from whole cloth, instead of seeking real, if incomplete, answers. Quantum doodads aside, materialism works, and if we are going to figure out odd quantum effects, materialism(in its broadest sense) will likely at least point the way to the correct answer.

selfAdjoint

Aug31-03, 11:33 AM

I think Sasha's post is basically right. Materialism doesn't produce secure knowledge. Any physical theory is always at risk for falsification.

But what is the alternative? Idealism is moonshine. Religion is meaningful to those who have it but balderdash to others, including devotees of other religions.

The very contingent truth that materialism offers is the only genuine variety of truth available.

Iacchus32

Aug31-03, 01:14 PM

The only problem with materialism is that what we see is the effect, not the cause. The true reality is the intent or motive, the interior aspect (or design) which stirs "the effect" into existence.

In other words the outer reality is merely the manifestation of the inner reality.

Zero

Aug31-03, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I think Sasha's post is basically right. Materialism doesn't produce secure knowledge. Any physical theory is always at risk for falsification.

But what is the alternative? Idealism is moonshine. Religion is meaningful to those who have it but balderdash to others, including devotees of other religions.

The very contingent truth that materialism offers is the only genuine variety of truth available. At least somebody gets it...[:D]

Zero

Aug31-03, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The only problem with materialism is that what we see is the effect, not the cause. The true reality is the intent or motive, the interior aspect (or design) which stirs "the effect" into existence.

In other words the outer reality is merely the manifestation of the inner reality.
You keep talking about 'true reality', but at some point, you have to pull back the curtain and show it!! Otherwise, what purpose does it serve?

We can determine alot about causes from effects, once you measure the effect. In fact, I would say it is vital to any coherent way of looking at things to be able to measure effects accurately and consistently. If not, then you really can't say anything at all about causes, can you?

Dissident Dan

Aug31-03, 02:25 PM

Iacchus32

Aug31-03, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Zero
You keep talking about 'true reality', but at some point, you have to pull back the curtain and show it!! Otherwise, what purpose does it serve?

We can determine alot about causes from effects, once you measure the effect. In fact, I would say it is vital to any coherent way of looking at things to be able to measure effects accurately and consistently. If not, then you really can't say anything at all about causes, can you? Which would you rather do? Admire the house from the outside? Or, get down to the business of settling in and experiencing the house for what it was designed for -- "living."

Now you tell me which is the greater reality?

Hey, maybe you got the nicest house on the block, but what good is it if you don't live in it? [;)]

Zero

Aug31-03, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Which would you rather do? Admire the house from the outside? Or, get down to the business of settling in and experiencing the house for what it was designed for -- "living."

Now you tell me which is the greater reality?

Hey, maybe you got the nicest house on the block, but what good is it if you don't live in it? [;)] Maybe if you would stop covering up the weakness in your argument with metaphors which don't represent reality...never mind, I've asked you before, and you refuse. You look at a wall, and see a house.

Iacchus32

Aug31-03, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Who says that there has to be an intent or motive? With human beings? Definitely. There's no doubt about it. In fact there's nothing about the human condition which doesn't belie "intent."

Speaking of which, why is it most prevalent amongst living things, from the smallest one-celled organisms, with just an inkling of it, all the way to the top of the food chain, man himself, with all the fully blown ramifications? Why is that?

Could it be that it has something to do with consciousness, and the intelligence derived therefrom? In which case you can take that to mean yes. But what is consciousness, if not that which is transcendent? And why do we only seem to have "coherence" when we're fully functional and intact? How else could we transcend the whole scope of the field -- "objectively" -- at a single glance?

Thus seemingly the "highest of proclivities," where does it come from? And what do we mean by "conscious intent?"

Zero

Aug31-03, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
With human beings? Definitely. There's no doubt about it. In fact there's nothing about the human condition which doesn't belie "intent."

Speaking of which, why is it most prevalent amongst living things, from the smallest one-celled organisms, with just an inkling of it, all the way to the top of the food chain, man himself, with all the fully blown ramifications? Why is that?

Could it be that it has something to do with consciousness, and the intelligence derived therefrom? You can take that to mean yes. But what is consciousness, if not that which is transcendent? And why do we only seem to have "coherence" when we're fully functional and intact? How else could we transcend the whole scope of the field -- "objectively" -- at a single glance?

Thus seemingly the "highest of proclivities," where does it come from? And what do we mean by "conscious intent?" Huh? one-celled organisms are conscious? No, they aren't...except tehy have to be, for your made-up fantasy to work.

Iacchus32

Aug31-03, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Maybe if you would stop covering up the weakness in your argument with metaphors which don't represent reality...never mind, I've asked you before, and you refuse. You look at a wall, and see a house. No, what you're telling me, is that a house has no functionality to it (this is the key [;)]), in which case there's really no sense in building it because nobody "intends" to live in it.

Zero

Aug31-03, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, what you're telling me, is that a house has no functionality to it (this is the key [;)]), in which case there's really no sense in building it because nobody "intends" to live in it. That doesn't make any sense...could you stop speaking in metaphor for like 10 minutes?

Iacchus32

Aug31-03, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Huh? one-celled organisms are conscious? No, they aren't...except tehy have to be, for your made-up fantasy to work. How is it that we "feel" the sense of touch then, if it wasn't for the myriads of single cells which make up our skin?

Or what do you say we step it up a couple of levels to the family dog? Why would he bother to come when you called his name?

Zero

Aug31-03, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
How is it that we "feel" the sense of touch then, if it wasn't for the myriads of single cells which make up our skin?

Or what do you say we step it up a couple of levels to the family dog? Why would he bother to come when you called his name?

Are you saying that atoms are conscious too?

Iacchus32

Aug31-03, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Zero
That doesn't make any sense...could you stop speaking in metaphor for like 10 minutes? All I'm saying is that the "objective reality" is the house -- from afar if you will -- which does not belie the true reality -- as subjective as that is -- of the life "lived" within the house.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

Zero

Aug31-03, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
All I'm saying is that the "objective reality" is the house -- from afar if you will -- which does not belie the true reality -- as subjective as that is -- of the life "lived" within the house.

Why is that so difficult to understand? Because there is no evidence that there is an 'inner' and 'outer' reality.

Iacchus32

Aug31-03, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Are you saying that atoms are conscious too? No, I couldn't speculate that far. However, I suggested that it begins with single-celled living organisms.

Zero

Aug31-03, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I couldn't speculate that far. However, I suggested that it begins with single-celled living organisms. I suggest that you are just making stuff up as you go...more mushrooms?[6)]

Zero

Aug31-03, 06:46 PM

What was I thinking when I created you, Iacchus32? I had the cheese puffs, and the mayonaise, and I said, 'Let me create a person', and *poof*, there you were...that was such a mistake!

Iacchus32

Aug31-03, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Because there is no evidence that there is an 'inner' and 'outer' reality. That's like saying there's no difference between the outside of a can of soup -- the "can itself" -- and the inside of a can of soup -- the soup or "its contents."

The can can only "suggest" to you what's on the inside. Whereas the soup itself is the "true reality," which is to be "experienced."

Again, why is that so hard to understand?

Zero

Aug31-03, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
That's like saying there's no difference between the outside of a can of soup -- the "can itself" -- and the inside of a can of soup -- the soup or "its contents."

The can can only "suggest" to you what's on the inside. Whereas the soup itself is the "true reality," which is to be "experienced."

Again, why is that so hard to understand? Because it is a circular argument in which the question implies the answer. To say it is 'like a soup can' is to assume there is something different inside than there is outside. Why can't it be soup-can all the way though?

Iacchus32

Aug31-03, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I suggest that you are just making stuff up as you go...more mushrooms?[6)] Perhaps, but it's like I said in the other thread, Evidence of God? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5110), the evidence is all around us. [;)]

So it's really more a matter of putting two and two together, based upon the "original premise" that is.

Zero

Aug31-03, 07:00 PM

Iacchus32

Aug31-03, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Because it is a circular argument in which the question implies the answer. To say it is 'like a soup can' is to assume there is something different inside than there is outside. Why can't it be soup-can all the way though? Now I didn't say soup can. I said "can of soup." You ever try eating a soup can without the soup? [:D]

Zero

Aug31-03, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Now I didn't say soup can. I said "can of soup." You ever try eating a soup can without the soup? [:D] Well, again, you assume your conclusion in your premise. How do you KNOW it is a can of soup, before you open it?

Iacchus32

Aug31-03, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, again, you assume your conclusion in your premise. How do you KNOW it is a can of soup, before you open it? You begin by reading the label, and by your previous experiences with cans of soup. And if you don't know how to read or, you've never opened a can of soup before, then I guess you're sh$t-out-of-luck!

It's like I keep saying, it's "the experience" (in this instance, of eating the soup) that tells you what it is.

Zero

Aug31-03, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
You begin by reading the label, and by your previous experiences with cans of soup. And if you don't know how to read or, you've never opened a can of soup before, then I guess you're sh$t-out-of-luck!

It's like I keep saying, it's "the experience" (in this instance, of eating the soup) that tells you what it is.
SO, you have insight into the workings of the universe? That you can prove by displaying special knowledge?

NO, you don't.

Iacchus32

Aug31-03, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Zero
SO, you have insight into the workings of the universe? That you can prove by displaying special knowledge?

NO, you don't. I'm just speaking of the difference in the "quality of experience" versus outward appearances, which are for the most part "dead facts."

This is what you call "discernment." [;)]

BoulderHead

Aug31-03, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Perhaps, but it's like I said in the other thread, Evidence of God? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5110), the evidence is all around us. [;)]

So it's really more a matter of putting two and two together, based upon the "original premise" that is.
Yes, but isn't the "original premise" merely an assumption based on some personal experience that god(s) exists, followed by an understanding that you can never prove it to anyone, followed by believing you are correct in your assumption, followed by looking at physical 'evidence' which supports your own personal view?

It has never been proven that things are true merely because we have belief they are. I've said it before and I'll say it again; it is true for you and only you.

A myth is a fixed way of looking at the world which cannot be destroyed because, looked at through the myth, all evidence supports the myth.
-- Edward De Bono

Zero

Aug31-03, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I'm just speaking of the difference in the "quality of experience" versus outward appearances, which are for the most part "dead facts."

This is what you call "discernment." [;)] No, that is what I call "imagining things that aren't there".

Iacchus32

Aug31-03, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Yes, but isn't the "original premise" merely an assumption based on some personal experience that god(s) exists, followed by an understanding that you can never prove it to anyone, followed by believing you are correct in your assumption, followed by looking at physical 'evidence' which supports your own personal view?But doesn't this apply to everything? How could I even prove to you that 1 + 1 = 2, unless you were capable of seeing it for yourself? And yet that doesn't mean I can't expose you to the idea does it? This is what we have teachers for, Right?

It has never been proven that things are true merely because we have belief they are. I've said it before and I'll say it again; it is true for you and only you.If you think I make these claims merely because I wish they were true, then you're sadly mistaken.

A myth is a fixed way of looking at the world which cannot be destroyed because, looked at through the myth, all evidence supports the myth.
-- Edward De Bono And how is it that we go about creating these myths? Is it purely arbitrary or, based upon some "intrinsic quality" (even based upon possible events) which adds more clarity -- and hence meaning -- to our lives? I would tend to believe the latter myself. In which case how do you go about explaining "the myth" of evolution?

Hey, there's no possible way in the world that you can "prove" it to me, not unless I can prove it to myself. [g)]

BoulderHead

Aug31-03, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
...And yet that doesn't mean I can't expose you to the idea does it?
It means it can never mean very much to me until I can experience it. I can look at my two fingers and realize that together there are more of them than either one by itself, but I cannot look at all the god-concepts because;

A: They are too fuzzy, even if you can 'see' them.
B: I can't see them.

I do not deny "God", because that word conveys to me no idea, and I cannot deny that which presents to me no distinct affirmation, and of which the would-be affirmer has no conception.
-- Charles Bradlaugh

Zero

Aug31-03, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But doesn't this apply to everything? How could I even prove to you that 1 + 1 = 2, unless you were capable of seeing it for yourself? And yet that doesn't mean I can't expose you to the idea does it? This is what we have teachers for, Right?

If you think I make these claims merely because I wish they were true, then you're sadly mistaken.

And how is it that we go about creating these myths? Is it purely arbitrary or, based upon some "intrinsic quality" (even based upon possible events) which adds more clarity -- and hence meaning -- to our lives? I would tend to believe the latter myself. In which case how do you go about explaining "the myth" of evolution?

Hey, there's no possible way in the world that you can "prove" it to me, not unless I can prove it to myself. [g)] The highlighted portion shows the only true argument you have...and emotional one. The rest is simply window-dressing.

Royce

Aug31-03, 09:17 PM

But doesn't this apply to everything? How could I even prove to you that 1 + 1 = 2, unless you were capable of seeing it for yourself? And yet that doesn't mean I can't expose you to the idea does it? This is what we have teachers for, Right?

Iacchus32, You finally made a telling point that no one can deny or refute, Congratulations. It is brilliant.

NO ONE CAN PROVE ANYTHING TO ANYBODY ELSE UNLESS THAT PERSON CAN SEE THE TRUTH OF IT FOR THEMSELVES.

Every one of us should write that down indelably in our minds. It is absolutely true and includes every branch of knowledge whether scientific, philosophic or religious. This is what we have beeen trying to tell all of you for months if not longer. Iacchus realized and finaly stated it as I have never seen it stated or realized it myself before. his includes all knowledge, everything. Well done Iacchus. I'm proud of you you and proud to know you through these forums.

I actually believe that you have come up with a truly original thought. I, at least have never heard or read it before. It is such an obvious basic truth I never noticed it before. I knew of course that it was true of God and religion and other personal experiences but not all knowledge.

Zero

Aug31-03, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Iacchus32, You finally made a telling point that no one can deny or refute, Congratulations. It is brilliant.

NO ONE CAN PROVE ANYTHING TO ANYBODY ELSE UNLESS THAT PERSON CAN SEE THE TRUTH OF IT FOR THEMSELVES.

Every one of us should write that down indelably in our minds. It is absolutely true and includes every branch of knowledge whether scientific, philosophic or religious. This is what we have beeen trying to tell all of you for months if not longer. Iacchus realized and finaly stated it as I have never seen it stated or realized it myself before. his includes all knowledge, everything. Well done Iacchus. I'm proud of you you and proud to know you through these forums.

I actually believe that you have come up with a truly original thought. I, at least have never heard or read it before. It is such an obvious basic truth I never noticed it before. I knew of course that it was true of God and religion and other personal experiences but not all knowledge. Wow, for being so brilliant, it is pretty darned useless as well.

Zero

Aug31-03, 09:23 PM

On the other hand, he makes my point for me. Only observable things can be commonly 'known', because you can show them to other people, making materialism useful, and idealism not so useful.

Iacchus32

Aug31-03, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Royce
I actually believe that you have come up with a truly original thought. I, at least have never heard or read it before. It is such an obvious basic truth I never noticed it before. I knew of course that it was true of God and religion and other personal experiences but not all knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom!

But "discernment" on the other hand, is getting pretty darn close. [;)]

And now, from the Foundation of Human Understanding, here is Roy Masters (http://www.fhu.com/index.php).

Iacchus32

Aug31-03, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
It means it can never mean very much to me until I can experience it. I can look at my two fingers and realize that together there are more of them than either one by itself, but I cannot look at all the god-concepts because;

A: They are too fuzzy, even if you can 'see' them.
B: I can't see them.
Yes, but you're capable of "experiencing" E=MC2 aren't you? I mean how "unfuzzy" is that compared to "common experience?"

BoulderHead

Aug31-03, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, but you're capable of experiencing E=MC2 aren't you? I mean how "unfuzzy" is that compared to "common experience?"
What "common experience" are you speaking of, yours?

Iacchus32

Aug31-03, 10:04 PM

No, I was actually reiterating what Zero was saying here ...

Originally posted by Zero
On the other hand, he makes my point for me. Only observable things can be commonly 'known', because you can show them to other people, making materialism useful, and idealism not so useful.

BoulderHead

Aug31-03, 10:31 PM

If I'm not mistaken, that equation has proven itself to be valueable, however fuzzy it might appear to me. I have yet to see the value of belief in a deity (except for emotional comfort). Now, if there really were a deity(s) that wanted me to know they exist then they need to let me know personally...

Zero

Aug31-03, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Knowledge is not wisdom!

But "discernment" on the other hand, is getting pretty darn close. [;)]

And now, from the Foundation of Human Understanding, here is Roy Masters (http://www.fhu.com/index.php).

Woohoo...more nothing!!There is no wisdom without knowledge. You cannot create your own knowledge, and call it wisdom.

Zero

Aug31-03, 10:38 PM

Did you join the Roy Masters cult? That's what that is, you know...

Iacchus32

Aug31-03, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Now, if there really were a deity(s) that wanted me to know they exist then they need to let me know personally... Hey I can vouch for that. Actually it had more to do with me discovering Roy Masters (http://www.fhu.com/index.php) on the radio who kept "sermonizing" about how 1 + 1 = 2. [;)]

Of course I listened to him religiously for about ten years, untill I eventually had a falling out with the program, which is borderline ultra-conservative. He's quite an interesting character though, no doubt one of the more interesting characters you would ever meet.

I go into some detail about my dealings with Roy Masters in chapter 9 of my book.

http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html

Zero

Aug31-03, 11:54 PM

Roy Masters is borderline psychotic...

Zero

Aug31-03, 11:55 PM

And, I think you are dragging us off-topic again.

Iacchus32

Sep1-03, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Did you join the Roy Moore cult? That's what that is, you know... Who, Roy Masters? Actually I would be more inclined to agree with you today, but 25 years ago it was the only game in town. As I had told BoulderHead I listened to his program for about ten years, which included sending a regular monthly donation, until I eventually had a falling out with him.

As for "joining the club," they had no problem accepting your donations, but tended to discourage people from sticking around, except for a relatively "select few" who were put in charge of running the organization. Of course this still didn't keep people from trying to hang out and being enamored with Roy Masters.

Originally posted by Zero
Roy Masters is borderline psychotic...

And, I think you are dragging us off-topic again. Hey, you're the one who asked. [;)]

Also, the reason I brought it up in the first place was because I had read in one of Royce's earlier posts that he used to listen to Roy Masters, and I was just trying to jog his memory a little, Okay?

sascha

Sep1-03, 01:46 AM

True, Zero, materialism can exclude nonsense -- to some point, and especially in contrast some wild fantasies (which have existed in all historical periods). But we must be careful to evaluate it in all its aspects, because trusting it blindly, making it itself into a wild fantasy, introduces nonsense too. My point is that in any case the interpretation and evaluation is conceptual business, not material / empirical. Yet you and selfAdjoint do not seem to realize this means that a purely immaterial realm (concepts, logic, etc.) is the determining instance. The interrelations on the level of content are the guideline, also for judging alternatives, truth, contingency, etc.. The really interesting question is why the structures in the material world correspond to the structures in the immaterial world of pure content, or -- to turn this the other way around -- under what conditions an activity in the immaterial / mental world corresponds to those in the material world. Iacchus32 idea wherby "the outer reality is merely the manifestation of the inner reality" reflects the view from the point of view of organized agancy. He aims at what some would call the creator, God, etc.. We as thinkers must clarify our own creations -- of which the very first are our thoughts and ideas, the plans we make. Doing something in an organized way, Dissident Dan, is not possible without intent. You can try empirically to think something without wanting to.... or to rely on what comes perchance to your mind. Maybe you are not aware of your intentions or motives, but that is to your own detriment and does not mean that you have none. Note that Iacchus32 idea of a creator and his intent is not necessary as soon as one is open to the intents of all the beings who do something.

Iacchus32

Sep1-03, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by sascha
My point is that in any case the interpretation and evaluation is conceptual business, not material / empirical. Yet you and selfAdjoint do not seem to realize this means that a purely immaterial realm (concepts, logic, etc.) is the determining instance. The interrelations on the level of content are the guideline, also for judging alternatives, truth, contingency, etc.. Absoutely! [;)]

Zero

Sep1-03, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by sascha
True, Zero, materialism can exclude nonsense -- to some point, and especially in contrast some wild fantasies (which have existed in all historical periods). But we must be careful to evaluate it in all its aspects, because trusting it blindly, making it itself into a wild fantasy, introduces nonsense too. My point is that in any case the interpretation and evaluation is conceptual business, not material / empirical. Yet you and selfAdjoint do not seem to realize this means that a purely immaterial realm (concepts, logic, etc.) is the determining instance. The interrelations on the level of content are the guideline, also for judging alternatives, truth, contingency, etc.. The really interesting question is why the structures in the material world correspond to the structures in the immaterial world of pure content, or -- to turn this the other way around -- under what conditions an activity in the immaterial / mental world corresponds to those in the material world. Iacchus32 idea wherby "the outer reality is merely the manifestation of the inner reality" reflects the view from the point of view of organized agancy. He aims at what some would call the creator, God, etc.. We as thinkers must clarify our own creations -- of which the very first are our thoughts and ideas, the plans we make. Doing something in an organized way, Dissident Dan, is not possible without intent. You can try empirically to think something without wanting to.... or to rely on what comes perchance to your mind. Maybe you are not aware of your intentions or motives, but that is to your own detriment and does not mean that you have none. Note that Iacchus32 idea of a creator and his intent is not necessary as soon as one is open to the intents of all the beings who do something.

And what cult do you belong to??[;)]

Seriously though, you talk about a 'immaterial world of pure content'...where is it, what is it, and how do you know?

sascha

Sep1-03, 01:17 PM

No need for any cult, thanks. What I refer to by 'immaterial world of pure content' is the fact that the ultimate reference in thinking is in a realm that some call Platonic, for example -- which is the same as what I say, just in other words. People like Paul Finsler or Kurt Goedel (well known to you, I suppose) were admitted Platonists, i.e. they expressed the above, and even more 'modern' ones like Douglas R. Hofstadter (author of eg. Goedel, Escher, Bach), who are in no way inclined to any immaterialism, at the end admit that logical paradoxes and contradictions would be insoluble if one could not refer to pure laws, whose locus is there. -- Is this helpful for you, or would you like some more details?

Zero

Sep1-03, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by sascha
No need for any cult, thanks. What I refer to by 'immaterial world of pure content' is the fact that the ultimate reference in thinking is in a realm that some call Platonic, for example -- which is the same as what I say, just in other words. People like Paul Finsler or Kurt Goedel (well known to you, I suppose) were admitted Platonists, i.e. they expressed the above, and even more 'modern' ones like Douglas R. Hofstadter (author of eg. Goedel, Escher, Bach), who are in no way inclined to any immaterialism, at the end admit that logical paradoxes and contradictions would be insoluble if one could not refer to pure laws, whose locus is there. -- Is this helpful for you, or would you like some more details? I don't need you to quote names at me, as appeals to authority hold little weight with me. [:D] There is no proof of 'pure laws' as anything but a convenient shorthand, you know?There can be practical, but they exist with certainty only in our minds.

Royce

Sep1-03, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Also, the reason I brought it up in the first place was because I had read in one of Royce's earlier posts that he used to listen to Roy Masters, and I was just trying to jog his memory a little, Okay?

My wife and I found and listened to Roy Masters in the mid to late 70's so it's been a while. There was much of what he said that I couldn't and didn't buy then or now. He did however teach a way of meditation that did bring me convincing results.

I have always felt and he always taught that once we had learned all that we could or needed to from him or anybody else it was time to move on. That is one reason he discouraged hangers on. He was at that time dead set against forming any kind of cult. If a cult did arise it was against his wishes and advice.

I have used a lot of what he taught and what I discovered with him and since in my posts here. Yes, I would agree that he was paranoid, possible even a paranoid schizophrenic but his teaching then helped both me and my wife. We were Christians then before RM and I have studied Zen and Taoism since the early 60's. I have found through further study that much of what I remember of Roy's teaching were and are accepted wisdom, knowledge and truth in many religions and Christian denominations. He was not all mad. He probably still isn't but to someonelike you Zero. he would be a raving maniac.

To repeat something I have said before: "Sanity appears insane to the insane." I think that I could probably paraphrase that to include reality don't you think?

Back to the "subject" of this thread, I ask one question. How can a marerialist believe or think of anything when belief and thought are pure immaterial subjective processes that doe not exist in their reality. The only pure materialist that is true to his beliefs is my grandson's pet rock. It has no immaterial processes whatsoever and exists only in material reality.

Fliption

Sep1-03, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Royce
The only pure materialist that is true to his beliefs is my grandson's pet rock. It has no immaterial processes whatsoever and exists only in material reality.

But Royce you do not understand. You cannot argue against materialism. Materialism is defined as "existence" so these things that you mention cannot possibly exists since they are not material.

Don't you know that only people who view reality correctly are allowed to assume their conclusions?

Zero

Sep1-03, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Royce

Back to the "subject" of this thread, I ask one question. How can a marerialist believe or think of anything when belief and thought are pure immaterial subjective processes that doe not exist in their reality. The only pure materialist that is true to his beliefs is my grandson's pet rock. It has no immaterial processes whatsoever and exists only in material reality.

My thoughts are the expressions of the physical processes of my brain. I don't see where the problem is.

Fliption

Sep1-03, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Zero
My thoughts are the expressions of the physical processes of my brain. I don't see where the problem is.

I think he means that they are non-material things. If we assume what you say is correct, then it still seems a distinction can be made between a thing and the things that cause it to come about to begin with. Can't it? Leaving a hammer in the rain causes it to rust. We don't say that the rust and all it's particular properties does not really exists because it is caused by rain do we?

Zero

Sep1-03, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
I think he means that they are non-material things. If we assume what you say is correct, then it still seems a distinction can be made between a thing and the things that cause it to come about to begin with. Can't it? Leaving a hammer in the rain causes it to rust. We don't say that the rust and all it's particular properties does not really exists because it is caused by rain do we? No, my thoughts aren't non-material, they are electrical impulses in my brain.

Fliption

Sep1-03, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Zero
No, my thoughts aren't non-material, they are electrical impulses in my brain.

I was thinking that the definition of thought is somewhat different from that. I think you have pinpointed another "cause" to your thoughts as it is traditionally defined. But regardless, I am beginning to understand why you stuggle with this topic so much. As I suspected, it is semantic in nature which, as long as we understand that, shouldn't really amount to any major differences in conclusions. We'll see.

So I reiterate my earlier point that you cannot make claims like "all things that exists are material" until you actually define what you mean by material. To defend the statement "all things that exists are material" with the comment "because material means those things that exists" is a meaningless statement and explains why there is so much of a semantic problem around this word. This is why I was asking from the very beginning of my participation in this thread that you explain what you mean by "material".

Zero

Sep1-03, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
I was thinking that the definition of thought is somewhat different from that. I think you have pinpointed another "cause" to your thoughts as it is traditionally defined. But regardless, I am beginning to understand why you stuggle with this topic so much. As I suspected, it is semantic in nature which, as long as we understand that, shouldn't really amount to any major differences in conclusions. We'll see.

So I reiterate my earlier point that you cannot make claims like "all things that exists are material" until you actually define what you mean by material. To defend the statement "all things that exists are material" with the comment "because material means those things that exists" is a meaningless statement and explains why there is so much of a semantic problem around this word. This is why I was asking from the very beginning of my participation in this thread that you explain what you mean by "material".

Uh huh...

"Material" is simply matter and energy, and the results of their interactions. Pretty simple, no?

Fliption

Sep1-03, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Uh huh...

"Material" is simply matter and energy, and the results of their interactions. Pretty simple, no?

Lol. Yes, it is. Too simple. That materialism would imply matter is a no-brainer. Two questions.

1. Define matter?
2. Why are the results included? Is rust considered part of the rain?

Zero

Sep1-03, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Lol. Yes, it is. Too simple. That materialism would imply matter is a no-brainer. Two questions.

1. What is matter?
2. Why are the results included? Is rust considered part of the rain?

1)Matter is 'stuff'...from me and you all the way down to subatomic particles.

2)I include the results because it allows for things like gravity, which is only measurable by its effects. It also includes the subjective results of the workings of the brain to fall under materialism.

Fliption

Sep1-03, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Zero
1)Matter is 'stuff'...from me and you all the way down to subatomic particles.

Hmm I don't mean to be difficult but "what is a subatomic particle"?
What makes one thing a subatomic particle and another thing not? "Stuff" seems pretty vague too.

2)I include the results because it allows for things like gravity, which is only measurable by its effects. It also includes the subjective results of the workings of the brain to fall under materialism.

So are you saying that you define it in such a way as to capture a legitimate scientific idea(like gravity) as a material thing and no other reason?

Zero

Sep1-03, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Hmm I don't mean to be difficult but "what is a subatomic particle"?
What makes one thing a subatomic particle and another thing not? "Stuff" seems pretty vague too. Well, subatomic particles are a bit...uncertain. But, again, we know they interact in measurable ways, even with the whole 'wavicle' issue. Sorry for being vague..but a bit of uncertainty doesn't bother me too much, so long as the overall picture is clear.

So are you saying that you define it in such a way as to capture a legitimate scientific idea(like gravity) as a material thing and no other reason?
Well, it makes sense, doesn't it? I'm not exactly sure how gravity works, but I know that it does,and that it works the same way in every instance. It can be measured, predicted, and is a result of the interaction of 'stuff', so it counts.

Royce

Sep1-03, 09:20 PM

But, Zero, gravity is neither matter nor energy but a force along with the strong and weak nuclear forces. Better change you definition.

Zero

Sep1-03, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Royce
But, Zero, gravity is neither matter nor energy but a force along with the strong and weak nuclear forces. Better change you definition. Really? Doesn't effect my definition a bit, if you had been paying attention for the last 20+ pages.

Fliption

Sep1-03, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Really? Doesn't effect my definition a bit, if you had been paying attention for the last 20+ pages.

I'm afraid he's right, Royce. His definition has been patched for all exceptions because "it makes sense" to do so. His definition is just too vague and circular to be refuted. It is obvious to me that Zero knows exactly what he wants to conclude. He just can't provide how he got there except for an appeal to common sense.

BoulderHead

Sep1-03, 09:58 PM

1. Define matter?
'Matter is a philosophical category denoting the objective reality which is given to man by his sensations, and which is copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them.'
- V. Lenin

“Lenin did not, of course, maintain that this was the sole characteristic of matter according to dialectical materialism: it is 'sole' only in the sense that it alone marks the boundary between materialism and idealism and is the only validation that materialism needs.”

How about that?

I think the term ‘materialist’ means something different to me than it does to some of my fellow members. I believe in the primacy of matter over consciousness, not the negation of the immaterial altogether. Consciousness is immaterial and yet does exist, however the following still appeals to my mind;

“Lenin concluded that consciousness arose as the result of a lengthy evolution of matter. Though matter - the natural world - has always existed, mankind appeared at a comparatively late stage, many millions of years after the natural world. As man is a thinking creature, it follows that consciousness is a product of nature, a feature of matter - or rather of that highly organised part of matter that is the human brain.”

Zero

Sep1-03, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
'Matter is a philosophical category denoting the objective reality which is given to man by his sensations, and which is copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them.'
- V. Lenin

“Lenin did not, of course, maintain that this was the sole characteristic of matter according to dialectical materialism: it is 'sole' only in the sense that it alone marks the boundary between materialism and idealism and is the only validation that materialism needs.”

How about that?

I think the term ‘materialist’ means something different to me than it does to some of my fellow members. I believe in the primacy of matter over consciousness, not the negation of the immaterial altogether. Consciousness is immaterial and yet does exist, however the following still appeals to my mind;

“Lenin concluded that consciousness arose as the result of a lengthy evolution of matter. Though matter - the natural world - has always existed, mankind appeared at a comparatively late stage, many millions of years after the natural world. As man is a thinking creature, it follows that consciousness is a product of nature, a feature of matter - or rather of that highly organised part of matter that is the human brain.” I'm more or less with you on that...

And, let me thank some of you who have responded to this thread. Focusing on things like fundamental forces, consciousness, or natural law is, to me, a support of the basic principle of teh way I see the material universe. We're looking at cases where there is something of a grey area, and it is those areas that create the best conversations.

Fliption

Sep1-03, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
[B]'Matter is a philosophical category denoting the objective reality which is given to man by his sensations, and which is copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them.'
- V. Lenin

How about that?

Much better. But what about sensations? I can have sensations as a result of a dream too but dreams aren't matter. Should sensations be more specific?

I think the term ‘materialist’ means something different to me than it does to some of my fellow members. I believe in the primacy of matter over consciousness, not the negation of the immaterial altogether. Consciousness is immaterial and yet does exist, however the following still appeals to my mind;

Yes that's an important distinction. This view of yours seems to be the most reasonable interpretation of a materialist. The other view, that all things are material, seems like it has to re-define many terms in a way that they are not commonly understood.

“Lenin concluded that consciousness arose as the result of a lengthy evolution of matter. Though matter - the natural world - has always existed, mankind appeared at a comparatively late stage, many millions of years after the natural world. As man is a thinking creature, it follows that consciousness is a product of nature, a feature of matter - or rather of that highly organised part of matter that is the human brain.”

The whole debate seems to be a chicken and egg debate. Which is why it still goes on after all these years.

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Knowledge is not wisdom!

But "discernment" on the other hand, is getting pretty darn close.

And now, from the Foundation of Human Understanding, here is Roy Masters (http://www.fhu.com/index.php).
Originally posted by Zero
Woohoo...more nothing!!There is no wisdom without knowledge. You cannot create your own knowledge, and call it wisdom.Wisdom is the "internal" means by which to measure knowledge, which is "external," by which you begin to understand its "use" or application.

Which is not altogether different from what sascha says below ...

Originally posted by sascha
My point is that in any case the interpretation and evaluation is conceptual business, not material / empirical. Yet you and selfAdjoint do not seem to realize this means that a purely immaterial realm (concepts, logic, etc.) is the determining instance. The interrelations on the level of content are the guideline, also for judging alternatives, truth, contingency, etc..

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I think the term ‘materialist’ means something different to me than it does to some of my fellow members. I believe in the primacy of matter over consciousness, not the negation of the immaterial altogether. Consciousness is immaterial and yet does exist, however the following still appeals to my mind;

“Lenin concluded that consciousness arose as the result of a lengthy evolution of matter. Though matter - the natural world - has always existed, mankind appeared at a comparatively late stage, many millions of years after the natural world. As man is a thinking creature, it follows that consciousness is a product of nature, a feature of matter - or rather of that highly organised part of matter that is the human brain.” Consciousness is merely a witness to that which is unconscious? How strange?

And yet how do we arrive at the sense of a "structured universe" if not through the means of consciousness? Doesn't that also imply that the universe itself is conscious?

Indeed, how else would we be able to arrive at a sense of structure in our own lives, if not through consciousness?

In which case wouldn't it be fair to say that structure is only achieved by means of the same?

Royce

Sep2-03, 08:41 AM

From Merriam Webster online dictionary:
"1 a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter "

From Zero's posted deffinition above
"Material" is simply matter and energy, and the results of their interactions. Pretty simple, no?
1)Matter is 'stuff'...from me and you all the way down to subatomic particles.

2)I include the results because it allows for things like gravity, which is only measurable by its effects. It also includes the subjective results of the workings of the brain to fall under materialism.

"Why the bias against materialism?"

Because the position of materialism is in itself inconsistant and self contradictory. It has been expanded to include immaterial things that it cannot refute or disprove so it incorporates them into its system and still call it material whether physical or philosophical.
Materialism is inconsistant, illogical and just plain wrong, not in my opinion but in fact.

Take the first definition from Merriam Webster; "a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality" yet Zero et al add energy to the definition as a manifestation of matter. It is not. it is quite possible if string theory or super string theory is right or nearly right that matter is a manifestation of energy not the other way around. Matter is energy tied up and vibrating in dimensional knots.

In any event matter is material and energy is immaterial. So by definition both material and immaterial stuff exists in reality. This is at best a semi-materialist position. Still not good enough? Okay lets expand it to include forces like gravity and strong and weak nuclear forces all of which are immaterial and matter could not exists as stuff in this universe without them so matter is again a manifestation of energy and force not the other way around.

Now we have matter, energy and force all included in the materialistic belief system. Materailism has been reduced yet again to what is now partial materialism. Still not good enough? No we have to account for electromagnetic radiation which is neither matter, energy or force but a field or wave and is not a manifestation of matter or energy as it carries energy and effects matter. So now we have matter, energy, force and EM radiation. Materialism is reduced again to what is now some material and lots of immaterial stuff. This is just the hard cold scientific facts and theories as we know them today.

Lets get philosophical now. According to Zero, gravity is known to exist because its effects can be measured. Lets consider knowledge. Knowledge can be measured both in quality and quantity and its effect are obvious on matter everywhere mankind is present. I therefore submit that knowlege exist in itsd own right and is not necessarily a manifestation of matter.

Now lets look at intent and purpose. I intend to do something and carry out that intent effecting matter. Intent is then a cause of immaterial origin that effects the material. In order to have intent and purpose I must be conscious. Oops there's anouther immaterial thing that can be measured in both quality and quanity.

I desire (an emotion) to go see a movie (a form of art and possibly beauty). I get in my car and drive to the theater to see the movie (purpose). I see the movie and enjoy the experience (What is experience? We all have it but what form of reality is experience, surely not material?). Prior to the main feature a short documentary was shown increasing my knowlege.

I know that Zero will not accept any of this as immaterial but a result of electrochemical processes in my material brain. This is an assumption (another immaterial process) as it is not proven whether thought is the cause or effect of electrochemical activity in the brain.

Want some more inconsistancy? Lets look lastly at the oxymoron Historical Materialism. This combimes materialism with culture and society which are both material (people as physical bodies) and their interactions with one another (immaterial). I don't think that I need to explain how the concepts of culture and and society are immaterial.

We can of course expand materialism to include and account for all of these things but then it becomes even more deluted until it becomes subjective materialism. It is now only a step away from becoming idealistic materialism which is an oxmoron but no more so that materialism itself or historical materialism.

'nough said? I think so.

sascha

Sep2-03, 08:41 AM

Sorry, Zero, I was out for a day and could not respond. Yesterday you read my post on a 'purely immaterial realm' as quoting names at you, and as appeals to authority. I am not responsible for your interpretation. I gave you these threads because there you can find all the arguments you need.

If pure laws are nothing but a convenient shorthand, you have no basis on which to prove anything. Then also your assertions float in the air, carried merely by other words, by a cobweb of beliefs and myths. But then even materialism will not save you, because judging materiality happens also in this floating mode of all-out relativity. So, by what means do you find the certainty by which you can assert that laws laws exist with certainty only in our minds? Do you mean that just because some, or even the majority, presently have no better grasp of clarity than that, then nobody can have it?

Royce

Sep2-03, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by BoulderHead

“Lenin concluded that consciousness arose as the result of a lengthy evolution of matter. Though matter - the natural world - has always existed, mankind appeared at a comparatively late stage, many millions of years after the natural world. As man is a thinking creature, it follows that consciousness is a product of nature, a feature of matter - or rather of that highly organised part of matter that is the human brain.”

Single celled animals as well as bacteria were and are aware, conscious of their environment and respond to its changes. They probably are not self aware or conscious of self but they are aware and respond to stimuli including the proximity of danger, preditors and food. Consciousness developed at least in primitive form right along with life not as a result of billions of years of increasingly complex evolution. Numerous 'lesser' animals are self aware. I would conclude that awareness, consciousness is a characteristic of life itself if not the main characteristic. Is life itself nothing more than a reult of increasingly complex molecules? This has not been proven nor demonstrated. Is DNA, one of the most complex molecules know, alive or simply a product of life?

Again this is just two examples of where materialism cannot hold water. It looks at only one small fraction of reality and accepts it as the whole of reality with out reason or support for the soul purpose of denying that the subjective and spiritual realms of reality exist. Materialism itself in a belief which is immaterial despite how or what caused it to arise and come into existence. Ideas, knowledge, thought, philosophies, logic, math, science. art, beauty, consciousness, emotions, intent, pupose, soul, belief, experience, awareness and life are all examples of immaterial things that cannot be soully accounted for or explained by the materialistic paradigm. The list is vertually endless.

Materialism is myopically absurd at its very foundations. I do not call this bias. I call this reason.

BoulderHead

Sep2-03, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Royce
Single celled animals as well as bacteria were and are aware, conscious of their environment and respond to its changes. They probably are not self aware or conscious of self but they are aware and respond to stimuli including the proximity of danger, preditors and food. Consciousness developed at least in primitive form right along with life not as a result of billions of years of increasingly complex evolution. Numerous 'lesser' animals are self aware. I would conclude that awareness, consciousness is a characteristic of life itself if not the main characteristic. Is life itself nothing more than a reult of increasingly complex molecules? This has not been proven nor demonstrated. Is DNA, one of the most complex molecules know, alive or simply a product of life?
I don’t see how this really affects my view that that matter is primary, consciousness secondary. No material body, no immaterial consciousness. That being said, I think it is wrong to look at the two as if they are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive. It seems clear enough they exist together.
What you might like to put as being primary may be that chicken and egg business Fliption mentioned, but to lambaste ‘materialism’ the way you are doing is useless, imo. It is also wrong to label people the way I've seen you do, because I know that until I gave my definition of it, you had no idea of what it meant to me. You are guilty of defining materialism in a way that suits you, then attempting to fit this yoke around the neck of people where it doesn’t belong, and isn’t this exactly what you dislike others doing to you?

Materialism is myopically absurd at its very foundations. I do not call this bias. I call this reason.
Ok, I’m not going to spend a lot of time responding to this. Instead, I will let someone else do it for me so I can go make myself some breakfast. This is going to get kinda long, so I apologize up front;

“Both primitive man and the infant, in a naive anthropomorphic attitude, consider it quite plausible that every change and event is the outcome of the action of a being acting in the same way as they themselves do. They believe that animals, plants, mountains, rivers, and fountains, even stones and celestial bodies, are, like themselves, feeling, willing, and acting beings. Only at a later stage of cultural development does man renounce these animistic ideas and substitute the mechanistic world view for them. Mechanicalism proves to be so satisfactory a principle of conduct that people finally believe it capable of solving all the problems of thought and scientific research. Materialism and panphysicalism proclaim mechanicalism as the essence of all knowledge and the experimental and mathematical methods of the natural sciences as the sole scientific mode of thinking.
All changes are to be comprehended as motions subject to the laws of mechanics.
The champions of mechanicalism do not bother about the still unsolved problems of the logical and epistemological basis of the principles of causality and imperfect induction. In their eyes these principles are sound because they work. The fact that experiments in the laboratory bring about the results predicted by the theories and that machines in the factories run in the way predicted by technology proves, they say, the soundness of the methods and findings of modern natural science. Granted that science cannot give us truth--and who knows what truth really means?--at any rate it is certain that it works in leading us to success.
But it is precisely when we accept this pragmatic point of view that the emptiness of the panphysicalist dogma becomes manifest. Science, as has been pointed out above, has not succeeded in solving the problems of the mind-body relations. The panphysicalists certainly cannot contend that the procedures they recommend have ever worked in the field of interhuman relations and of the social sciences. But it is beyond doubt that the principle according to which an Ego deals with every human being as if the other were a thinking and acting being like himself has evidenced its usefulness both in mundane life and in scientific research. It cannot be denied that it works.”
-Ludwig von Mises

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I don’t see how this really affects my view that that matter is primary, consciousness secondary. No material body, no immaterial consciousness. Yes, but without "conceiving" the idea through immaterial consciousness, mommy and daddy wouldn't have bothered to "conceive" you. [:D]

Nor, without the original stirring in God's Mind, there would be nothing to speak of terms of the human race or, for that matter anything else. [;)]

Zero

Sep2-03, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, but without "conceiving" the idea through immaterial consciousness, mommy and daddy wouldn't have bothered to "conceive" you. [:D]

Nor, without the original stirring in God's Mind, there would be nothing to speak of terms of the human race or, for that matter anything else. [;)] You aren't adding anything to the debate again...you are creating ideas with no evidwence to support them, in order to support your emotion-based view of the world.

BoulderHead

Sep2-03, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Zero
You aren't adding anything to the debate again...you are creating ideas with no evidwence to support them, in order to support your emotion-based view of the world.
Exactly right.
Iacchus, if mommy and daddy where not physical beings they wouldn't have been around to consciously have those thoughts. Now apply this to your god.

heusdens

Sep2-03, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Royce
Materialism is myopically absurd at its very foundations. I do not call this bias. I call this reason. [/B]

Your statement there is in fact correct. Not because materialism is absurd, but it is your idea about materialism which is absurd.

Matter denotes a philosophical category which denotes objective reality, which is that which is outside and independend of the human mind, and which can be known by the human mind.

Matter as such, does not exist. Matter is an abstract category (like "fruit", "womanhood"). We only know matter by way of material existence forms.

Further you have to distinguish between phyiscal matter (which are discontinuous forms of energy, like particles) and philosophical matter. They are not the same.

Royce

Sep2-03, 10:54 AM

BH, I can't disagree with any thing you said or in your quote. If my posts were directed at anybody, it was Zero and his claim of pure materialism.
I personally belief that there is no real dichotomy between materialism and subjectivism. They both exist and are real. They both are different manifestations of reality. I also believe in the spiritual or religious realm but that is beside the point.
I do not deny that materialism exists nor do I deny its importance. I do not deny tha subjectivity exists nor its importance. I do not deny spirituality or idealism either.

How do we decide which side of a triangle is prime when the triangle cannot exist at all without any one of its sides? How then can we decide which aspect of reality is primary? As a materialist you would say that material is prime. As an Idealist I would say even if that were so without subjectivity no one or on thing would know anything of the material so it is moot.

Sound is only vibration until someone or some conscious thing hears it as sound. Light is only radiation until an eye sees it. Without life and subjectivity the material may exist but who would know or care? It would therefore be pointless and meaningless and moot.

Zero

Sep2-03, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Royce
BH, I can't disagree with any thing you said or in your quote. If my posts were directed at anybody, it was Zero and his claim of pure materialism.
I personally belief that there is no real dichotomy between materialism and subjectivism. They both exist and are real. They both are different manifestations of reality. I also believe in the spiritual or religious realm but that is beside the point.
I do not deny that materialism exists nor do I deny its importance. I do not deny tha subjectivity exists nor its importance. I do not deny spirituality or idealism either.

How do we decide which side of a triangle is prime when the triangle cannot exist at all without any one of its sides? How then can we decide which aspect of reality is primary? As a materialist you would say that material is prime. As an Idealist I would say even if that were so without subjectivity no one or on thing would know anything of the material so it is moot.

Sound is only vibration until someone or some conscious thing hears it as sound. Light is only radiation until an eye sees it. Without life and subjectivity the material may exist but who would know or care? It would therefore be pointless and meaningless and moot. Sound is still vibration even after we hear it. Light is still radiation after we see it. Thinking that something mystical happens when humans are involved is self-centered egotism IMO.

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Zero
You aren't adding anything to the debate again...you are creating ideas with no evidwence to support them, in order to support your emotion-based view of the world. He says consciousness is only secondary and I said guess again. He wouldn't even be here if it weren't for his parents "immaterial notion" to start a family -- or, for whatever reason people get together and "procreate." [;)]

Zero

Sep2-03, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
He says consciousness is only secondary and I said guess again. He wouldn't even be here if it weren't for his parents "immaterial notion" to start a family -- or, for whatever reason people get together and "procreate." [;)] And their completely material notion wouldn't exist without their perfectly material brains.

I swear, I think this 'worship' of consciousness as some sort of mystical experience is because no one 3wants to feel like they are grounded in the physical. If they are, they have to face their own limitations, and their own mortality, and most people simply can't do that, IMO.

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Zero
And their completely material notion wouldn't exist without their perfectly material brains.

I swear, I think this 'worship' of consciousness as some sort of mystical experience is because no one 3wants to feel like they are grounded in the physical. If they are, they have to face their own limitations, and their own mortality, and most people simply can't do that, IMO. And yet without consciousness, what would we use as our yardstick?

Zero

Sep2-03, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet without consciousness, what would we use as our yardstick? And yet without the physical, there is no 'consciousness'...

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Zero
And yet without the physical, there is no 'consciousness'... Once again you misconstrue "the medium," for that which is designed to support the medium.

Now how is it possible to be fully conscious, but not be aware that you have a brain? (although it's obviously there). Could it be because the brain has to provide a dynamic but "neutral" environment, in order to support that which is by far "from neutral?" In which respect I don't think you can say the "bias itself" comes from the brain.

If not, then where does it come from? [;)]

Zero

Sep2-03, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Once again you misconstrue "the medium," for that which is designed to support the medium.

Now how is it possible to be fully conscious, but not be aware that you have a brain? (although it's obviously there). Could it be because the brain has to provide a dynamic but "neutral" environment, in order to support that which is by far "from neutral?" In which respect I don't think you can say the "bias itself" comes from the brain.

If not, then where does it come from? [;)] Here we go with teh what ifs again. What if your consciousness is beamed into your brain by Zeta rays from the planet Remulak?

Royce

Sep2-03, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Sound is still vibration even after we hear it. Light is still radiation after we see it. Thinking that something mystical happens when humans are involved is self-centered egotism IMO.

No, to us vibration of this type is interpeted in our brain as sound and if we are conscious we hear sound not vibration. It is the same with light or any of our other senses. Unless consciousness and awareness are mystical to you then you last sentence is meaningless.

Again, Without consciousness or awareness the material world may still exist. It does not depend on awareness to exist but exists independantly on its own. In this way I am a materialist. But, without consciousness and awareness existing the existence of the material world would be unknown, unexperienced and moot. In short, so what? It has no point or meaning. None may be required for the world to exist in physical reality; but, it would be unknown and unknowing; therefore, it would not exist subjectively. Without sujective existence it would not exist in reality. Reality is a concept of the human mind. With no mind, no reality. Yes, that is semantical but valid never-the-less.

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Here we go with teh what ifs again. What if your consciousness is beamed into your brain by Zeta rays from the planet Remulak? Can I take that to mean you don't have an answer then?

Zero

Sep2-03, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Can I take that to mean you don't have an answer then? Hmmm...I give you the same answer every day, when you post the same nonsense. Straight logic doesn't seem to work on your cult-controlled mind, so I figured I'd have a little fun. You seem to love 'what if' questions, based on nothing but your imagination, so I figured I would answer in your 'language'.

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmm...I give you the same answer every day, when you post the same nonsense. Straight logic doesn't seem to work on your cult-controlled mind, so I figured I'd have a little fun. You seem to love 'what if' questions, based on nothing but your imagination, so I figured I would answer in your 'language'. It's like I said, where does the bias come from?

Fliption

Sep2-03, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I swear, I think this 'worship' of consciousness as some sort of mystical experience is because no one 3wants to feel like they are grounded in the physical. If they are, they have to face their own limitations, and their own mortality, and most people simply can't do that, IMO.

This is an interesting thing to say. It seems odd that anyone would think that "most" people feel this way, and then elude that the majority view is inferior to their own. Regardless, this quote is probably true in some cases.

On the other side of the table, I see people who are either 1)control freaks who cannot handle being in a position of perceived ignorance. Or 2) people with personal issues who use a meaningless existence to either justify some amoral position (again a control issue) or to strike back at some "established" expectation.

Of course none of these things "have" to be true. The hardest thing in the world is to admit that people who have different opinions "actually" see things differently.

Zero

Sep2-03, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
This is an interesting thing to say. It seems odd that anyone would think that "most" people feel this way, and then elude that the majority view is inferior to their own. Regardless, this quote is probably true in some cases.

On the other side of the table, I see people who are either 1)control freaks who cannot handle being in a position of perceived ignorance. Or 2) people with personal issues who use a meaningless existence to either justify some amoral position (again a control issue) or to strike back at some "established" expectation.

Of course none of these things "have" to be true. The hardest thing in the world is to admit that people who have different opinions "actually" see things differently. Well, I didn't mean you, Fliption...I do think it is most people though...people believe in all sorts of stuff. I don't have beliefs myself, pesky things.

BoulderHead

Sep2-03, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Once again you misconstrue "the medium," for that which is designed to support the medium.
Here you look to put the immaterial before the material. This sounds like the immaterial has willed through consciousness the creation of a material body.
…Could it be because the brain has to provide a dynamic but "neutral" environment, in order to support….
And if I’m reading you correctly then right here is a problem because how can you assume that the immaterial is primary if the brain (material) is needed to provide…?

I think your conclusion is premature.

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Here you look to put the immaterial before the material. This sounds like the immaterial has willed through consciousness the creation of a material body. Yes, because "the intent" precedes the act, which then becomes the "outward manifestation" of the intent.

And if I’m reading you correctly then right here is a problem because how can you assume that the immaterial is primary if the brain (material) is needed to provide…?

I think your conclusion is premature. Why should it be altogther different from that of a computer? The computer -- which itself is neutral -- is just a means of expressing that which is "transferred" through the medium or software.

Whereas how did the brain get there, if it hadn't evolved, through "conscious intent," to become a brain? (in the capacity we now experience currently).

Fliption

Sep2-03, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, I didn't mean you, Fliption...I do think it is most people though...people believe in all sorts of stuff. I don't have beliefs myself, pesky things.

Yeah, I didn't think you meant me. I just thought it was a good post to respond to. I personally can understand why you might make the claim that "most" people have this issue. But the wise side of me gets in the way and warns me to be careful when I conclude that everybody is wrong but me. Pesky wisdom.

Dissident Dan

Sep2-03, 01:28 PM

Mentat

Sep2-03, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
LOL. Because 2 proclaimed materialists claim it is so when it is in their interest to do so, is not convincing to me. Nor should it be if I'm going to honestly attempt to find truth.

I am pretty sure I am not wrong on this. You say "we materialists stand against those ideas". And the ideas that you're referring to are "some people make the claim for the existance of things that cannot be shown to exist, like 'God'".

But these statements have nothing to do with materialism. This is my point. You mentioned 'love' earlier. You obviously think that it exists because you said it shows how complex the brain is. Do you consider it material? I am not trying to say that this proves ghost, or santa claus(or any other childish insulting label you can think of) exists. All I'm trying to show you is that 'material'cannot be the same as 'existence'. Science could not show that a quark existed at one time in it's history. Does that mean that quarks weren't material then? Hopefully you can see the problem with making material synonmous with "known to exist".

In order for people to have philosophical debates, they must agree on the definitions of the concepts about which they disagree. The whole philosphical debate around materialism has been going on for years. What I am certain about is that no one in their right mind would
disagree with materialism if your definition is correct. You have conveniently defined it so that it cannot be wrong. No philosopher would ever accept the definition that material things are the things that exists and then turn around and say that non-material things DO exists. They cannot exists by definition! That's
just nuts! So what's all the debate about? Well, they probably have a better definition.

If the non-materialist people that post in this forum were to use this definition they would still claim that god exists. They would simply claim that he is material. The debate would then just shift from materialism versus non-materialism to god
vs no-god. This definition of material solves nothing. It is meaningless.

I'm sorry if this point has already been made, I have yet to read the entire thread, but I think that you have missed the most important part of Zero's definition of "materialism", namely: "Can be shown to exist". After all, we can talk of love, but it doesn't exist unless a certain brain/body process occurs, and it cannot be realized unless certain actions take place (for example, if I jump in front of a gunman to save my mother's life, I have demonstrated love).

So, I guess what my point is is that, to the materialist, love is a physical/material process, and there can be no love without some kind of physical interaction.

Zero

Sep2-03, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
But don't you believe that you don't have beliefs? No, I'm confident that I don't have beliefs...but I'm not willing to stake any cash on it!

Zero

Sep2-03, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Mentat

So, I guess what my point is is that, to the materialist, love is a physical/material process, and there can be no love without some kind of physical interaction. That sounds dirty...[:D]

Royce

Sep2-03, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
Your statement there is in fact correct. Not because materialism is absurd, but it is your idea about materialism which is absurd.

My idea of materialism has no bearing on my post. If you read it then you know that I used the definitions supplied by Merriam Webster on-line dictionary and those supplied by Zero. It was those definitions that I responded to.

Matter denotes a philosophical category which denotes objective reality, which is that which is outside and independend of the human mind, and which can be known by the human mind.

Matter as such, does not exist. Matter is an abstract category (like "fruit", "womanhood"). We only know matter by way of material existence forms.

If matter is a philosophical catagory and an abstract catagory the matter is subjective and not material and my arguement stands. Make up your mind matter is either material or subjective or both. If other than a physical existent reality then your arguement supports mine.

Further you have to distinguish between phyiscal matter (which are discontinuous forms of energy, like particles) and philosophical matter. They are not the same.

Once again you support my argument that there is more to reality than physical material matter. You also show hat materialist have expanded their definitions and and limits to the point that masterialism has lost all meaning as a philosophical position or belief system. The position you are ststing is that of a subjective materialist if there is such a thing. To me the word are mutually exclusive and therefore meaningless.

Mentat

Sep2-03, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Zero
That sounds dirty...[:D]

LOL!!

And here I was trying to make a serious point. [:((] [;)]

Royce

Sep2-03, 01:57 PM

Welcome back Mentat. We missed you. Love is not a material thing but a subjective and emotional thing. The material physical can demonstrate acts of love and it can be measured by measuring the bodies response to love. This by Zero's definition makes it real and existant but further delutes the material to include more of the immaterial making the word as used by him meaningless. It is not just Zero who has done this but every materialist I have ebncountered either here, personnally or have read. The purely materialist position is intenable and therefore rather than change their position they change their definition of material until it becomes meaningless.

Zero

Sep2-03, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
LOL!!

And here I was trying to make a serious point. [:((] [;)] Well, you are one of the few capable of it, anyways.[6)]
We see objective things in a subjective way, this is true. That does not deny the existance of things objectively, however. I am saying that we can only have objective experience of, or through, an objective, material universe.

Mentat

Sep2-03, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Welcome back Mentat. We missed you. Love is not a material thing but a subjective and emotional thing. The material physical can demonstrate acts of love and it can be measured by measuring the bodies response to love. This by Zero's definition makes it real and existant but further delutes the material to include more of the immaterial making the word as used by him meaningless. It is not just Zero who has done this but every materialist I have ebncountered either here, personnally or have read. The purely materialist position is intenable and therefore rather than change their position they change their definition of material until it becomes meaningless.

I'm sorry, dear friend, but you may still be wrong here. After all, do you really think that any kind of love (the family kind, the close friend kind, the sexual kind, etc...) would exist if no physical processes occured in the body?

Also, my point is not that the process of the body "brings forth" the non-physical thing (can I really say "thing" about something that isn't physical?) that you call "love". No, my point is rather that love itself is nothing other than this physical process and the results thereof.

Zero

Sep2-03, 02:03 PM

What would you call the process by which a plant orients itself towards the sun? (I'm going somewhere with this, trust me.)

Mentat

Sep2-03, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, you are one of the few capable of it, anyways.[6)]
We see objective things in a subjective way, this is true. That does not deny the existance of things objectively, however. I am saying that we can only have objective experience of, or through, an objective, material universe.

Oddly enough, even you may not be materialistic enough! After all, you still seperate the things that go on in the mind from the things that go on in the brain (by saying that we "experience the objective world subjectively").

You see, if there were a "subjective" mind that was viewing the "objective" world then there would have to be some "channel" that was both subjective and objectively real (kind of a half-and-half deal, ridiculous as that sounds) between the "objectively" existing brain, and the "subjective" mind, wouldn't there? Doesn't sound too logical to me...

Mentat

Sep2-03, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Zero
What would you call the process by which a plant orients itself towards the sun? (I'm going somewhere with this, trust me.)

Were you asking this to me?

Zero

Sep2-03, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Oddly enough, even you may not be materialistic enough! After all, you still seperate the things that go on in the mind from the things that go on in the brain (by saying that we "experience the objective world subjectively").

You see, if there were a "subjective" mind that was viewing the "objective" world then there would have to be some "channel" that was both subjective and objectively real (kind of a half-and-half deal, ridiculous as that sounds) between the "objectively" existing brain, and the "subjective" mind, wouldn't there? Doesn't sound too logical to me... Oddly enough, I think it was a semantic error...because the subjective viewpoint is a matter of no two minds being physically identical. I am NOT saying that there is a mind/brain separation.

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Zero
What would you call the process by which a plant orients itself towards the sun? (I'm going somewhere with this, trust me.) Acknowledgment, dependency, consciousness, worship?

Of course you can apply any label that you like, but that still doesn't change things. [;)]

Zero

Sep2-03, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Acknowledgment, dependency, consciousness, worship?

Of course you can apply any label that you like, but that still doesn't change things. LOL, at least you are consistant...did you ever consider including biology and chemistry in your answer?

Mentat

Sep2-03, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Acknowledgment, dependency, consciousness, worship?

Of course you can apply any label that you like, but that still doesn't change things.

Surely you realize, Iacchus, that a plant is not capable of any of those things that you mention. After all, if all things were capable of these things, what would be the purpose of a complex brain, like Homo Sapiens Sapiens have?

Zero

Sep2-03, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Were you asking this to me? Asking everyone...

Mentat

Sep2-03, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Asking everyone...

Ok, I'd say that it's the same thing that causes a hungry animal to seek out food: the innate need to supply energy to our cells.

Now, a point that I feel should be mentioned is that this has nothing to do with a conscious choice of what's better for the plant (or for the hungry animal, for that matter). After all, the plant will tend toward the sun, no matter what (even if there is some animal standing there waiting to gobble it up). The plant doesn't "care" about the dangers, just as it doesn't "care" about the sun. It does what it's programmed to do.

It should be easy for you to apply this to the hungry animal yourself, so I wont state the obvious...

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Zero
LOL, at least you are consistant...did you ever consider including biology and chemistry in your answer? Actually I was going to say photosynthesis, but I think there's another "scientific" term for this. How about phototropism?

Mentat

Sep2-03, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Oddly enough, I think it was a semantic error...because the subjective viewpoint is a matter of no two minds being physically identical. I am NOT saying that there is a mind/brain separation.

It could have been a semantic error, or it could have been a Freudian slip, which is what I took it for.

Zero

Sep2-03, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Ok, I'd say that it's the same thing that causes a hungry animal to seek out food: the innate need to supply energy to our cells.

Now, a point that I feel should be mentioned is that this has nothing to do with a conscious choice of what's better for the plant (or for the hungry animal, for that matter). After all, the plant will tend toward the sun, no matter what (even if there is some animal standing there waiting to gobble it up). The plant doesn't "care" about the dangers, just as it doesn't "care" about the sun. It does what it's programmed to do.

It should be easy for you to apply this to the hungry animal yourself, so I wont state the obvious... I'll state the obvious...!!

'Consciousness' is a refinement of the same physical processes that drive a plant towards the sun, and an animal to seek food. There's nothing 'mystical' or 'magical' or 'other' about it. It is the same thing as any other biological process, only on a different scale, and to a different purpose.

Zero

Sep2-03, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
It could have been a semantic error, or it could have been a Freudian slip, which is what I took it for. Nope, the only Freudian slip was yours about the 'physical love' stuff...LOL

Zero

Sep2-03, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually I was going to say photosynthesis, but I think there's another "scientific" term for this. How about phototropism? So, are you saying that it is a physical process, or that plants have will and desire(not that I don't think those are physical as well)?

Royce

Sep2-03, 02:27 PM

Which again bring us to my position that there is no real dichotomy or mutually exclusive aspect to the objective material and subjective. They both exist, both dependant on the other for their existence in reality. Not that the phisical rquires the mental to exist or that the mental causes the physical to exist but that reality is a mental concept and for the physical to be known requires a conscious aware mind. The reality is that both exist in unison and in harmony and in nature, our arguements and name calling not with standing.

Mentat

Sep2-03, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I'll state the obvious...!!

'Consciousness' is a refinement of the same physical processes that drive a plant towards the sun, and an animal to seek food. There's nothing 'mystical' or 'magical' or 'other' about it. It is the same thing as any other biological process, only on a different scale, and to a different purpose.

Good man!

Yes, that was the obvious (though I was - rather irrationaly - hoping that one of the mystics here would find that. Oh well, they probably needed you to spell it out for them anyway [;)]), and if you want a more detailed explanation of a plausible way that human consciousness could have evolved from such processes, just see "Consciousness Explained", by Daniel Dennett (you can even skip to the part called "The Evolution of Consciousness", but I suggest reading the whole thing).

Zero

Sep2-03, 02:30 PM

Mentat

Sep2-03, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Which again bring us to my position that there is no real dichotomy or mutually exclusive aspect to the objective material and subjective. They both exist, both dependant on the other for their existence in reality. Not that the phisical rquires the mental to exist or that the mental causes the physical to exist but that reality is a mental concept and for the physical to be known requires a conscious aware mind. The reality is that both exist in unison and in harmony and in nature, our arguements and name calling not with standing.

I just got back, and I have to disagree with my good buddy Royce twice in the same thread? Man!

Anyway, I think that the subject of the "mind" and "consciousness" has been overlooked by the materialists and misused by the "opposition" (and I include you in this Royce, since, while you are not against materialism, you are not for it either).

The truth is that (as Zero pointed out) "consciousness" which we glamorize so much, is nothing more than a highly-evolved form of that which primitive animals and even plants have been doing for billions of years.

The fact that we've learned some "tricks" that they haven't is only interesting because one of those "tricks" is the ability to think of something as "interesting". [:D]

Zero

Sep2-03, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Good man!

Yes, that was the obvious (though I was - rather irrationaly - hoping that one of the mystics here would find that. Oh well, they probably needed you to spell it out for them anyway [;)]), and if you want a more detailed explanation of a plausible way that human consciousness could have evolved from such processes, just see "Consciousness Explained", by Daniel Dennett (you can even skip to the part called "The Evolution of Consciousness", but I suggest reading the whole thing). Well, the 'obvious' is never apparent in the Philosophy forum, in case you have forgotten?

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Surely you realize, Iacchus, that a plant is not capable of any of those things that you mention. After all, if all things were capable of these things, what would be the purpose of a complex brain, like Homo Sapiens Sapiens have? Are you saying that a plant has no means by which to acknowledge the sun, and is not dependent upon it either? And since when is "acknowledgment" not to be construed as a form of consciousness? Or "dependency" not to be construed as worship? Granted, we're speaking of something in its "rudimentary form," but the same principle nonetheless.

Zero

Sep2-03, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
I just got back, and I have to disagree with my good buddy Royce twice in the same thread? Man!

Anyway, I think that the subject of the "mind" and "consciousness" has been overlooked by the materialists and misused by the "opposition" (and I include you in this Royce, since, while you are not against materialism, you are not for it either).

The truth is that (as Zero pointed out) "consciousness" which we glamorize so much, is nothing more than a highly-evolved form of that which primitive animals and even plants have been doing for billions of years.

The fact that we've learned some "tricks" that they haven't is only interesting because one of those "tricks" is the ability to think of something as "interesting". [:D] Well, I don't think that Royce is wrong exactly...I just know that he sees things differently than I do.

BoulderHead

Sep2-03, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, because "the intent" precedes the act, which then becomes the "outward manifestation" of the intent.

Why should it be altogther different from that of a computer? The computer -- which itself is neutral -- is just a means of expressing that which is "transferred" through the medium or software.

Whereas how did the brain get there, if it hadn't evolved, through "conscious intent," to become a brain? (in the capacity we now experience currently).
I just don’t buy it. In the case of the computer analogy you make it sound as if the software created the hardware, but that isn’t really accurate.

What I see is base matter; rocks, lava, water, etc. I simply see no reason to associate anything approaching a level of consciousness with these things, and yet it is quite easy to believe that these things existed long before living organisms, and their conscious awareness, came into being. Therefore I see matter as primary and not secondary. I also find it quite easy to believe that, despite the way in which we may marvel over ourselves, that if my head were to be flattened by a steam-roller, my marveling will come to an abrupt end. Everything that I’ve ever experienced indicates that consciousness is bound to matter, and nothing have I experienced leads me to believe that matter arose from consciousness, or that it can survive independantly without a physical counterpart. In other words;

“Though consciousness is secondary, it is a feature of highly organised matter - the brain - and therefore exists in reality. Far from being alien to nature, consciousness is as normal a product of the natural world as those material objects which it reflects.”

In keeping with the ‘will of consciousness’ thing;

“Consciousness really exists. It is an active element in man's transformation of the world, since we use our scientific knowledge to manipulate nature to achieve planned aims. 'Man's consciousness,' wrote Lenin,' not only reflects the objective world, but creates it.'”

But that is not to say that consciousness exists independently of matter, which would be the view of an idealist, and I believe your view.

[edit]
I would edit to say that the use of the word 'creates' in that quote from lenin means only to me 'reshape', not 'something from nothing'.

Zero

Sep2-03, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are you saying that a plant has no means by which to acknowledge the sun, and is not dependent upon it either? And since when is "acknowledgment" not to be construed as a form of consciousness? Or "dependency" not to be construed as worship? Granted, we're speaking of something in its "rudimentary form," but the same principle nonetheless. What I am saying is that those ideas have little basis in reality. Just because something appears a certain way, from an anthropomorphic point of view, doesn't make it so...by your logic, objects 'love and worship' the ground, and that is how gravity works.

Mentat

Sep2-03, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Nope, the only Freudian slip was yours about the 'physical love' stuff...LOL

Ha ha.

Mentat

Sep2-03, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, the 'obvious' is never apparent in the Philosophy forum, in case you have forgotten?

Well, it has been a LONG time...

Mentat

Sep2-03, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, I don't think that Royce is wrong exactly...I just know that he sees things differently than I do.

Yes, and when one sees the matter one way, and the other sees it another way, one of them is wrong. I'm not saying that that's necessarily Royce, and I'm not saying it's you (remember, I am the Devil's Advocate [<:)], so I don't usually express "my opinion"), but one of you must need correction.

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I just don’t buy it. In the case of the computer analogy you make it sound as if the software created the hardware, but that isn’t really accurate. I would go so far as to say the software created the need for the computer, Yes. Or else what good is a computer -- except to run the software?

Mentat

Sep2-03, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are you saying that a plant has no means by which to acknowledge the sun, and is not dependent upon it either? And since when is "acknowledgment" not to be construed as a form of consciousness? Or "dependency" not to be construed as worship? Granted, we're speaking of something in its "rudimentary form," but the same principle nonetheless.

I think you've pretty much driven the last nail into your argument.

You said that the plant's tendency toward the sun is the (physical) process of phototropism. Now you say that worship and consciousness are just advanced forms of the same (PHYSICAL) processes.

Anyway, I don't think it's appropriate to say that "acknowledgement" can actually exist in a subconscious being. Acknowledgement is a conscious process.

Mentat

Sep2-03, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I would go so far as to say the software created the need for the computer, Yes. Or else what good is a computer? (except to run the software).

But, as usual (things haven't changed that much) you are focusing way too much attention on the "purpose" of something. Besides, computers were created before the software was. That doesn't mean that there was some other purpose to their creation (other than running software, that is), but the software didn't exist yet. Thus (and this is the point that I tried to make a month ago): conscious beings ASSIGN purposes, or create something to fulfill purposes, but the purpose exists only in the mind of the creator and the user, it is NOT an intrinsic property of the device.

BoulderHead

Sep2-03, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I would go so far as to say the software created the need for the computer, Yes. Or else what good is a computer? (except to run the software).
Then this is where we reach our impasse. It is nothing extraordinary for software to lag behind hardware development

Mentat

Sep2-03, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Zero
What I am saying is that those ideas have little basis in reality. Just because something appears a certain way, from an anthropomorphic point of view, doesn't make it so...by your logic, objects 'love and worship' the ground, and that is how gravity works.

Very well put. And it reminds one of the Greek Philosophers who believe just that. But they only reasoned that way because Science (which exists independent of anthropomorphic reasoning) didn't yet exist, and all they had was the (much broader) field of Philosophy, which could indeed be subjected to such personifications.

What's the difference between the ancient Philosophers and us? Progress.

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
I think you've pretty much driven the last nail into your argument.

You said that the plant's tendency toward the sun is the (physical) process of phototropism. Now you say that worship and consciousness are just advanced forms of the same (PHYSICAL) processes.

Anyway, I don't think it's appropriate to say that "acknowledgement" can actually exist in a subconscious being. Acknowledgement is a conscious process. How about a single skin cell? Don't you think it's capable of just the "inkling" of consciousness? Or else how do we derive our "conscious" sense of touch?

If a living skin cell has that capablility, what's the difference between that and a living plant cell?

Mentat

Sep2-03, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
How about a single skin cell? Don't you think it's capable of just the "inkling" of consciousness? Or else how do we derive our "conscious" sense of touch?

If a living skin cell has that capablility, what's the difference between that and a living plant cell?

You can't be serious. Surely you know that the skin cell never actually "feels" anything. If I get poked by a sharp needle, motor nerves transfer the signal to the BRAIN, where it actually "matters". No, our body does not feel anything, if it did we wouldn't be a single organism, but rather a collection of millions of them. Also, there would be no point in our having a central nervous system, since our bodies would already be capable of feeling and reacting on their own.

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Then this is where we reach our impasse. It is nothing extraordinary for software to lag behind hardware development Except that a computer can't run without a program, even if it's just a "rudimentary" program pre-designed into the hardware.

And neither can a radio operate unless it has a signal to process.

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
You can't be serious. Surely you know that the skin cell never actually "feels" anything. If I get poked by a sharp needle, motor nerves transfer the signal to the BRAIN, where it actually "matters". No, our body does not feel anything, if it did we wouldn't be a single organism, but rather a collection of millions of them. Also, there would be no point in our having a central nervous system, since our bodies would already be capable of feeling and reacting on their own. Then why is it that we "feel" it consciously in our skin? And yes, our bodies are a collection of millions of single-celled living organisms. How else would we be able to extract them individually and maintain them in a separate environment then?

Fliption

Sep2-03, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
[B]I'm sorry if this point has already been made, I have yet to read the entire thread, but I think that you have missed the most important part of Zero's definition of "materialism", namely: "Can be shown to exist".

LOL. And you think the definition "can be shown to exist" is actually a meaningful definition? How is this any different from Just saying it is the same as Existence? There is no difference. There is no way that anyone would ever disagree with materialism if it is defined this way. To reverse the wording, you are saying that an Idealists only believes in things that cannot be shown to exists. What person in there right mind would claim such a belief? Now this may be what you think they effectively believe but that is NOT what an idealists would tell you they believe. Which is my point about having a "consistent" meaningful definition of materialism.

Also you have missed quite a bit because Heusdens has stepped in since the point you quoted and has provided a much better, more usable definition then the useless one you are quoting.

After all, we can talk of love, but it doesn't exist unless a certain brain/body process occurs, and it cannot be realized unless certain actions take place (for example, if I jump in front of a gunman to save my mother's life, I have demonstrated love).

A distinction can be made between a thing and the things that cause it. This does not mean that they don't exists. I don't necessarily agree with your comment in a later post that love is the exact same thing as the physical process that causes it. I do think that components and processes can have distinctive holistic effects. And it is the holistic effect that is being described when the word love is used.

And btw, to me jumping in front of a gunman would be demonstrating an "act of love" not love itself. Love can not be demonstrated unless you can actually make someone feel it. Which according to Heusdens makes it an immaterial thing that does exists.

So, I guess what my point is is that, to the materialist, love is a physical/material process, and there can be no love without some kind of physical interaction.

But this is a very different stance than saying that love doesn't exists at all. And maybe there is a freudian slip here because it looks like you are making a distinction between love and physical processes heheheh.

Overall this whole thread is very messy. There are many self proclaimed materialists who don't even agree with one another as to what it means to be a materialists. They are stepping all over one anothers arguments trying to get their jabs in. Yet the only people they are debating with is Iacchus32 and a few other people critical of the word materialism. So what are the true intentions here? Seems as if defending the word "materialism" is more important than defending any particular view.

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Zero
What I am saying is that those ideas have little basis in reality. Just because something appears a certain way, from an anthropomorphic point of view, doesn't make it so...by your logic, objects 'love and worship' the ground, and that is how gravity works. Except that in the case of a plant, it extends or "wills" itself towards the sun, whereas with gravity you have no choice but to feel its effects.

Also, with respect to the plant, the whole thing is contingent upon its being alive, and suggests a "rudimentary" form of consciousness.

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
What I see is base matter; rocks, lava, water, etc. I simply see no reason to associate anything approaching a level of consciousness with these things, and yet it is quite easy to believe that these things existed long before living organisms, and their conscious awareness, came into being. Therefore I see matter as primary and not secondary. I also find it quite easy to believe that, despite the way in which we may marvel over ourselves, that if my head were to be flattened by a steam-roller, my marveling will come to an abrupt end. Everything that I’ve ever experienced indicates that consciousness is bound to matter, and nothing have I experienced leads me to believe that matter arose from consciousness, or that it can survive independantly without a physical counterpart. In other words;

“Though consciousness is secondary, it is a feature of highly organised matter - the brain - and therefore exists in reality. Far from being alien to nature, consciousness is as normal a product of the natural world as those material objects which it reflects.”And yet before the material world came into existence, don't you think it's conceivable that an immaterial one existed first? I certainly do.

And here it would be like the foreman put in charge of constructing a pyramid or temple or something. It just can't come together on its own. There has to be some code or blueprint (hence software) to tell everybody what to do.

Royce

Sep2-03, 04:46 PM

I can't believe that this thread grew so fast in the hour or two since I signed off. Mentat, I think that I should have said the we missed you like we miss a sore tooth[;)]

BH says that the material has primacy. Here I disagree as you knew I would. Reality would not exist without a mind to conceive of reality and know reality. But, beyond that I think the mind, God's mind created and maintains the universe and is the ultimate reality. This is the spiritual realm. The reason, or one of the reasons the universe was created is to support life which entails consciousness and the developement of a conscious, self aware, intelligent, physical, mental, and spititual being of which we are one, maybe, but I doubt it, the only one.

First the spirit, then the mind, and next the material. The trinity of reality, all aspects of the one true reality, God.

This I know is where we differ, To you BH and Zero the material has primacy and the spiritual doesn't exist. I can only say that so long as you keep your sight and mind limited to only the material that is all that you will ever see and know in this life. I ask only that you look before you say you see no evidence of anything other than material. When one lives in a dungeon and never leaves or looks ouside the dungeon, the dungeon is all that exists to him. Why do you want to limit yourself and your view of reality so?

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Royce
BH says that the material has primacy. Here I disagree as you knew I would. Reality would not exist without a mind to conceive of reality and know reality. But, beyond that I think the mind, God's mind created and maintains the universe and is the ultimate reality. This is the spiritual realm. The reason, or one of the reasons the universe was created is to support life which entails consciousness and the developement of a conscious, self aware, intelligent, physical, mental, and spititual being of which we are one, maybe, but I doubt it, the only one. Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. [;)]

heusdens

Sep2-03, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Royce
BH says that the material has primacy. Here I disagree as you knew I would. Reality would not exist without a mind to conceive of reality and know reality.

This is where you are wrong. Reality does exist, wether there are conscious minds or living things or not.

Reality is not consciouss reality. Conscious reality, or the projection of reality in a mind, needs a mind to exist, but reality as such does not.

heusdens

Sep2-03, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet before the material world came into existence, don't you think it's conceivable that an immaterial one existed first? I certainly do.

There is no "before material reality" since matter didn't come into existence in the first place, but has existed always.

heusdens

Sep2-03, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I would go so far as to say the software created the need for the computer, Yes. Or else what good is a computer -- except to run the software?

Well, good that you didn't say that software created the hardware, it would have made your post ridiculous. It is the growing hardware possibilities that create the possibilities of new software.

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
There is no "before material reality" since matter didn't come into existence in the first place, but has existed always. Well if that's the case, then an immaterial reality has always existed too.

Originally posted by heusdens
Well, good that you didn't say that software created the hardware, it would have made your post ridiculous. It is the growing hardware possibilities that create the possibilities of new software. Well let me put it another way, the purpose of a computer is to process information which, is most typically bound into the software. Whereas if the computer is not processing information, it's just sitting there, doing nothing.

Or, what about our ability to generate electricity? We can build bigger and better power plants to generate it, but that doesn't mean it never existed (at least potentially) before our ability to do so.

So basically what we're speaking about here is the difference in "capacity."

Fliption

Sep2-03, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Then this is where we reach our impasse. It is nothing extraordinary for software to lag behind hardware development

LOL. You've obviously not played Doom3.[:)]

Originally posted by heusdens
Well, good that you didn't say that software created the hardware, it would have made your post ridiculous. It is the growing hardware possibilities that create the possibilities of new software.

You either.

heusdens

Sep2-03, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Well if that's the case, then an immaterial reality has always existed too.

What "immaterial" would have existed then?

Well let me put it another way, the purpose of a computer is to process information which, is most typically bound into the software. Whereas if the computer is not processing information, it's just sitting there, doing nothing.

That is what the computer is doing most of the time. Running in idle loops, waiting for an interrupt.

Or, what about our ability to generate electricity? We can build bigger and better power plants to generate it, but that doesn't mean it never existed (at least potentially) before our ability to do so.

So basically what we're speaking about here is the difference in "capacity."

In your mind the ability to generate electricity was already there....

Hmmmm

Well I think this potentiality already existed when the first electrons and protons were there.

FZ+

Sep2-03, 06:18 PM

There is some truth here... (Truth here I define as what I think, since axiomatically I am god etc...[;)])

So basically what we're speaking about here is the difference in "capacity."
I think what Iacchus sees as immateriality isn't the reality - as in that which can be determined by interactions etc - that is the materialist ideas of it. I think the thing is more of the Platonic idea of transcendent ideals, which are potentials that lie beyond the universe. And coupled with a bit of teleology.

heusdens: Try in place of immaterial reality, use the word "physical law".

heusdens

Sep2-03, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
There is some truth here... (Truth here I define as what I think, since axiomatically I am god etc...[;)])

I think what Iacchus sees as immateriality isn't the reality - as in that which can be determined by interactions etc - that is the materialist ideas of it. I think the thing is more of the Platonic idea of transcendent ideals, which are potentials that lie beyond the universe. And coupled with a bit of teleology.

heusdens: Try in place of immaterial reality, use the word "physical law".

Matter comes with their respective laws of motion, so it is impossible to seperate them.

These "platonic universals" are just a fixation of the mind.

BoulderHead

Sep2-03, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Royce
BH says that the material has primacy.
Not 100% accurate. BH says he believes that the material is primary. It makes sense to me, judging from the examples I put forth, but I cannot prove it one way or the other and so I leave room for my ignorance.

Here I disagree as you knew I would. Reality would not exist without a mind to conceive of reality and know reality.
And here is where you and I meet our impasse, for I fail to see the sense of that statement. To me this is too much like saying you wouldn’t exist if I weren’t here to conceive of you. In fact, if every living thing on earth died tonight, I have little doubt that tommorow the world would continue along its merry way.

But, beyond that I think the mind, God's mind created and maintains the universe and is the ultimate reality. This is the spiritual realm.
That daaarlin MIND [:D]
For me, there is no beyond that. Your call for a god is premature.

The reason, or one of the reasons the universe was created is to support life which entails consciousness and the developement of a conscious, self aware, intelligent, physical, mental, and spititual being of which we are one, maybe, but I doubt it, the only one.
And now you go beyond a mere belief that the universe wouldn’t exist if god hadn’t created it, into telling me that you actually have knowledge of why the universe was created. I find this to be absolutely fantastic. Simply incredible, I’m speechless.

First the spirit, then the mind, and next the material. The trinity of reality, all aspects of the one true reality, God.
*still speechless*

This I know is where we differ, To you BH and Zero the material has primacy and the spiritual doesn't exist. I can only say that so long as you keep your sight and mind limited to only the material that is all that you will ever see and know in this life.
I would say to you that a god capable of creating a universe is more than powerful enough to make its existence felt by me, had it the mind to, yet it has never happened, why??? (don’t answer, I’ll do it in a minute)

I ask only that you look before you say you see no evidence of anything other than material. When one lives in a dungeon and never leaves or looks outside the dungeon, the dungeon is all that exists to him.
The god concepts come from the true dungeon, located inside the cranium. Peering into this abyss, one’s imagination is likely to get the better of them.

Why do you want to limit yourself and your view of reality so?
This is the standard response of the idealists; others who cannot see their vision are limited and lacking, groping in darkness. This is really the ultimate insult, and the one idealists fail to see themselves making time and time again, even all the while complaining of poor treatment and lack of respect at the hands of so-called materialists.

Nevertheless, outside the confines of my mental dungeon I see the sun, feel its warmth, gaze at beautiful scenery, and hold an appreciative feeling for my existence. It would matter no more or less to me to know that a god/s created it, for I could appreciate it no more than I currently do. So why really, would you want me to believe as you do?

BoulderHead

Sep2-03, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet before the material world came into existence, don't you think it's conceivable that an immaterial one existed first? I certainly do.
I know you do, but I don't believe there is any solid reason to think this way. You may talk about consciousness until the end of time, but you know and I know that your conscious mind is connected to your physical being and follows you around wherever you go. Furthermore, I have direct knowledge only of my own consciousness, and none of yours or anyone/thing else’s. I have no knowledge of the immaterial existing independently of the material and so I am forced to regard its doing so as unlikely.

And here it would be like the foreman put in charge of constructing a pyramid or temple or something. It just can't come together on its own. There has to be some code or blueprint (hence software) to tell everybody what to do.
You are right, it just can’t come together on its own…it takes the material man to build it. Why is this thing you speak of so dependent upon the slave labor of the material world?

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
That is what the computer is doing most of the time. Running in idle loops, waiting for an interrupt.Well if it was a TV set we would just shut it off and leave the room when we were not watching it, Right?

Originally posted by heusdens
Matter comes with their respective laws of motion, so it is impossible to seperate them. It sounds like what you're saying is that it's not possible to think about something beforehand, without it actually occurring at the same time? This is why "the law" has to exist first, at least as a "potential" for something to occur. [;)]

Originally posted by heusdens
In your mind the ability to generate electricity was already there....

Hmmmm

Well I think this potentiality already existed when the first electrons and protons were there.No, in my mind the electricity was already there, but that didn't quite fit in with the idea of the software, which is man-made. Although both the electricity and the software are now considered "the medium."

Iacchus32

Sep2-03, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
You are right, it just can’t come together on its own…it takes the material man to build it. Why is this thing you speak of so dependent upon the slave labor of the material world? Well I guess I wasn't too clear on this one either. What I was trying to say is that the "immaterial idea" has to exist first -- and here I was equating the foreman with the mind "holding the idea" -- i.e., God -- before anything can come about, in which case my references to pyramids, temples or whatever, should be construed as "natural occurrences."

BoulderHead

Sep3-03, 12:03 AM

Well, I wouldn't know anything about that.

But if I've fallen hopelessly into base matter, then I choose to believe it must be where this great leprechaun wishes me to be. [:D]

Zero

Sep3-03, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Well I guess I wasn't too clear on this one either. What I was trying to say is that the "immaterial idea" has to exist first -- and here I was equating the foreman with the mind "holding the idea" -- i.e., God -- before anything can come about, in which case my references to pyramids, temples or whatever, should be construed as "natural occurrences." Maybe you shouldn't start with your conclusion in your premise? Nothing must be anything, things are what they are.

Fliption

Sep3-03, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Maybe you shouldn't start with your conclusion in your premise? Nothing must be anything, things are what they are.

Now I'm speechless. A pot just called a kettle a pot. [:D]

Zero

Sep3-03, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Now I'm speechless. A pot just called a kettle a pot. [:D] You speechless? We couldn't get that lucky...

Fliption

Sep3-03, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Mentat
and if you want a more detailed explanation of a plausible way that human consciousness could have evolved from such processes, just see "Consciousness Explained", by Daniel Dennett (you can even skip to the part called "The Evolution of Consciousness", but I
suggest reading the whole thing).

I've seen this source mentioned from you before and thought I would make a caveat statement. There are other books on consciousness you can read as well and they have very different takes. Just because one book has an explanation that is consistent with your world view does NOT mean the issue is resolved. I would recommend you read the works of other scientists/philosophers and get a more concensus view. You'll find that the problem of consciousness is far from resolved.

No conclusions can be made from this at all. I just wanted to straighten out the facts.

Fliption

Sep3-03, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Zero
You speechless? We couldn't get that lucky...
Ditto ....maybe if I were more irrational it would be more fun for you? [:)]

Zero

Sep3-03, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Ditto Well, if you don't like me, and you don't like my thread, why do you continue to post here? I'm still going with the theory that you have a crush on me...[6)]

As far as the issue being resolved, well...nothing is ever completely resolved in science. However, and I'll say this again for the non-reading crowd, until the universe acts in a non-materialistic way, it is practical to think of it as such.

Fliption

Sep3-03, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, if you don't like me, and you don't like my thread, why do you continue to post here? I'm still going with the theory that you have a crush on me...[6)]

HEh. Well this theory would be consistent with your views on other things........ more fun to believe than the alternative and antagonistic.

As far as the issue being resolved, well...nothing is ever completely resolved in science. However, and I'll say this again for the non-reading crowd, until the universe acts in a non-materialistic way, it is practical to think of it as such.

I might agree with this statement if I wasn't sure that the universe will NEVER act in an immaterial way simply because you have nicely defined it so that it is impossible to do so.

I would like to see what your thoughts are on this whole topic by considering Heusdens philosophical definition of materialism. It makes for a much more worthwhile discussion. Of course it will be harder to ridicule the opposite view so you'll have to take that under consideration.

Zero

Sep3-03, 10:12 AM

Its funny, I don't ridicule the opposition...unless it is something completely silly that they are saying.

I'm sorry if you don't like my definition...but it is the only logical definition I can except. And, luckily for me, it is the only position that our current knowledge of the universe supports. [:D] Imagine that, I look at the world and take it at face3 value...why should anyone be opposed to that?

Royce

Sep3-03, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by heusdens
This is where you are wrong. Reality does exist, wether there are conscious minds or living things or not.

Reality is not consciouss reality. Conscious reality, or the projection of reality in a mind, needs a mind to exist, but reality as such does not.

No, heusdens, I am not wrong you are. If you would care to read my post I said the reality is a human concept and as such is only in the mind. The concept of reality is a mental concept and thus resides in the mind. The physical material universe may exist with no mih=nd to kow of it or know it but that is a meanngless statement.

If there is no conscious mind to know that anything exists then whether or not it actually does or does not is a moot point and it cannot exist in reality as there is no mind for reality to be held.

Zero

Sep3-03, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Royce
No, heusdens, I am not wrong you are. If you would care to read my post I said the reality is a human concept and as such is only in the mind. The concept of reality is a mental concept and thus resides in the mind. The physical material universe may exist with no mih=nd to kow of it or know it but that is a meanngless statement.

If there is no conscious mind to know that anything exists then whether or not it actually does or does not is a moot point and it cannot exist in reality as there is no mind for reality to be held. Your typing went all to crap there in the middle, bud...[6)]

I think I see where you are coming from, and I think that I probably concieve of things in a similar way, one level up or down from you. My idea is that an immaterial world in impercievable by definition, and therefore, also by definition, doesn't exist.

Fliption

Sep3-03, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Its funny, I don't ridicule the opposition...unless it is something completely silly that they are saying.

Silly is a perspective. It's not silly to them.

I'm sorry if you don't like my definition...but it is the only logical definition I can except. And, luckily for me, it is the only position that our current knowledge of the universe supports. [:D] Imagine that, I look at the world and take it at face3 value...why should anyone be opposed to that?

The universe does not support or refute definitions. Definitions are made by man for the purposes of communication. We can define a word however it is most useful. Your definition of materialism makes the distinction between materialism and anything else impossible. It is a useless term. You have not tried to address this point at all except to say that your argument may appear circular but thats what it is. Heusdens has interjected and provided what appears to be the more correct definition as it is used in this philosophical debate. You asked the question "why the bias against materialism?" and I'm telling you it's because you are mis-using the term.

Zero

Sep3-03, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Silly is a perspective. It's not silly to them.

The universe does not support or refute definitions. Definitions are made by man for the purposes of communication. We can define a word however it is most useful. Your definition of materialism makes the distinction between materialism and anything else impossible. It is a useless term. You have not tried to address this point at all except to say that your argument may appear circular but thats what it is. Heusdens has interjected and provided what appears to be the more correct definition as it is used in this philosophical debate. You asked the question "why the bias against materialism?" and I'm telling you it's because you are mis-using the term. You call my definition useless, I call it inclusive of everything that we can rationally percieve...and how can we claim to know anything else?

Fliption

Sep3-03, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Zero
You call my definition useless, I call it inclusive of everything that we can rationally percieve...and how can we claim to know anything else?

You're not understanding the point. The definition of materialism has nothing to do with what really exists. It is what distinquishes the view from the opposite view. So if we accept your definition, the opposite view would be this

Idealist: "I believe that only the things that cannot be rationally perceived exists."

No idealists would claim this is their belief, Zero. Surely you can see this. Please note that whether you think the above quote is effectively true or not has nothing to do with what the idealists really believes. You need a different definition. Otherwise, you are arguing against a view that you don't even understand.

The other self proclaimed materialists posting in this thread seem to have grasped this and are only claiming that matter is primary. Not that it is all that exists. That's probably because they're using Heusdens more effective definition. Only you and Mentat have not done this.

Zero

Sep3-03, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
You're not understanding the point. The definition of materialism has nothing to do with what really exists. It is what distinquishes the view from the opposite view. So if we accept your definition, the opposite view would be this

Idealist: "I believe that only the things that cannot be rationally perceived exists."

No idealists would claim this is their belief, Zero. Surely you can see this. Please note that whether you think the above quote is effectively true or not has nothing to do with what the idealists really believes. You need a different definition. Otherwise, you are arguing against a view that you don't even understand. I claim that idealists' views are different from mine, not opposite, you are creating a strawman. You are apparently the one lacking comprehension of my view.

Fliption

Sep3-03, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I claim that idealists' views are different from mine, not opposite, you are creating a strawman. You are apparently the one lacking comprehension of my view.

I couldn't care less what you claim. The idealists view is directly opposite the extreme view you have taken. This fact is part of philosophy text, right along with the proper definition of each position.

Zero

Sep3-03, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
I couldn't care less what you claim. The idealists view is directly opposite the extreme view you have taken. I don't see my view as at all extreme...why do you see it that way? And again, I've not made many claims about the views of idealists, that you should make the claim you do.

Royce

Sep3-03, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Not 100% accurate. BH says he believes that the material is primary. It makes sense to me, judging from the examples I put forth, but I cannot prove it one way or the other and so I leave room for my ignorance.

I stand corrected. I apologize for misstating your position.

And here is where you and I meet our impasse, for I fail to see the sense of that statement. To me this is too much like saying you wouldn’t exist if I weren’t here to conceive of you. In fact, if every living thing on earth died tonight, I have little doubt that tommorow the world would continue along its merry way.

It may. I think it probably would but it wouldn't make any difference would it. It would be unknowable and unknown. It would not exist in any mind.

This is the standard response of the idealists; others who cannot see their vision are limited and lacking, groping in darkness. This is really the ultimate insult, and the one idealists fail to see themselves making time and time again, even all the while complaining of poor treatment and lack of respect at the hands of so-called materialists.

My, my aren't we fast to take offense and find insult, he who likes to play rough. I know when I wrote that post that it wold be misconstrued. It was if you remember or if you read it prceeded by the caveate "If you look at nothing but the material universe"

Nevertheless, outside the confines of my mental dungeon I see the sun, feel its warmth, gaze at beautiful scenery, and hold an appreciative feeling for my existence. It would matter no more or less to me to know that a god/s created it, for I could appreciate it no more than I currently do. So why really, would you want me to believe as you do?

I am glad for you that you do enjoy and appreciate it.

I really don't want you to believe as I do. I think that's impossible as we are two seperate people. I gave my view and thoughts as to why there is bias/reason against materialism. You gave yours. Do you want me to believe as you do. I think not. Why then do you think that I want you to believe as I do.

Stop you materialist knee jerk reactions, BH, every time an idealist or idealist materialist mouths off.

Zero

Sep3-03, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Royce
I know when I wrote that post that it wold be misconstrued. It was if you remember or if you read it prceeded by the caveate "If you look at nothing but the material universe"

One question: how can you 'look' at anything else?!?

Royce

Sep3-03, 10:49 AM

Zero, mentally with the minds eye, mental nonsensory perception. Thinking about it and picturing it in your mind

Fliption

Sep3-03, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I don't see my view as at all extreme...why do you see it that way? And again, I've not made many claims about the views of idealists, that you should make the claim you do.

Zero, there are 2 views. Materialism and Idealism. One believes in the primacy of matter and the other believes in the primacy of immaterial things. The 2 extremes would be that the substance of the other does not exists at all, let alone be secondary to. These words aren't made up by posters in the forums. They are covered in philosophy text as are all the debates involving them. You're trying to paint your view out of this "corner" so that you won't have to respond to my points about your definition.

You asked the question and I'm telling you. Your unwillingness to do some studying on it and progress this topic a little is exactly why you see the attitudes you are inquiring about in the title of this thread. I'm just telling you this in case you really did want to know.

Zero

Sep3-03, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Zero, there are 2 views. Materialism and Idealism. One believes in the primacy of matter and the other believes in the primacy of immaterial things. The 2 extremes would be that the substance of the other does not exists at all, let alone be secondary to. These words aren't made up by posters in the forums. They are covered in philosophy text as are all the debates involving them. You're trying to paint your view out of this "corner" so that you won't have to respond to my points about your definition.

You asked the question and I'm telling you. Your unwillingness to do some studying on it and progress this topic a little is exactly why you see the attitudes you are inquiring about in the title of this thread. I'm just telling you this in case you really did want to know. Do you really see it as being that black and white? And if you are that frustrated, why is this about teh only Philosophy thread you post to?
I don't feel like I am in a corner. I feel like materials paints 99% of teh room, and some folks are claiming that there is a whole other room in that last 1%.

Oh god, you've got me using bad metaphors!![g)]

Zero

Sep3-03, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Royce
Zero, mentally with the minds eye, mental nonsensory perception. Thinking about it and picturing it in your mind But, do your pictures represent a separate reality from the objective universe we all live in? Is a chair in your imagination just as real as an actual chair?

Royce

Sep3-03, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Zero
But, do your pictures represent a separate reality from the objective universe we all live in? Is a chair in your imagination just as real as an actual chair?

Possible a better way to put it is to think conceptually in the whole rather than thinking sequentuallyor linearly one piece at a time.

I cannot hold all or the universe in my mind much less all of reality; but I can hold the concepts, possibly as a symbol as in math and compare the two concepts.

Try as I might I cannot get a hold of a material universe with no mind to know it or of it.

Yes, the objective chair is in my mind as a perception as well a the concept of chair. Some what akin to Plato's forms. The concept of chair and all that it entails in it's many form exist in subjective reality or if you prefer in man's mind. We each have a chair concept in our minds and I am sure it is different for all of us; but there has to be some commonality or it would not still be chair.

Is it a real? No, it obviously is not objectively real; but, for me to recognize that object as a chair there must be the very subjectively real concept of chair in my mind.

We now are delving deeper into esoteric philosphy of what is or is not real and is there verying degrees of real or different types of real? If you want to go there we need to start a new thread. this one already has six different conversations going on all at once and is approaching 40 pages long.

BoulderHead

Sep3-03, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Royce
My, my aren't we fast to take offense and find insult, he who likes to play rough. I know when I wrote that post that it wold be misconstrued. It was if you remember or if you read it prceeded by the caveate "If you look at nothing but the material universe"
First, I’m not offended at all, just calling it like I see it. The implication of that statement I responded to is about on par with my calling your god a unicorn, actually.
But let’s have another look anyway;
This I know is where we differ, To you BH and Zero the material has primacy and the spiritual doesn't exist. I can only say that so long as you keep your sight and mind limited to only the material that is all that you will ever see and know in this life. I ask only that you look before you say you see no evidence of anything other than material. When one lives in a dungeon and never leaves or looks ouside the dungeon, the dungeon is all that exists to him. Why do you want to limit yourself and your view of reality so?
I fail to see the ‘if’.
Second, do you then deny holding the view that that is exactly how you think materialists look at the universe? From everything I’ve heard you say there isn’t much doubt about it; therefore even if you had used the word ‘if’ it only speaks of materialists and doesn’t provide any real escape clause…

I am glad for you that you do enjoy and appreciate it.
The feeling is of course mutual.

Why then do you think that I want you to believe as I do.
Simple, you make appeals like;
. I ask only that you look before you say you see no evidence of anything other than material….

And;

…Why do you want to limit yourself and your view of reality so?
You would seem quite concerned ‘we’ unshackle ourselves from limiting factors so that we might be more in tune with the way you see things.
Does that help answer your question?

Stop you materialist knee jerk reactions, BH, every time an idealist or idealist materialist mouths off.
Stop your Idealist knee jerk reactions, Royce, every time a materialist calls your imaginations ‘unicorns’.
…snide remarks are ok, though, haha [:D]

Zero

Sep3-03, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Royce
Possible a better way to put it is to think conceptually in the whole rather than thinking sequentuallyor linearly one piece at a time.
I can't even fit this sentence into my brain...

Royce

Sep3-03, 12:24 PM

BH, I know for a fact, as you have all told me or implied it, that none of you really personnally believe or hold the pure objective materialist stance. Neither do I hold the purely Idealist stance as I have said often enough. We are discussing two seemingly opposing views of reality on a intellectual, philosophical level (down and dirty, no holds barred, in the gutter). Okay I misquoted myself. I said it somewhere I'm sure.

"I can only say that so long as you keep your sight and mind limited to only the material that is all that you will ever see and know in this life." says nearly the same thing. This is true no matter what you may or may not believe. If we refuse to look or think about something other than our system of beliefs we will and can never see any other view point.

Zero, I was going to say; "then try your mouth. I know its big enough." but you would really look rediculous with something like that coming out of your mouth. Maybe "DUH" or "HUH" [:D]

Zero

Sep3-03, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Royce

Zero, I was going to say; "then try your mouth. I know its big enough." but you would really look rediculous with something like that coming out of your mouth. Maybe "DUH" or "HUH" [:D] Why don't you cut the insults and restate it? I was being serious, I'm not sure what you meant by that exactly.

Fliption

Sep3-03, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I am in a corner. I feel like materials paints 99% of teh room, and some folks are claiming that there is a whole other room in that last 1%.

That's because of the way you are defining it.

Ignore me if you want but this is a philosophy topic that has been debated for centuries. At this basic level it is black and white. Greying it out so you don't have to deal with the issue is all thats going on here. I've told you before that it has nothing to do with what is actually true but you keep going there as if it means anything. Stop pointing out my posting habits and deal with this issue. YOU asked the question and I'm answering it for you.

Royce

Sep3-03, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Why don't you cut the insults and restate it? I was being serious, I'm not sure what you meant by that exactly.

In that case, if its necessary, I apologize. [:((]

One question: how can you 'look' at anything else?!?

But, do your pictures represent a separate reality from the objective universe we all live in? Is a chair in your imagination just as real as an actual chair?

What I am trying to say is that instead of thinking about objective material reality and then subjective mental reality seperately think about one reality that contains both and think about how they are both part of the one reality and how they relate to one another if they do. The wholistic or conceptual, all of reality as one, approach rather than the linear sequential, this and then this, approach. Tie this in with my other most recent post about your chair and I think that you will better understand what I am trying to say. If not I will try again.

Mentat

Sep3-03, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
LOL. And you think the definition "can be shown to exist" is actually a meaningful definition? How is this any different from Just saying it is the same as Existence? There is no difference. There is no way that anyone would ever disagree with materialism if it is defined this way. To reverse the wording, you are saying that an Idealists only believes in things that cannot be shown to exists. What person in there right mind would claim such a belief? Now this may be what you think they effectively believe but that is NOT what an idealists would tell you they believe. Which is my point about having a "consistent" meaningful definition of materialism.

Actually, Fliption, that is exactly what certain idealists (particularly Solipsists) claim. After all, if some things exist only in the mind, then how is it possible to "show them to exists" before others? How, for that matter, can you show anything to "someone else" if even that person must exist in your own mind?

Also you have missed quite a bit because Heusdens has stepped in since the point you quoted and has provided a much better, more usable definition then the useless one you are quoting.

Not necessarily useless. As I said, if it "can be shown to exist" to another person, then not only does that "other person" have to exist seperate of the mind of the one "showing", but also the thing being "shown" must exist seperate of both of them.

A distinction can be made between a thing and the things that cause it. This does not mean that they don't exists. I don't necessarily agree with your comment in a later post that love is the exact same thing as the physical process that causes it. I do think that components and processes can have distinctive holistic effects. And it is the holistic effect that is being described when the word love is used.

And btw, to me jumping in front of a gunman would be demonstrating an "act of love" not love itself. Love can not be demonstrated unless you can actually make someone feel it. Which according to Heusdens makes it an immaterial thing that does exists.

Then Heusdens is wrong on this one point (though I very much appreciate most of what he's posted, that I've read), since the very "feeling" of love can be explained as a hormonal and mental process. There needn't be any "inexplicable hidden variables" added.

I once saw a comic strip that showed two men by a blackboard. The one man had just finished writing the complex-looking equation on the blackboard, and the other was examining the equation. Well, the first step of the equation was pure mathematics, then he puts (in a sort of cloudish "bubble" (much like a "though bubble")) "Then A Miracle Occurs", and then the final step is also in mathematics. So, the other man says, "you should be a little more specific on that second step".

Anyway, the point is that you can say "the gunman is about to kill my mother, then because I feel love for her, I jump in front of the gunman. You need to be a little more specific about that "second step".

But this is a very different stance than saying that love doesn't exists at all. And maybe there is a freudian slip here because it looks like you are making a distinction between love and physical processes heheheh.

Overall this whole thread is very messy. There are many self proclaimed materialists who don't even agree with one another as to what it means to be a materialists. They are stepping all over one anothers arguments trying to get their jabs in. Yet the only people they are debating with is Iacchus32 and a few other people critical of the word materialism. So what are the true intentions here? Seems as if defending the word "materialism" is more important than defending any particular view.

Well, if we can all decide on an appropriate definition of materialism, then we can (more easily) resolve the different "sects" of materialism that are held by the different posters.

Mentat

Sep3-03, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except that in the case of a plant, it extends or "wills" itself towards the sun, whereas with gravity you have no choice but to feel its effects.

And the plant didn't have the choice to "extend" itself or not. A choice is given to conscious beings.

Also, with respect to the plant, the whole thing is contingent upon its being alive, and suggests a "rudimentary" form of consciousness.

Sure, but that "rudimentary form" isn't capable of "willing" anything. It just responds, as it has been "programmed" to do. Like you said, reaction is just a part of it's being alive.

Mentat

Sep3-03, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet before the material world came into existence, don't you think it's conceivable that an immaterial one existed first? I certainly do.

And here it would be like the foreman put in charge of constructing a pyramid or temple or something. It just can't come together on its own. There has to be some code or blueprint (hence software) to tell everybody what to do.

Yet you are again missing the error. If the "blueprint" is immaterial, then there must be some "pathway" that is not quite material and not quite immaterial (which is not logically possible, even in principle) between the immaterial "blueprint" and the physical constituents that will obey it and become a planet.

Zero

Sep3-03, 02:23 PM

Isn't it ok if we all disagree? Or should materialists subscribe to a dogma of some sort?

Mentat

Sep3-03, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
I've seen this source mentioned from you before and thought I would make a caveat statement. There are other books on consciousness you can read as well and they have very different takes. Just because one book has an explanation that is consistent with your world view does NOT mean the issue is resolved. I would recommend you read the works of other scientists/philosophers and get a more concensus view. You'll find that the problem of consciousness is far from resolved.

No conclusions can be made from this at all. I just wanted to straighten out the facts.

And I thank you for that. I didn't mean to imply that the issue was resolved, nor even that Dennett was necessarily "right". Merely that he gives a more detailed explanation of that which I only generalized in my post.

Mentat

Sep3-03, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Isn't it ok if we all disagree? Or should materialists subscribe to a dogma of some sort?

Materialism is one "dogma". The fact that people have branched off of the original "dogma" to satisfy their own personal opinions doesn't change that fact in the slightest. The same thing has happened with Christianity. If we are to accept that the Bible is true, then there was only one Jesus, and he only taught one "dogma". However, I walk down the main street in my town, and I see the "Seventh-Day Baptist" church and the "Christian Reformed" church right next to each other - each believing in their own interpretations of Jesus' teachings.

Mentat

Sep3-03, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
You're not understanding the point. The definition of materialism has nothing to do with what really exists. It is what distinquishes the view from the opposite view. So if we accept your definition, the opposite view would be this

Idealist: "I believe that only the things that cannot be rationally perceived exists."

No idealists would claim this is their belief, Zero. Surely you can see this.

I know this was directed at Zero, but I feel compelled to inform you that this is a (more plain-and-simple, I grant you) version of exactly what a Solipsist (for example) believes. They don't believe that there is anything that can be rationally percieved, since nothing else exists anyway. There is only the "Primal Singularity" of their "minds".

I do not approve of Zero's modified version (namely: "One that believes in all things that can be rationally percieved to exist) anyway. I prefer the original (namely: "One that believes in all things that can be shown to exist, seperate of the mind of the observer"). I see nothing logically wrong with it.

Mentat

Sep3-03, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Zero, mentally with the minds eye, mental nonsensory perception. Thinking about it and picturing it in your mind

Ah ha! Finally, someone brings it up!

I ask you, Royce, do you think that Hellen Keller ever formed a picture in her mind? After all, the mind is immaterial, and it can (according to you) picture things without having percieved them through the physical senses first.

I have been reading Helen Keller's autobiography, and I must inform you that Daniel Dennett (and the rest of the materialist philosophers of the mind) were correct: a person who has never had sensory experience of a visible object, can never form a "mental picture". She was not even really conscious, until she was taught language, but that's a different matter altogether.

BoulderHead

Sep3-03, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
The other self proclaimed materialists posting in this thread seem to have grasped this and are only claiming that matter is primary. Not that it is all that exists. That's probably because they're using Heusdens more effective definition. Only you and Mentat have not done this.
I posted the same definition of matter (the one from Lenin) in one of LG's threads long ago. Perhaps you recall that, I don't know.

Originally posted by Fliption
LOL. You've obviously not played Doom3.[:)]
The state of my hardware always lags software. [:D]

Originally posted by Fliption
…But what about sensations? I can have sensations as a result of a dream too but dreams aren't matter. Should sensations be more specific?
You mean by this to show how the immaterial can affect the material, am I correct?
I think the pat answer would be that material was responsible for the dreaming in the first place, and not the other way around. Certainly, body chemistry can alter the way a person thinks and feels and so the physical would seem to have a recognizable ‘control’ (that may be a poor choice a word to use) over the immaterial. I may be missing your point, but an example of what I’m thinking about concerns a dream I once had were I was being poked or stabbed within my dream. When I finally awakened, my body was pressing up against something sharp that didn’t belong in the bed. I don’t know how the object got there, but it was something I usually carried around with me, and so I ‘figured’ that I had simply laid it on the bed by mistake. I viewed this as my body being able to send signals to my brain, which in turn was altering my dream, perhaps trying to make sense of its discomfort by waking me up and/or by creating an image of someone in the dream poking me.

Royce

Sep3-03, 02:51 PM

Mentat you are making statements in factual form which have never been proven as evidence much less fact. We have no way of knowing that a plant does not will itself to respond to the sun. This is only an assumption on your part.
Also to be aware of ones environment and responde to changes in that environment is or can be called consciousness at any level. I think that consciousness is a intrinsic characteristic of life.
You are using the word dogma when applied to materialism incorrectly unless you belief that materialism is a religion with a set of rules and required beliefs as a religious sect. Got to go now. More later.

Mentat

Sep3-03, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Mentat you are making statements in factual form which have never been proven as evidence much less fact. We have no way of knowing that a plant does not will itself to respond to the sun. This is only an assumption on your part.

It is not just an assumption. If a plant were capable of acknowledging and purposefully responding, then there would no point in humans' having evolved (or being given) a brain, since primitive lifeforms are capable of all that the brain is supposed to be in charge of.

Also, as I said before, if the plant were conscious of it's "needs" then it would surely avoid "sticking it's head out" when a threat presents itself (the animal that wishes to eat it).

Also to be aware of ones environment and responde to changes in that environment is or can be called consciousness at any level. I think that consciousness is a intrinsic characteristic of life.

I think you are confusing "conscious" with "reactive". In truth, what is good about "consciousness" is that it can also be proactive, and it can even choose inaction, even when this makes it temporarily more difficult (it would not be following the "path of least resistance", because it chose not to).

You are using the word dogma when applied to materialism incorrectly unless you belief that materialism is a religion with a set of rules and required beliefs as a religious sect. Got to go now. More later.

I use the term "dogma" because Zero used it. However, you are correct that I am posting that "materialism" has one, original, meaning. All "branches" therefrom are fine for each person, but can be misleading in a debate about actual "materialism".

Fliption

Sep3-03, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, Fliption, that is exactly what certain idealists (particularly Solipsists) claim. After all, if some things exist only in the mind, then how is it possible to "show them to exists" before others? How, for that matter, can you show anything to "someone else" if even that person must exist in your own mind?

Claiming what idealists effectively believe in your opinion is not the same as what they claim to believe. This was my point earlier. No idealists would claim to believe the opposite of Zero's definition. Whether something can be "shown to exist" is not specific enough to mean anything other than existence itself.

Not necessarily useless. As I said, if it "can be shown to exist" to another person, then not only does that "other person" have to exist seperate of the mind of the one "showing", but also the thing being "shown" must exist seperate of both of them.

How do you show anything to exists? I hardly think that an idealists is going to define their belief based on whether they can show it to someone else. This definition just begs the question and pushes the distinction of what matter is off into phrases like "can be shown". Again, this may "effectively" be what their belief entails but it is not the definition of their belief. If you read Heusdens definitions you will begin to see what I'm talking about.

Then Heusdens is wrong on this one point (though I very much appreciate most of what he's posted, that I've read), since the very "feeling" of love can be explained as a hormonal and mental process. There needn't be any "inexplicable hidden variables" added.

You are not understanding. Heusdens is not making any claims here. He has only provided the accepted philosophical definition of materialism. You can't intuit the truth of definitions because they are invented by humans for the purpose of communication. So if this proper and MUCH more useful definition is used then according to that definition "love" is a non-material thing. It has nothing to do with Heusdens.

I once saw a comic strip that showed two men by a blackboard. The one man had just finished writing the complex-looking equation on the blackboard, and the other was examining the equation. Well, the first step of the equation was pure mathematics, then he puts (in a sort of cloudish "bubble" (much like a "though bubble")) "Then A Miracle Occurs", and then the final step is also in mathematics. So, the other man says, "you should be a little more specific on that second step".

Anyway, the point is that you can say "the gunman is about to kill my mother, then because I feel love for her, I jump in front of the gunman. You need to be a little more specific about that "second step".

I don't understand the point. My point is that there can be distinctive holistic effects of parts participating in a complex process. For the purposes of making the distinctions in the philosophical debate, "love" is a word used to describe the non-material holistic effect of "whatever process you think causes it." We're not proclaiming truths here, we're only trying to assign words to useful concepts. Once we have these definitions straight then we can pick a side based on our views of what is and what isn't. But you don't do this in the definitions themselves. Zero's definition has the conclusion built right into it.

Well, if we can all decide on an appropriate definition of materialism, then we can (more easily) resolve the different "sects" of materialism that are held by the different posters.

Couldn't agree more. But some people are unwilling to concede that their definitions are not consistent with the accepted meanings and refuse to pick up a 101 text book and educate themselves.

Fliption

Sep3-03, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
It is not just an assumption. If a plant were capable of acknowledging and purposefully responding, then there would no point in humans' having evolved (or being given) a brain, since primitive lifeforms are capable of all that the brain is supposed to be in charge of.

Are you suggesting that there is a "point to humans having brains"? Seems like you're implying that. I thought that the human brain was just a chance mutation that happened to be successful. Why should it need a point that can then be used to argue against what a plant is capable of? This should be interesting.

Mentat

Sep3-03, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Claiming what idealists effectively believe in your opinion is not the same as what they claim to believe. This was my point earlier. No idealists would claim to believe the opposite of Zero's definition. Whether something can be "shown to exist" is not specific enough to mean anything other than existence itself.

Yes it is, and that was part of my point. If I say that a purple cow exists, I am telling the truth, because I am an Idealist, and thus anything that I can concieve of in my mind exists. However, I cannot show this to exist.

However, if I say that a purple cow doesn't exist, I am telling the truth because I am a Materialist, and thus only things that be shown to exist really exist.

How do you show anything to exists? I hardly think that an idealists is going to define their belief based on whether they can show it to someone else. This definition just begs the question and pushes the distinction of what matter is off into phrases like "can be shown". Again, this may "effectively" be what their belief entails but it is not the definition of their belief. If you read Heusdens definitions you will begin to see what I'm talking about.

I'll try to do that tomorrow (have very little time left now).

Anyway, if I can point at something, then I can show that it exists. If I can mathematically describe something, then I have shown that it exists. What is lacking here?

You are not understanding. Heusdens is not making any claims here. He has only provided the accepted philosophical definition of materialism. You can't intuit the truth of definitions because they are invented by humans for the purpose of communication. So if this proper and MUCH more useful definition is used then according to that definition "love" is a non-material thing. It has nothing to do with Heusdens.

No, a definition is not just based on human consensus, the definition has existed as long as that which it defines, it is the word that was later assigned by humans. Thus, if I say (for example) "theory", I have used a word to describe the existent-independent-of-a-word-to-desribe-it thing that can be described as an hypothesis with a large measure of evidence to support it.

I don't understand the point. My point is that there can be distinctive holistic effects of parts participating in a complex process. For the purposes of making the distinctions in the philosophical debate, "love" is a word used to describe the non-material holistic effect of "whatever process you think causes it." We're not proclaiming truths here, we're only trying to assign words to useful concepts.

Fine, but "love" is a word, used to describe something that was originally believed to be non-physical (and emotion was not always considered a physical process, and, apparently, still isn't considered that by some people), so we are re-defining it, using scientific consensus as our basis.

Couldn't agree more. But some people are unwilling to concede that their definitions are not consistent with the accepted meanings and refuse to pick up a 101 text book and educate themselves.

True, and I think all of us (excluding no one) have been guilty of this from time to time.

Fliption

Sep3-03, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes it is, and that was part of my point. If I say that a purple cow exists, I am telling the truth, because I am an Idealist, and thus anything that I can concieve of in my mind exists. However, I cannot show this to exist.

However, if I say that a purple cow doesn't exist, I am telling the truth because I am a Materialist, and thus only things that [b]be shown to exist really exist.

The problem with this mentat is that now you have decided the whole materialism/idealism debate by simply defining away the opposing view. It would be much easier if you just took this phrase that you used... "anything that I can concieve of in my mind exists" and build a definition around this. Heusdens definition is very similar. For example, you can say that immaterial things are things created by the mind. Now there is a clear distinction between material and non-material. As opposed to "that which exists" or "can be shown to exists". Immaterial things DO exists. Including purple cows!They just exists in a mind. Notice that your conclusion of nonmaterial things not existing is built right into your definition whereas it isn't built into Heusdens. Your definition is pointless because it denies that there is even an opposing philosophical view and builds the materialistic conclusion right into the assumptions/definitions.

I'll try to do that tomorrow (have very little time left now).

Anyway, if I can point at something, then I can show that it exists. If I can mathematically describe something, then I have shown that it exists. What is lacking here?

I can point to someone's lack of knowledge but not with my finger. Sloppy semantics. It just begs more questions.

No, a definition is not just based on human consensus, the definition has existed as long as that which it defines, it is the word that was later assigned by humans. Thus, if I say (for example) "theory", I have used a word to describe the existent-independent-of-a-word-to-desribe-it thing that can be described as an hypothesis with a large measure of evidence to support it.

Yes, a definition is based on human invention. You deny this and then you procede to explain how it is true. Heh

Fine, but "love" is a word, used to describe something that was originally believed to be non-physical (and emotion was not always considered a physical process, and, apparently, still isn't considered that by some people), so we are re-defining it, using scientific consensus as our basis.

Mentat, you keep ignoring the fact that I mention about holistic effects of processes. These are caused by physical processes but they are a distinctive property from it. It is only practical that we humans invent a word to describe the holistic effect. Your scientific reductionism is a bit extreme if you're going to claim that a car is no different than a box full of unassembled automobile parts.

True, and I think all of us (excluding no one) have been guilty of this from time to time.

I agree that all of you have done this from time to time.

But some people NEVER strive to accomplish what you have proposed. I'm not going to pretend that everyone contributes in a productive manner just because everyone messes up occasionally.

Zero

Sep4-03, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
That's because of the way you are defining it.

Ignore me if you want but this is a philosophy topic that has been debated for centuries. At this basic level it is black and white. Greying it out so you don't have to deal with the issue is all thats going on here. I've told you before that it has nothing to do with what is actually true but you keep going there as if it means anything. Stop pointing out my posting habits and deal with this issue. YOU asked the question and I'm answering it for you. Well, I'm never going to agree that things are black and white, so you can give it up...sorry, but I am too open-minded for that![:D]

Fliption

Sep4-03, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, I'm never going to agree that things are black and white, so you can give it up...sorry, but I am too open-minded for that![:D]

I'm not talking about life or reality, Zero. I'm talking about the distinction in views as taught in a 101 text book.

Mentat

Sep4-03, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
The problem with this mentat is that now you have decided the whole materialism/idealism debate by simply defining away the opposing view. It would be much easier if you just took this phrase that you used... "anything that I can concieve of in my mind exists" and build a definition around this. Heusdens definition is very similar. For example, you can say that immaterial things are things created by the mind. Now there is a clear distinction between material and non-material. As opposed to "that which exists" or "can be shown to exists". Immaterial things DO exists. Including purple cows!They just exists in a mind.

This sounds very much like Cartesian Dualism. The purple cow never actually existed, nor did I ever actually form a "picture" in my mind, it was a process that occured in many parts of the brain. Now, I don't mean to state this as absolute fact, but there are serious flaws with the alternative. Let me give an example:

Let's say that the purple cow actually "appeared" at some point in my brain, then who's seeing it? IOW, how can I see the cow, unless I have "eyes" inside my head, in which case (after having applied the explanation that a "picture" is formed for the "mind's eye" to see) you will have an infinite regress - of "minds' eyes" sending images to their center of consciousness, which then views it with it's mind's eye, and so on, ad infinitum.

Notice that your conclusion of nonmaterial things not existing is built right into your definition whereas it isn't built into Heusdens. Your definition is pointless because it denies that there is even an opposing philosophical view and builds the materialistic conclusion right into the assumptions/definitions.

I suppose that may be true, however I see the same problem with your definiton: "anything, that I can conceive of in my mind, exists". Built into this is the Cartesian idea that there is an inner mind (a mind smaller than the brain, that is), this requires that the "inner mind" be immaterial. But if something immaterial is implied, then the idea is inherently idealistic.

I can point to someone's lack of knowledge but not with my finger. Sloppy semantics. It just begs more questions.

That's the point, you cannot point to one's lack of knowledge, you can only "point to" instances in which this lack has become obvious.

Yes, a definition is based on human invention. You deny this and then you procede to explain how it is true. Heh

Apparently you missed the entire point of my illustration, since I was showing that the word was assigned by humans, to a definition that already existed.

Mentat, you keep ignoring the fact that I mention about holistic effects of processes. These are caused by physical processes but they are a distinctive property from it. It is only practical that we humans invent a word to describe the holistic effect. Your scientific reductionism is a bit extreme if you're going to claim that a car is no different than a box full of unassembled automobile parts.

But the car is a physical thing. Love (which is the example that we have been using) is also physical (in the same sense that "running" is physical). Love is an interaction - a physical one. Think of another example, if you want.

Here, I've got one, consciousness. The idealist would say that the processes of the brain "bring forth" the (non-material) thing called consciousness. They are mistaken, since consciousness is not a "thing" at all, but a process. If it were a (non-material) thing, then it would have to have some intermediary that communicated it's "thoughts" (which would then also have to be non-physical) to the brain.

Iacchus32

Sep4-03, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Here, I've got one, consciousness. The idealist would say that the processes of the brain "bring forth" the (non-material) thing called consciousness. They are mistaken, since consciousness is not a "thing" at all, but a process. If it were a (non-material) thing, then it would have to have some intermediary that communicated it's "thoughts" (which would then also have to be non-physical) to the brain. What would you say about the radio waves that we receive over the radio? Are these part of the radio itself or, are they "picked up" separately? Now who's to say that we aren't "tapped into" some other (spiritual) source than our five senses? Isn't that why they call it the "sixth sense?"

Mentat

Sep4-03, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What would you say about the radio waves that we receive over the radio? Now who's to say that we aren't "tapped into" some other (spiritual) source than our five senses? Isn't that why they call it the "sixth sense?"

Radio Waves are physical propogations of certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. They don't require any extra senses, since they are physical anyway.

However, let's take that point a little further, what would we do with a "sixth sense"? Now we know that our five known sense are physical, and thus, in order for us to have a "sixth", it must also by physical. Thus, we cannot "pick up" metaphysical "frequencies" (so to speak), because all of our senses are physical.

More importantly, if we had a sense that wasn't physical, then we couldn't do anything with it, because our brain (the organ that processes all of the information given to it by the senses) is physical, and there is no "intermediary" form (between physical and metaphysical) that the information can take - no "translator" between the metaphysical information (taken in by the "sixth sense") and the physical brain.

Royce

Sep4-03, 01:07 PM

Mentat from what I'm reading and my understanding of it you are on one hand basing everything you say on the belief that if something does not have physical objectivity it does not exist. On the otherhand you talk of definitions and mental pictures or concepts which are subjective. To be consistant you would have to conclude that those mental things do not exist.
You continue to say that the definition, a purely subjective thing existed before the words, subjective symbols of mental concepts. Thus you contradict yourself or at least your postion again.
You maintain that consciousness is a product of the brain and thought merely electrochemical activity of the neurons. This is not proven but merely an assumption.
You also imply that intelligence is a necessary property for consciousness to exist. This is purely dependent on your definition of consciousness. Awareness in consciousness no matter how primative or limited. Your example of Helen Keller, saying that she was not conscious because she had no sensory imput is pure hogwash and you know it.
Even if consciousness and thought are products of the brain they are different from the brain and exist in reality. They can be measured and can effect material objects and thoughts transferred from one to another just as I am doing now. Thus by your own inconsistent reasoning both the objective material and subjective immaterial exist.

Mentat

Sep4-03, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Mentat from what I'm reading and my understanding of it you are on one hand basing everything you say on the belief that if something does not have physical objectivity it does not exist.

Which is the materialist viewpoint, that I have chosen to adopt for the purpose of this thread.

On the otherhand you talk of definitions and mental pictures or concepts which are subjective. To be consistant you would have to conclude that those mental things do not exist.

I did. Read my response to Fliption, about the "purple cow".

You continue to say that the definition, a purely subjective thing existed before the words, subjective symbols of mental concepts. Thus you contradict yourself or at least your postion again.

Not so. When I say that the definition existed, what I mean is that the thing (whatever it is) already was what it was. A chair has always been a piece of furniture that is usefull for sitting on (not a formal definition, I know), but the word "chair" was later assigned to it (along with the words that I've used in the definition).

You maintain that consciousness is a product of the brain and thought merely electrochemical activity of the neurons. This is not proven but merely an assumption.

What alternative do you suggest?

You also imply that intelligence is a necessary property for consciousness to exist. This is purely dependent on your definition of consciousness. Awareness in consciousness no matter how primative or limited. Your example of Helen Keller, saying that she was not conscious because she had no sensory imput is pure hogwash and you know it.

Have you ever read her autobiography? You can go ahead and look it up, but I have read for myself that she has no conscious memory of life before language (and she was (I think) over 7 years old before she was taught language).

Anyway, that just means that language is necessary for the level of consciousness that a human experiences, not that intelligence is at all necessary for rudimentary consciousness.

Even if consciousness and thought are products of the brain they are different from the brain and exist in reality. They can be measured and can effect material objects and thoughts transferred from one to another just as I am doing now. Thus by your own inconsistent reasoning both the objective material and subjective immaterial exist.

Actually, the passing of memes from one to another is not at all an immaterial process. After all, if I didn't have the (physical) apparatus of a computer, I would never have been able to attain this information. If I didn't have the (physical) apparatus of eyes, I would still never be able to attain this information. Last, but not least, if I didn't have the different (physical) places in my brain that are used for processing visual stimulus, I would still not be able to attain this information.

The materialist holds that, in point of actual fact, it wasn't information until my brain processed the stimulus. After all, there is nothing "special" about the beams of light that are leaving my monitor screen, and entering my retina.

Iacchus32

Sep4-03, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Radio Waves are physical propogations of certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. They don't require any extra senses, since they are physical anyway.Ever trip over a radio wave? [:D] Sorry, you can credit Fliption for that one! [;)]

However, let's take that point a little further, what would we do with a "sixth sense"? Now we know that our five known sense are physical, and thus, in order for us to have a "sixth", it must also by physical. Thus, we cannot "pick up" metaphysical "frequencies" (so to speak), because all of our senses are physical. And yet there are people who claim to have this ability all the time.

More importantly, if we had a sense that wasn't physical, then we couldn't do anything with it, because our brain (the organ that processes all of the information given to it by the senses) is physical, and there is no "intermediary" form (between physical and metaphysical) that the information can take - no "translator" between the metaphysical information (taken in by the "sixth sense") and the physical brain. Has anyone ever been able to peer into the world of electro-magnetic energy? It's entirely invisible with exception to sight and sound, and yet who's to say that this isn't the very metaphysical realm we're talking about? And I agree, you can't have a physical world on the one hand, and a metaphysical world on the other, without something which is common in between.

Whereas just as everything in this Universe vibrates, while sending out its own little code, could it be that this "realm of information" is the very "spiritual realm" as well? Or, perhaps there's some other possibility, but I would have to concede it was something along these lines. [;)]

Mentat

Sep4-03, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Ever trip over a radio wave? [:D] Sorry, you can credit Fliption for that one! [;)]

Very funny. I'm sure that you know full well the difference between physical and material, so it is probably completely obvious to you that you don't need to be able to "trip over" something (figuratively speaking) to know that it's physical.

And yet there are people who claim to have this ability all the time.

Really? What does this ability do for them specifically?

Has anyone ever been able to peer into the world of electro-magnetic energy? It's entirely invisible with exception to sight and sound, and yet who's to say that this isn't the very metaphysical realm we're talking about?

Well, we know that electron exist, if that's what you're asking. Electrons are physical, and they - along with photons - are responsible for electromagnetic phenomena, so there isn't much room for a metaphysical interpretation.

And I agree, you can't have a physical world on the one hand, and a metaphysical world on the other, without something which is common in between.

Yes, and that intermediary cannot exist, since anything that is not physical is metaphysical (by the very nature of the word "metaphysical").

Whereas just as everything in this Universe vibrates, while sending out its own little code, could it be that this "realm of information" is the very "spiritual realm" as well? Or, perhaps there's some other possibility, but I would have to concede it was something along these lines. [;)]

There is no "realm of information". If inormation could exist in a form outside of the processes of the brain, what would be the purpose of the brain?

When I see that the C.D. case beside me is "red", I am not observing an inherent property of the case or of the beams of light that entered my retina after reflecting off the case. I am only referring to the information which exists only in my brain. In the brain of a bee (for example) the color would be rather different (I think they see ultraviolet frequencies of light), and in the brain of a dog there would be no color at all (I think they are color-blind, please correct me if I'm wrong), but that doesn't mean that they've failed to process some information that is intrinsic of the beam of light itself, it just means that they produced (note the term "produced") different information from the same physical stimulus.

Royce

Sep4-03, 02:25 PM

Okay Mentat given that radio waves are physical and thought is product of the physical brain. The brain when unconscious still produce electrochemical processes and brainwaves. Radio waves can contain random static or information just as brainwave can contain rando neuron firing or information. While I will allow for the sake of this discussion your claim that both radio and brainwaves are physical and objective in origin, the information, intelligence or knowledge that they contain and transfer from point to point is subjective as all knowledge and intelligence is subjective by definition.

Mentat

Sep4-03, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Okay Mentat given that radio waves are physical and thought is product of the physical brain. The brain when unconscious still produce electrochemical processes and brainwaves. Radio waves can contain random static or information just as brainwave can contain rando neuron firing or information. While I will allow for the sake of this discussion your claim that both radio and brainwaves are physical and objective in origin, the information, intelligence or knowledge that they contain and transfer from point to point is subjective as all knowledge and intelligence is subjective by definition.

Not at all, dear friend. The information is a stimulation of the different processing points in the brain.

If "information" itself existed seperate of processed physical stimulus in the brain, then there would be no clear reason for a brain. There would be no clear reason why a plant isn't as conscious as a human.

What I'm saying is that (according to the materialist PoV) "information" itself is not something subjective that is interpreted by the brain, but something objective that is produced by many stimulations of many different parts of a conscious computing machine (a brain). IOW, the information only exists in the brain, it is not an intrinsic property of the object that caused the physical stimulus.

Fliption

Sep4-03, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
This sounds very much like Cartesian Dualism. The purple cow never actually existed, nor did I ever actually form a "picture" in my mind, it was a process that occured in many parts of the brain. Now, I don't mean to state this as absolute fact, but there are serious flaws with the alternative. Let me give an example:

Let's say that the purple cow actually "appeared" at some point in my brain, then who's seeing it? IOW, how can I see the cow, unless I have "eyes" inside my head, in which case (after having applied the explanation that a "picture" is formed for the "mind's eye" to see) you will have an infinite regress - of "minds' eyes" sending images to their center of consciousness, which then views it with it's mind's eye, and so on, ad infinitum.

You are thinking too much. All we're talking about is assigning words to concepts so that we can then develop a view based on how we believe all these concepts interrelate. There are 2 steps in there. 1) assign words to concepts 2) state view based on words. You and zero only have one step. You build your view into the definitions and your done with it in one swipe. The problem with this is that you cannot discuss it with the opposing view because you don't have a common language.

The purple cow, whether it's a mental image or the result of brain processes, DOES exist as just that! It exists as the result of brain processing. That's very simple and there are no implications to materialism to make this definition. You use the phrase "actually exists" as if you are assuming that existence means for something to be material. And this is why I'm telling you that you're conclusion is built into the assumptions.

I am simply trying to show you that you need to leave the word 'existence' or 'exists' out of your definitions completely. Deciding what exists and what doesn't is part of step 2 not step 1.

Making existence the primary distinction between materialism and idealism is like saying the distinction between republicans and democrats is that democrats have more compassion. While the existence of compassion may be the result of the 2 views, it is NOT how they distinguish themselves. Both parties think they are the most compassionate! The real distinction in definition is that one believes in more governemnt involvement than the other etc etc.

I suppose that may be true, however I see the same problem with your definiton: "anything, that I can conceive of in my mind, exists". Built into this is the Cartesian idea that there is an inner mind (a mind smaller than the brain, that is), this requires that the "inner mind" be immaterial. But if something immaterial is implied, then the idea is inherently idealistic.

No. It is only an attempt to assign words to concepts so that a distinction can be made between the 2 views without one view being correct by definition.

That's the point, you cannot point to one's lack of knowledge, you can only "point to" instances in which this lack has become obvious.

And that is exactly my point. Someone's lack of knowledge is a statement worth communciating about in general and therefore must have a word assigned to it.

Apparently you missed the entire point of my illustration, since I was showing that the word was assigned by humans, to a definition that already existed.

But thats exactly what we're doing is assigning words to concepts. In this case it is the word 'materialism'.

But the car is a physical thing. Love (which is the example that we have been using) is also physical (in the same sense that "running" is physical). Love is an interaction - a physical one. Think of another example, if you want.

Here, I've got one, consciousness. The idealist would say that the processes of the brain "bring forth" the (non-material) thing called consciousness. They are mistaken, since consciousness is not a "thing" at all, but a process. If it were a (non-material) thing, then it would have to have some intermediary that communicated it's "thoughts" (which would then also have to be non-physical) to the brain.

A process is a thing, Mentat. It is a thing that falls under the category of 'process'. It seems as if almost every definition you use has a materialist assumption built right into it. The feeling of "love" cannot be fully communciated by making it synonymous with all of the physical interactions that you think causes it. A person experiencing love can do so with absolutely no knowledge of these processes. So the word is useful to distinquish between the process and the resulting experience.

I'm still in step one. Using these definitions will not end materialism. It will just make it so that a fair debate can happen with everyone using the same words.

Iacchus32

Sep4-03, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Very funny. I'm sure that you know full well the difference between physical and material, so it is probably completely obvious to you that you don't need to be able to "trip over" something (figuratively speaking) to know that it's physical.And yet to most people, "physical" applies to that which can readily be experienced through the five senses. Unless of course we had a "sixth sense?"

Really? What does this ability do for them specifically?I'm only suggesting that there's evidence that it exists.

Well, we know that electron exist, if that's what you're asking. Electrons are physical, and they - along with photons - are responsible for electromagnetic phenomena, so there isn't much room for a metaphysical interpretation.Ever trip over an electron? [:D]

Yes, and that intermediary cannot exist, since anything that is not physical is metaphysical (by the very nature of the word "metaphysical").The only thing the word metaphysical suggests is primary or "first cause." Much like the "meta tags" in a webpage.

Here's what Dictionary.Com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metaphysics) says about the word "metaphysics" ...

1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

2. (used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.

3. (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

4. (used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning. Does that help clarify anything?

There is no "realm of information". If inormation could exist in a form outside of the processes of the brain, what would be the purpose of the brain? Then what do you call radio waves, and the "information" which is broadcast over them?

When I see that the C.D. case beside me is "red", I am not observing an inherent property of the case or of the beams of light that entered my retina after reflecting off the case. I am only referring to the information which exists only in my brain. Sounds almost like solipsism if you ask me. [;)]

In the brain of a bee (for example) the color would be rather different (I think they see ultraviolet frequencies of light), and in the brain of a dog there would be no color at all (I think they are color-blind, please correct me if I'm wrong), but that doesn't mean that they've failed to process some information that is intrinsic of the beam of light itself, it just means that they produced (note the term "produced") different information from the same physical stimulus. I'm afraid all the brain does is "collect" the information -- which does exist -- before interpreting it and processing it, which includes any possible information existing on a "spiritual wavelength."

Mentat

Sep4-03, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
You are thinking too much. All we're talking about is assigning words to concepts so that we can then develop a view based on how we believe all these concepts interrelate. There are 2 steps in there. 1) assign words to concepts 2) state view based on words. You and zero only have one step. You build your view into the definitions and your done with it in one swipe.

The purple cow, whether it's a mental image or the result of brain processes, DOES exist as just that! It exists as the result of brain processing. That's very simple and there are no implications to materialism to make this definition.

I assume you meant that there are no implications to idealism, but I assure you, you are wrong about that. The idea that the mind is something other than the physical brain is an idealistic idea. In order for the purple cow to exist in the brain, there would have to be a part of the brain that turned purple, and a part that assumed the shape of a cow, and a few other such completely ridiculous notions. However, you are not saying that the purple cow existed in the brain, you are saying it existed in the "mind", and to differentiate the two is completely idealistic.

You use the phrase "actually exists" as if you are assuming that existence means for something to be material. And this is why I'm telling you that you're conclusion is built into the assumptions.

When I said "actually exists", I meant that in any form that you care to consider, the purple cow does not exist.

I am simply trying to show you that you need to leave the word 'existence' or 'exists' out of your definitions completely. Deciding what exists and what doesn't is part of step 2 not step 1.

Well, then you've jumped the gun just as I have, since you have stated rather plainly that the purple cow "does exist".

No. It is only an attempt to assign words to concepts so that a distinction can be made between the 2 views without one view being correct by definition.

That may be what you intended, but it is not what you have produced. In order for you to say that "anything that exists in my mind is real", you have to assume the existence of the mind as something other than the brain, and that is an idealistic assumption.

I have to go right now. But I will complete my response tomorrow.

Fliption

Sep4-03, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Mentat

Mentat, you dont have a clue what I'm talking about. You keep missing the point. I'll take some blame for it but I am trying.

[quote]
I assume you meant that there are no implications to idealism, but I assure you, you are wrong about that. The idea that the mind is something other than the physical brain is an idealistic idea. In order for the purple cow to exist in the brain, there would have to be a part of the brain that turned purple, and a part that assumed the shape of a cow, and a few other such [b]completely ridiculous notions. However, you are not saying that the purple cow existed in the brain, you are saying it existed in the "mind", and to differentiate the two is completely idealistic.

No I was not talking about the implications of Idealism. I'm not even talking about idealism. I'm talking about the implications of assigning words to concepts so that we can properly define materialism. There are no implications to assigning words the way I have. I am trying to put the 2 views on even ground with the same language much how Heusdens claims these things are actually defined in academia. A discussion between the 2 views is pointless with your definition.

When I said "actually exists", I meant that in any form that you care to consider, the purple cow does not exist.

What doesn't exists? A purple cow? Wow what a crazy idea. Pfft! A purple cow! Hey, wait a minute, I guess that means it exists as an idea!

If you still cannot see where I'm going with all this Mentat then don't respond. Whether the purple cow exists or not is irrelevant as I will explain below.

Well, then you've jumped the gun just as I have, since you have stated rather plainly that the purple cow "does exist".

You are not understanding. Whether the cow exists or not is not relevant. I was simply trying to get into your use of the word existence to show you how there is disagreement on how this word is used. Our disagreement on whether the purple cow exists or not is exactly the point I was trying to illustrate. So if you insist on using the word existence, then all you've done is back the debate up to now have to define that word. This is what I have been trying to avoid. No meaningful discussion can happen until a clear disntinction that everyone agrees on can be made between the 2 views. You have not done that.

That may be what you intended, but it is not what you have produced. In order for you to say that "anything that exists in my mind is real", you have to assume the existence of the mind as something other than the brain, and that is an idealistic assumption.

Forget about whether it exists or not. Just drop the word existence from your definition of materialism. Now see what kind of definition you can come up with.

I have to go right now. But I will complete my response tomorrow. ]

Why not check into some textbook definitions of materialism first?

Mentat

Sep5-03, 03:47 PM

Look, Fliption, I see your point. The problem with this discussion is the term, "exist".

I will now set down what I see as the difference between Idealism and Materialism, because I think you have slightly missed the most important of the facets of my current position of Materialism.

Idealists believe that there are concepts. Concepts are things that exist only in the mind, but not in objective reality.

A true Materialist does not believe in concepts at all. It's not that they wish to believe that these concepts "don't exist" (whatever that's supposed to mean, since if they (note: I'm referring to "them") are concepts, then "they" exist as concepts.

So, Zero's definition is somewhat misleading (no offense), since it still implies that "there are concepts, they just don't exist". That doesn't make any sense, since, if something "is", it exists.

However, true materialism is the belief that there are no concepts in the first place. What you are calling concepts are really just responses to physical stimuli that have been saved in the memory of your brain, which can cause the same responses to occur later, without necessarily recieving the same physical stimulus.

Thus, if I have heard a piece by Chopin before, what was happening when I heard it? The sounds were being processed and remembered in different parts of my brain, only to stimulate a similar (though not identical) response in those same parts of the brain, when "asked".

Now comes the question of "who does the asking". My taking the materialist position doesn't allow me to believe that anyone did the asking, but rather that different parts of your brain are constantly "asking" of the memory, due to a natural inclination of the human brain. Now, these "askings" - or stimulations of memory - are not entirely random - though much of it is rather chaotic (without much order) - but are often stimulated by a new situation that is, in some way, similar to that which first stimulated the aforementioned responses.

So, you can see here that my position is not about what "exists" and what does not (that question doesn't even really make sense), but rather about whether there is such a thing as a "concept" or not.

Fliption

Sep5-03, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Look, Fliption, I see your point. The problem with this discussion is the term, "exist".

I will now set down what I see as the difference between Idealism and Materialism, because I think you have slightly missed the most important of the facets of my current position of Materialism.

Idealists believe that there are concepts. Concepts are things that exist only in the mind, but not in objective reality.

So, you can see here that my position is not about what "exists" and what does not (that question doesn't even really make sense), but rather about whether there is such a thing as a "concept" or not.

Hmmm. I sense that progress was made but I didn't understand the relevance of alot of that post. But it seems you understand where I was going. What I was trying to do was simply define what a materialist believes and then by simply reversing that view, define the opposing position. This gives us a clear dividing line from which the debate can now occur. My problem with the definition of materialism being "belief in that which can be shown to exists" is that you cannot reverse it and make it represent the opposing view and get that dividing line from which we can now debate; Because the 2 sides would interpret words like "shown" and existence" entirely different. So all I was trying to do was define materialism in such a way that everyone can agree on what we are really disagreeing on!

Heusdens has presented a "philosohpical" definition of matter and a "physical/scientific" definition of matter. He claimed, and I agree with him, that everyone is getting the 2 confused. The philosophical position of materialism is based on the philosophical definition of matter, not the physical one. The philosophical definition is poised to draw a distinct line between the 2 views facilitating a debate. The physical definition is too vague and sloppy for that. Once these words are assigned properly then you(Mentat) can come in and state that in your view of materialism(step 2) these concepts that the idealists believe are primary are nothing of the sort. They are simply the physical processes/interactions themselves.

Now as for your view of materialism....let me leave you with a quote from Cjames that came from the thread "On the Existence of Objective Reality". He says it very well and I'm going to assume that you disagree with him. I agree with him.

CJames

The Objective paradigm, or materialist/physicalist view, is that only the brain exists. The subjective view is that only mind exists. But don't forget about duality. I don't really consider myself a dualist either, however I believe the mind and brain coexist. The mind is not a material object, but rather an emmergent behaviour. It is a whole greater than the sum of its parts. As FZ was talking about earlier, chaos/complexity theory is showing that systems of particles show behavior not found in the particles themselves. I am essentially a materialist, but a materialist would argue only the particles exist. I dissagree, as the behavior of the particles exists as well. This behavior is, in the case of the brain and all its requirements, what we call the mind.

It is true that these emergent properties are caused by physical parts but they themselves are not matter in neither the physical nor the philosophical sense. These holistic properties cannot be reduced to some lower level of matter to see how "it all sums up" because the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I think the concept of "mind" is used to refer to these holistic properties of the brain, the same way the concept of love is used to represent the "experience" associated with certain brain functions. There is no way you can know all there is about love by studying the brains processes because you are missing the emergent pieces. You have to "experience" the whole and feel the love[:)]. Then you understand.

sascha

Sep6-03, 03:50 AM

Somehow it is astonishing, at least to me, how this thread is evolving, haggling about definitions and existence. That's not useful for getting anywhere in comparison with the aim of this thread. For covering what I think is important in this dicussion, allow me to quote some paragraphs out of an article the I published some years ago:

In science it is usual today to set out from definitions. In this view, possessing a good definition is useful for knowing what to seek. It is rarely seen that by the same token this welcome heuristic function is limited, blocking the access to universal laws right from the beginning, because defining requires knowing already what in fact is to be queried as to its relations within the overall connex. As an example, when physicists reduce agency to the mathematical element of "operators", they are compelled to define 'force' backwards as a derivative (rate of change) of momentum: d(mv) / dt = F (a definition known as Newton's second law, central to mechanics and relativity). By this conceptual choice they automatically self-limit themselves and block their path in future towards more general understandings of force — for instance one that can encompass also all the forces of autonomous life. But there is no need to content oneself with piecemeal. (The same problem arises in wanting to define matter, e.g. through existence.)

A widespread opinion is that a definition can be tested, meaning that it can be verified through empirical evidence. Apart from correct objections raised by Popper, emphasizing falsification, we should note that 'testing' a definition can only lead to a limited validity of the discoverable laws, never to strictly universally valid laws, because no data can ever cover totality. (Yet when it comes to the foundation of a science, universality is precisely the most interesting aim: to find the principle of what it wants to undestand, not only regularities of some appearances.)

It is easily possible to have many definitions and theories about something, and they do not need to exclude each other. Take the example of the geometrical circle: it can be defined eg. as a line with a constant distance from a point, or of constant curvature, or as locus of all right angles over a given span. They all refer to the law of the circle, which can only be one and is thus as such of Platonic nature; it looks different depending on the viewpoint chosen in approaching it. (The complete characteristics of the law of the circle can be encompased in no definition, in no language. That is why mathematicians keep finding out new aspects and implications of that law; if they would set out from a definition, and stick to that, they would become sterile... like much of this debate)

In the same way we can have many definitions and theories eg. of material matter — querying conditions for measuring its minimal parts (quantum theory), its movements (relativity theory), or its metamorphoses (theory of nonlinear dynamics), etc. Or we can have many definitions and theories on life: we can query the conditions necessary for life, or its essential nature, or causes for it to appear, etc. What we invariably need is an overall framework of universal concepts that allow to assemble all possible aspects. It is useful to clarify the presuppositions, and thus what secretly is hoped for, rejected or sought, when asking for definitions and theories.

metacristi

Sep6-03, 05:01 AM

Zero

Why the bias against materialism?

I am not aware of the bias you talk about (I came enough seldom on this board) so that I cannot pronounce myself whether they are right or not but I can present my point of view in the subject.

First we need a definition:materialism is usually understood as being the belief that everything that exist is material,the so called ontological materialism.Well a big problem with it is that,since it involves ontological commitment,we can safely attach the label 'metaphysical' to it.That's why many materialists try to avoid it by claiming that they do not assume materialism true,they only consider it the most probable to be true insisting that materialism is 'testable'.

Or as I'll argue further this argument is not valid.I'm afraid that we cannot consider the actual scientific data as providing us valid 'confirmations' of ontological materialism even in the happiest case (for atheists/skeptics) that we will find arguments beyond all reasonable doubt that consciousness is material (which is much beyond the actual conjecture that consciousness is computable and can be fully explained residing entirely at the macroscopical level).

Indeed if ontological dualism is true (dualism understood as the existence of another 'substance' that cannot interact with matter) we will never be aware of that.So that it is pointless to claim that ontological materialism is 'testable' since all we can test is matter (understood in the broadest sense as representing everything that can interact with 'usual' matter).

At most we can see the actual state of things in the neurology field as representing a 'confirmation' (albeit fallible) that consciousness does not have a dual nature,belonging entirely to 'our level of reality' (that can interact with usual matter)...Or clearly this cannot qualify as a 'confirmation' of materialism itself,at least the ontological materialism.There are other defintions of materialism which do not involve ontological commitment (as it is the logical positivist definition of physicalism which some label 'modern materialism'),they have the same problem,there is no way to test the generic stance of modern materialism (all that we can do is to establish experimentally that specific,previously unknown to exist,'entities' are 'material' according with the definition of 'modern materialism').So that I'd say that there are big problems with materialism...

rocket art

Sep6-03, 06:20 AM

hi. discussions here seems to get very long indeed, not surprisingly. let me post some of my compositions as another contribution to it which may put some accent points.

"It takes one to know everything before one can say he/she knows nothing."
-rocket art

(well I can't say I know everything, so I can't say I know nothing[:D] )

"Visions that approach beyond reason are achieved when there is no reason why not."
-rocket art

Mentat

Sep6-03, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Hmmm. I sense that progress was made but I didn't understand the relevance of alot of that post.

I was mainly trying to help form these definitions that we need to continue the discussion. An Idealist believes that there are concepts. A Materialist does not. The rest of the post was just explaining (in a very brief, and somewhat incomplete, manner) how the illusion of concepts presents itself to us, while such a thing needn't really exist ("really exist" meaning that there needn't be such a thing as a concept).

But it seems you understand where I was going. What I was trying to do was simply define what a materialist believes and then by simply reversing that view, define the opposing position. This gives us a clear dividing line from which the debate can now occur. My problem with the definition of materialism being "belief in that which can be shown to exists" is that you cannot reverse it and make it represent the opposing view and get that dividing line from which we can now debate; Because the 2 sides would interpret words like "shown" and existence" entirely different. So all I was trying to do was define materialism in such a way that everyone can agree on what we are really disagreeing on!

That's the sensical thing to do, but I disapprove of your previous attempt at defining Idealism, since it contains a purely Idealistic concept, the idea of the mind - as something other than the brain itself. IIRC, you said that the Idealistic belief is "Anything I can conceive of in my mind exists". This already not only assumes that there is a subjective mind, but also that there are concepts within that mind.

Heusdens has presented a "philosohpical" definition of matter and a "physical/scientific" definition of matter. He claimed, and I agree with him, that everyone is getting the 2 confused. The philosophical position of materialism is based on the philosophical definition of matter, not the physical one. The philosophical definition is poised to draw a distinct line between the 2 views facilitating a debate. The physical definition is too vague and sloppy for that. Once these words are assigned properly then you(Mentat) can come in and state that in your view of materialism(step 2) these concepts that the idealists believe are primary are nothing of the sort. They are simply the physical processes/interactions themselves.

Actually, I think that this clarification may be necessary before defining Idealism or Materialism. After all, I don't except your definition of Idealism, mainly because it requires the use of terms that are themselves Idealistic. But, without a clarification similar to what I attempted in my previous post, it cannot easily be seen that these terms are purley Idealistic.

Now as for your view of materialism....let me leave you with a quote from Cjames that came from the thread "On the Existence of Objective Reality". He says it very well and I'm going to assume that you disagree with him. I agree with him.

CJames

It is true that these emergent properties are caused by physical parts but they themselves are not matter in neither the physical nor the philosophical sense.

However, right off the bat, he assumes that there is such a thing as the "emergent properties". After all, to say that there was a "purple cow" (just an illustration, not some main point in my argument; you see, of course, that the "purple cow" would be an "emergent property") in my "mind", as though "mind" were somehow different than "brain", is a purely Idealistic phrasing.

Zero was complaining before about the fact that there can't be a "grey area" between Idealism and Materialism. You were the one that pointed this out to him, yet I think that you have fallen into something like the same trap. In order to directly attempt a definition of Idealism (or Materialism, for that matter) one must be unbiased in their use of words. IOW, one cannot use a term in their definition that is biased toward one or the other belief. Yet, to try and speak of Idealism or Materialism in an unbiased way is to seek a "grey area", and such a thing doesn't exist. Thus, it may be (I'm not sure, but maybe) that Heusden's and your system is unusable on this particular occasion.

These holistic properties cannot be reduced to some lower level of matter to see how "it all sums up" because the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I think the concept of "mind" is used to refer to these holistic properties of the brain, the same way the concept of love is used to represent the "experience" associated with certain brain functions. There is no way you can know all there is about love by studying the brains processes because you are missing the emergent pieces.

Now, try to define "emergent pieces" in a framework that is not completely biased toward Idealism.

My point is that, to be completely unbiased, we cannot assume that holistic, or emergent, properties exist at all, until some convincing argument can be given on one side or the other. To assume that something "emerges" from the physical processes of the brain is purely Idealistic, and has not place in an attempt to define Idealism itself.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

Fliption

Sep7-03, 12:43 AM

You are all confused Mentat.

Originally posted by Mentat
That's the sensical thing to do, but I disapprove of your previous attempt at defining Idealism, since it contains a purely Idealistic concept, the idea of the mind - as something other than the brain itself. IIRC, you said that the Idealistic belief is "Anything I can conceive of in my mind exists". This already not only assumes that there is a subjective mind, but also that there are concepts within that mind.

If you are still saying this then you have not understood anything I've said. I am not trying to proclaim any truths here. You keep insisting that I am. I do not know how to convey that all I'm doing is assigning words. I can only type it, I can't make you understand it.

Actually, I think that this clarification may be necessary before defining Idealism or Materialism. After all, I don't except your definition of Idealism, mainly because it requires the use of terms that are themselves Idealistic. But, without a clarification similar to what I attempted in my previous post, it cannot easily be seen that these terms are purley Idealistic.

Again, the definitions don't proclaim truths about what is and what isn't. It is only assigning words so that we can identify the view. If you do not believe theses things really exists then that is a disagreement with Idealism. Not it's definition.

However, right off the bat, he assumes that there is such a thing as the "emergent properties". After all, to say that there was a "purple cow" (just an illustration, not some main point in my argument; you see, of course, that the "purple cow" would be an "emergent property") in my "mind", as though "mind" were somehow different than "brain", is a purely Idealistic phrasing.

Mentat, I didn't understand the point of much of that but it is clear you don't understand complexity theory. Everytime I discuss things with you, you seem to deny what I think is common scientific knowledge and concepts. Even FZ is talking about this one!(as noted by Cjames)

Zero was complaining before about the fact that there can't be a "grey area" between Idealism and Materialism. You were the one that pointed this out to him, yet I think that you have fallen into something like the same trap. In order to directly attempt a definition of Idealism (or Materialism, for that matter) one must be unbiased in their use of words. IOW, one cannot use a term in their definition that is biased toward one or the other belief. Yet, to try and speak of Idealism or Materialism in an unbiased way is to seek a "grey area", and such a thing doesn't exist. Thus, it may be (I'm not sure, but maybe) that Heusden's and your system is unusable on this particular occasion.

First of all Zero never made any points at all that were productive or thoughtful. He rarely does. But all of this that you've said is the same mistake as above. Your trying to make the definition claim truths. It is not. You are supposed to disagree with the views after the definitions are set. And btw, these definitions are not made up by Heusdens or myself. Again, you find yourself in disagreement with established academia....( Quamtum Physics, Philsophy, complexity theory....whats next?heheh)

Now, try to define "emergent pieces" in a framework that is not completely biased toward Idealism.

See complexity theory. Read Read Read. I thought this was common knowledge. I just assumed you wouldn't deny it's relevance. Sorry I brouht it up because I think I confused you as noted below.

My point is that, to be completely unbiased, we cannot assume that holistic, or emergent, properties exist at all, until some convincing argument can be given on one side or the other. To assume that something "emerges" from the physical processes of the brain is purely Idealistic, and has not place in an attempt to define Idealism itself.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

Here you have totally confused the dicussion of definitions with the discussion of materialism vs idealism itself. I thought I made the switch clear. The emergent properties has nothing to do with the definition discussion. It was an actual rebuttal to materialism. So it's supposed to be biased! Good call!

Mentat I think the best way to move forward is for you to tell us what the philosophical view of materialism means. If this cannot be done then I think we shouldn't call ourselves materialists anymore until we can define it.

Fliption

Sep7-03, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by sascha
Somehow it is astonishing, at least to me, how this thread is evolving, haggling about definitions and existence.

You might have more success influencing the thread if you write so that people can understand you.

sascha

Sep7-03, 04:50 AM

My aim is not to influence people, but to offer thoughts an interconnections that some don't seem to think about. Asking specific questions about what you don't understand would make it easier to respond adequately.

Mentat

Sep9-03, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
If you are still saying this then you have not understood anything I've said. I am not trying to proclaim any truths here. You keep insisting that I am. I do not know how to convey that all I'm doing is assigning words. I can only type it, I can't make you understand it.

And yet again I must explain to you that, in your attempt to "assing words" you have commited a logical error: Your definition of Idealism uses terms that only exist in the Idealist paradigm. The definition is biased in itself, as it makes no sense in a materialistic paradigm. I think that a "fair" (accurate, good...) definition is supposed to have no biases, and will thus (at least) make sense in both paradigms.

Again, the definitions don't proclaim truths about what is and what isn't. It is only assigning words so that we can identify the view. If you do not believe theses things really exists then that is a disagreement with Idealism. Not it's definition.

BUT THAT'S THE POINT! Your definition directly implied the existence of these things and (the definition itself) is thus utterly biased, and logically unusable. Surely you can see this, I've said it enough times.

Mentat, I didn't understand the point of much of that but it is clear you don't understand complexity theory. Everytime I discuss things with you, you seem to deny what I think is common scientific knowledge and concepts. Even FZ is talking about this one!(as noted by Cjames)

I probably don't know complexity theory by that name. You'd have to tell me what it postulates, instead of referring to it by the name, before I can know whether I understand it (or agree with it) or not.

First of all Zero never made any points at all that were productive or thoughtful. He rarely does. But all of this that you've said is the same mistake as above. Your trying to make the definition claim truths. It is not. You are supposed to disagree with the views after the definitions are set. And btw, these definitions are not made up by Heusdens or myself. Again, you find yourself in disagreement with established academia....( Quamtum Physics, Philsophy, complexity theory....whats next?heheh)

The difference is that I'm not at all intimidated by the fact that these may be long-standing definitions. I say that - from my observations of your post - they are biased (or, at least, the one for Idealism) is, and are thus logically unusable, unless you can show otherwise.

Thus, I'm not trying to find the truth before establishing the definitions, I just don't approve of the definitions that you've chosen since they are, themselves, biased. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a biased definition commit the same sin as you accuse me of (proclaiming a "truth" that only exists in one of the paradigms)?

See complexity theory. Read Read Read. I thought this was common knowledge. I just assumed you wouldn't deny it's relevance. Sorry I brouht it up because I think I confused you as noted below.

Ok, I will look up complexity theory. In the meantime, could you give a brief explanation of it's postulates (I'll probably recognize them, and just don't know the theory by it's proper name (that's happened before)).

Here you have totally confused the dicussion of definitions with the discussion of materialism vs idealism itself. I thought I made the switch clear. The emergent properties has nothing to do with the definition discussion. It was an actual rebuttal to materialism. So it's supposed to be biased! Good call!

But your definition contained reference to the emergent properties! It is thus biased toward the Idealistic PoV, and makes no sense in a materialistic paradigm. As I said before (above somewhere), a definition that is biased commits the same sin that you keep pointing out: it proclaims truths.

Mentat I think the best way to move forward is for you to tell us what the philosophical view of materialism means. If this cannot be done then I think we shouldn't call ourselves materialists anymore until we can define it.

Here's one definition (from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary):
1 a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter

It doesn't really touch on the philosophical issues, raised in the debate between idealism and materialism, but I looked it up in the "Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy", and didn't even get a definition (just a bunch of results of belief in materliasm, and reasons for such a belief to have come about in the first place, and the problems that face it...but not definitions).

Zero

Sep9-03, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Fliption

First of all Zero never made any points at all that were productive or thoughtful. He rarely does. But all of this that you've said is the same mistake as above. Your trying to make the definition claim truths. It is not. You are supposed to disagree with the views after the definitions are set. And btw, these definitions are not made up by Heusdens or myself. Again, you find yourself in disagreement with established academia....( Quamtum Physics, Philsophy, complexity theory....whats next?heheh) [/B]
Nice personal attack!!

Zero

Sep9-03, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Mentat

Here's one definition (from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary):
1 a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter

Let's start over with this, shall we? This seems to be a reasonable definition.

Why is there a bias against this idea? It seems pretty straightforward, and practical. Basically, it says, "What you see is what you get", which, from a logical standpoint, is really all you can say about any situation, isn't it?

Mentat

Sep9-03, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Let's start over with this, shall we? This seems to be a reasonable definition.

Why is there a bias against this idea? It seems pretty straightforward, and practical. Basically, it says, "What you see is what you get", which, from a logical standpoint, is really all you can say about any situation, isn't it?

Well, sure, except for the fact that some people believe in a mind's eye (whether I do or don't is irrelevant, but I will be arguing against it, since my current position is materialistic), and thus "what they see" includes things that - according to a materialistic approach to neurology (such as taken by Le Doux or Dennett) - don't ever exist.

Zero

Sep9-03, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, sure, except for the fact that some people believe in a mind's eye (whether I do or don't is irrelevant, but I will be arguing against it, since my current position is materialistic), and thus "what they see" includes things that - according to a materialistic approach to neurology (such as taken by Le Doux or Dennett) - don't ever exist. Yes, but we CAN say that their vision exists as electrochemical brain activity, can't we?[6)]

Mentat

Sep9-03, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Yes, but we CAN say that their vision exists as electrochemical brain activity, can't we?[6)]

No. A materialist, in my experience, does not accept that the phenomenological world can be "looked at" at all. It is not "produced" by brain activity, it is brain activity, and there are no "emergent properties" that exist as a "picture in the mind". So, actually, yes we can say that their supposed vision (along with their supposed "picture") exist as electrochemical brain activity, but it may be slightly misleading to do so (especially if they miss the "as" part, and assume that we mean "as a result of").

You know, I just thought of another reason why "pictures in the mind" (no matter how they are "produced") may be illogical. Think of the monitor, that you are looking at now. Do you think that there is a place inside the computer, where these words are displayed as words? I'm no expert on computers (I know about enough to get by), but I really doubt it. It has always been explained to me that the information is in binary code, and that the display on the monitor is just a translation of that code.

So, the display on the monitor (the picture) is not for the benefit of the computer at all; since the computer doesn't process in "pictures", but in binary code. It's only for the benefit of the humans who look at the monitor, that this code is ever translated into a picture or text (like the text you are reading now).

Our brains are organic computers, so doesn't it stand to reason that there would be no purpose in our having actual "pictures" in our minds, if there was no "observer" inside the mind to watch them (like the observers that are reading this text)? And there cannot be such an observer, for it (the observer) would then have to be conscious (otherwise the "picture" would mean nothing to it) which would mean that it also had an inner "observer", and so on ad infinitum.

Mentat

Sep9-03, 12:16 PM

BTW, the above idea about why "pictures in the mind" may be illogical is not entirely original, it's just the illustration that I thought of, which I decided to share. Daniel Dennett explains much the same principle, using the primitive AI robot, "Shakey", as his example. But, of course, his explanation is much longer and more detailed than mine.

Zero

Sep9-03, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
No. A materialist, in my experience, does not accept that the phenomenological world can be "looked at" at all. It is not "produced" by brain activity, it is brain activity, and there are no "emergent properties" that exist as a "picture in the mind". So, actually, yes we can say that their supposed vision (along with their supposed "picture") exist as electrochemical brain activity, but it may be slightly misleading to do so (especially if they miss the "as" part, and assume that we mean "as a result of").

You know, I just thought of another reason why "pictures in the mind" (no matter how they are "produced") may be illogical. Think of the monitor, that you are looking at now. Do you think that there is a place inside the computer, where these words are displayed as words? I'm no expert on computers (I know about enough to get by), but I really doubt it. It has always been explained to me that the information is in binary code, and that the display on the monitor is just a translation of that code.

So, the display on the monitor (the picture) is not for the benefit of the computer at all; since the computer doesn't process in "pictures", but in binary code. It's only for the benefit of the humans who look at the monitor, that this code is ever translated into a picture or text (like the text you are reading now).

Our brains are organic computers, so doesn't it stand to reason that there would be no purpose in our having actual "pictures" in our minds, if there was no "observer" inside the mind to watch them (like the observers that are reading this text)? And there cannot be such an observer, for it (the observer) would then have to be conscious (otherwise the "picture" would mean nothing to it) which would mean that it also had an inner "observer", and so on ad infinitum. I see what you mean...we agree that there are no 'emerging properties', but the way I said it may be misleading. For instance, when I say that the image on my computer screen 'exists', I mean that there are photons traveling from the monitor to my eyes, which are interpreted as images. In fact, a materialist should define an image as being an object or objects reflecting light to a viewing medium(film, monitor, eye, etc.) The object is real, the viewing medium is real, the image is not real, except as defined by the photons traveling from one to the other.
Am I making sense?

Zero

Sep9-03, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
BTW, the above idea about why "pictures in the mind" may be illogical is not entirely original, it's just the illustration that I thought of, which I decided to share. Daniel Dennett explains much the same principle, using the primitive AI robot, "Shakey", as his example. But, of course, his explanation is much longer and more detailed than mine. Thinking of my last post, an 'image of the mind' is illogical, because images are defined as the transfer of photons...

Iacchus32

Sep9-03, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I see what you mean...we agree that there are no 'emerging properties', but the way I said it may be misleading. For instance, when I say that the image on my computer screen 'exists', I mean that there are photons traveling from the monitor to my eyes, which are interpreted as images. In fact, a materialist should define an image as being an object or objects reflecting light to a viewing medium(film, monitor, eye, etc.) The object is real, the viewing medium is real, the image is not real, except as defined by the photons traveling from one to the other.
Am I making sense? And yet what the mind makes out of the image is real. Otherwise what's the point in "creating" the image in the first place?

Royce

Sep9-03, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Thinking of my last post, an 'image of the mind' is illogical, because images are defined as the transfer of photons...

The transfer of photons is not an image but information. Information gives order to the transfer of photons. Those ordered photons strike our eye casing electrochemical information bearing signals to go to our brains. The ordered electrochemical responses in our brain cause the mind to perceive the information as a image. Only at the perception phase did that information become unreal or did it finally become the real image that the information was transfering from one media to another?

Zero

Sep9-03, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Royce
The transfer of photons is not an image but information. Information gives order to the transfer of photons. Those ordered photons strike our eye casing electrochemical information bearing signals to go to our brains. The ordered electrochemical responses in our brain cause the mind to perceive the information as a image. Only at the perception phase did that information become unreal or did it finally become the real image that the information was transfering from one media to another? What I'm tyhinking is that there is no such thing as an 'image' to begin with, if that makes any sense. There are objects, eyes, and photons. At no point is there an 'image'.

Iacchus32

Sep9-03, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Zero
What I'm tyhinking is that there is no such thing as an 'image' to begin with, if that makes any sense. There are objects, eyes, and photons. At no point is there an 'image'. What about the image on a stop sign? Why even bother to stop, once your mind "interprets" what that image means?

Zero

Sep9-03, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What about the image on a stop sign? Why even bother to stop, once your mind "interprets" what that image means? ???This doesn't make any sense, and has nothing to do with what this thread is about, does it?

Iacchus32

Sep9-03, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Zero
???This doesn't make any sense, and has nothing to do with what this thread is about, does it? What is a stop sign? If not an image (that conveys information) of what's been painted on to it? What's the difference between that and an image on your computer screen? The mind still interprets the information the same way.

And, where one uses paint as a medium, the other uses photons on your computer screen.

Fliption

Sep9-03, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Your definition of Idealism uses terms that only exist in the Idealist paradigm. The definition is biased in itself, as it makes no sense in a materialistic paradigm. I think that a "fair" (accurate, good...) definition is supposed to have no biases, and will thus (at least) make sense in both paradigms.

BUT THAT'S THE POINT! Your definition directly implied the existence of these things and (the definition itself) is thus utterly biased, and logically unusable. Surely you can see this, I've said it enough times.

Yes I see exactly what you are saying, but you are saying it because you are not understanding me. And that is why I keep saying that! You're going to have think a little more practical here. The definition I was suggesting makes it possible to differentiate the 2 views so they can disagree with each other and KNOW what they're disagreeing about! There is no bias. Your point is unreasonable and not practical as I hope to show.

I probably don't know complexity theory by that name. You'd have to tell me what it postulates, instead of referring to it by the name, before I can know whether I understand it (or agree with it) or not.

If you don't believe in holistic/emergent properties where the sum is greater than the parts then you don't know what it is. Type it in a search engine. Thats what I did.

The difference is that I'm not at all intimidated by the fact that these may be long-standing definitions. I say that - from my observations of your post - they are biased (or, at least, the one for Idealism) is, and are thus logically unusable, unless you can show otherwise.

Well I'm certainly glad I'm not the one having to dismiss established topics to keep my point of view.

Intimidation is not the point. The point is that maybe you ought to take the time to read and understand established works before you criticize or disagree with them. It's good to question things but we have to be a bit responsible I think. Our self-perceived strengths are usually also our greatest weakness.

But your definition contained reference to the emergent properties! It is thus biased toward the Idealistic PoV, and makes no sense in a materialistic paradigm. As I said before (above somewhere), a definition that is biased commits the same sin that you keep pointing out: it proclaims truths.

No, the definition does not make any claims to truth. If emergent properties are a key component of the idealist view, then we MUST be able to assign a word to it. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant at the stage of assigning words. I've said this many times.

Here's one definition (from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary):
1 a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter

Ugh. Not good. Let's try to make this a little practical and see if it helps.

Zero definition of materialism

Materialist: "I believe in that which can be shown to exist"
Idealist: "Hey so do I!"
Materialist: "No you don't. You believe that "love" can be shown to exists right?"
Idealist: "Absolutely! Here gimme a kiss and I'll show you"
Materialist: "Get off me man! That's just your brain doing it's thing. Love does not exists"
Idealist: "Yes it does my friend."

Thoughts:
So we can see that the definition of materialism is the exact same definition that the idealist would claim for himself. No one is going to say that they believe in things that cannot be shown to exists. But the problem is that now we have to define what it means to be "shown to exist". A third person listening in would have no way of knowing which things the materialist believes in and which things the idealists believes in. The definition does not allow this distinction.

Heusdens definition of materialism

Materialist: "I believe that what exists independent, outside and apart from consciousness is the primary existence."

Idealists: "I disagree with you. I believe what exist outside of consciousness is secondary."

Thoughts:
Right away an observer has the criteria for deciding which things a materialist believes in and which an idealist believes in. All the observer has to do is ask the question "Does the thing exists outside of consciousness?" Color for example does not so a materialists does not believe color actually exists. The debate between the 2 views can now move forward productively.

Clearly this definition is better. You have somehow convinced yourself that this definition is biased. I can hear you saying now that by claiming matter(things outside of consciousness)is primary, it implies there is something else that is secondary. Again I must say that this is pure semantics. Believing that these things are secondary is the same as saying that they are useful concepts but they owe their entire existence to the thing that is primary. We must agree that using concepts like love and mind to describe the results of a process is practical for communication. Whether it actually exists or not is not relevant for the definition. The materialist can claim that these things are simply words used to describe what is intrinsically the perceived results of material processes. But if we don't use these words then we have no way of expressing the idealist view.

Zero

Sep10-03, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Zero definition of materialism

Materialist: "I believe in that which can be shown to exist"
Idealist: "Hey so do I!"
Materialist: "No you don't. You believe that "love" can be shown to exists right?"
Idealist: "Absolutely! Here gimme a kiss and I'll show you"
Materialist: "Get off me man! That's just your brain doing it's thing. Love does not exists"
Idealist: "Yes it does my friend."

Thoughts:
So we can see that the definition of materialism is the exact same definition that the idealist would claim for himself. No one is going to say that they believe in things that cannot be shown to exists. But the problem is that now we have to define what it means to be "shown to exist". A third person listening in would have no way of knowing which things the materialist believes in and which things the idealists believes in. The definition does not allow this distinction.

Although I find your representation of my viewpoint to be intentionally simplistic, it does bring up an important point. The key distinction falls in defining what counts as appropriate evidence.

Mentat

Sep10-03, 02:34 PM

Mentat

Sep10-03, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet what the mind makes out of the image is real. Otherwise what's the point in "creating" the image in the first place?

But the mind doesn't "make" anything "out of the image". If it did, who would be there (inside the mind) to see it? You see how this constantly leads to infinite regress?

Mentat

Sep10-03, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Zero
What I'm tyhinking is that there is no such thing as an 'image' to begin with, if that makes any sense. There are objects, eyes, and photons. At no point is there an 'image'.

Good man! Don't lose that, I need someone on the materialist side [;)].

Mentat

Sep10-03, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What about the image on a stop sign? Why even bother to stop, once your mind "interprets" what that image means?

There is no "image" on a stop sign. There's the paint and the metal, the photons and the neurons.

sascha

Sep10-03, 03:12 PM

Yes, we can say that vision exists as electrochemical brain activity. Just like we can say eating exists as ink etc. in recipes and menu cards, etc.. The descriptions can go into any desired detail. But that's not the whole story -- at least for those who don't want to acquiesce with reading recipes and menu cards etc., but instead really want to eat.

Mentat

Sep10-03, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Yes I see exactly what you are saying, but you are saying it because you are not understanding me. And that is why I keep saying that! You're going to have think a little more practical here. The definition I was suggesting makes it possible to differentiate the 2 views so they can disagree with each other and KNOW what they're disagreeing about! There is no bias. Your point is unreasonable and not practical as I hope to show.

Alright. BTW, I apologize if my previous post came off as sort of hostile (or, in any way, out of form), I just got caught up in writing, and didn't get to proofread before posting.

If you don't believe in holistic/emergent properties where the sum is greater than the parts then you don't know what it is. Type it in a search engine. Thats what I did.

Ok, I'll try that (and, perhaps, post some results). However, I feel it only right to inform you that people like Le Doux and Dennett (materialists who study the processes of the mind) have postulated that there are no such "emergent properties", and have explained (rather aptly, IMO) why this should be the case (just see my illustration (a few posts back, I guess) about the computer image. I came up with it from the information I gathered in these two Materialists' books).

Well I'm certainly glad I'm not the one having to dismiss established topics to keep my point of view.

Ever since discussing with Manuel_Silvio, I have detested the very concept of "established topics". Just the idea that such a thing exists is closed-minded, IMO. Of course, I appreciate (as did Manuel) that long-standing arguments are not to be taken lightly (inspite of my tendency to do so, from time to time), but that doesn't mean that there is such a thing as an "established topic".

Intimidation is not the point. The point is that maybe you ought to take the time to read and understand established works before you criticize or disagree with them. It's good to question things but we have to be a bit responsible I think. Our self-perceived strengths are usually also our greatest weakness.

I don't think I have any strength, or special ability, for challenging these "established topics". I just think that there may be some flaw, and am trying to point out a possible candidate. I have not had time (not just as far as lifetime goes, but also time within each day) to read very much on the different "Philosophies of the Mind", but I am continuing to learn, and do recognize the need for education (especially for someone like me, who likes to question).

No, the definition does not make any claims to truth. If emergent properties are a key component of the idealist view, then we MUST be able to assign a word to it. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant at the stage of assigning words. I've said this many times.

I disagree (note: I understand, but I disagree). As I've said before, I've no problem with your assigning words to what you call "emergent properties" (even though I am positing that there is no such thing (IOW, "emergent properties" is about as useful a collection of words for describing something as the word "nothing")), however, you cannot (or, rather, shouldn't) use them as part of your definition of Idealism (except to say that Idealists believe that there is such a thing as an "emergent property").

Ugh. Not good. Let's try to make this a little practical and see if it helps.

Zero definition of materialism

Materialist: "I believe in that which can be shown to exist"
Idealist: "Hey so do I!"
Materialist: "No you don't. You believe that "love" can be shown to exists right?"
Idealist: "Absolutely! Here gimme a kiss and I'll show you"
Materialist: "Get off me man! That's just your brain doing it's thing. Love does not exists"
Idealist: "Yes it does my friend."

Thoughts:
So we can see that the definition of materialism is the exact same definition that the idealist would claim for himself. No one is going to say that they believe in things that cannot be shown to exists. But the problem is that now we have to define what it means to be "shown to exist". A third person listening in would have no way of knowing which things the materialist believes in and which things the idealists believes in. The definition does not allow this distinction.

Erm...I probably shouldn't counter this, since it's not my main dispute with you, but I think you may be wrong. After all, the Materialist could tell the Idealist that the proposed kiss needn't be an indication of love, and thus "love" would still fall under the category of "things that cannot be shown to exist".

However, as I said, you may or may not be right about this and it probably makes no difference, as far as my main dispute with you goes.

Heusdens definition of materialism

Materialist: "I believe that what exists independent, outside and apart from consciousness is the primary existence."

Idealists: "I disagree with you. I believe what exist outside of consciousness is secondary."

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?! I think it's been said WAY too many times, for me to need to say it again: To say that something "exists inside of consciousness" is a completely Idealistic assumption. The true materialist cannot believe that something "exists within consciousness", since such things would not be material.

I again apologize for getting a bit "worked up", but I don't think I should edit this paragraph any further - as it may lose its "flavor".

Thoughts:
Right away an observer has the criteria for deciding which things a materialist believes in and which an idealist believes in. All the observer has to do is ask the question "Does the thing exists outside of consciousness?" Color for example does not so a materialists does not believe color actually exists. The debate between the 2 views can now move forward productively.

Not at all! To ask "does the thing exist outside of consciousness" is a non-sequitor to a materialist, since nothing exists "inside of consciousness". There is no phenomenological "world", as such things (again) would have to be immaterial.

Clearly this definition is better. You have somehow convinced yourself that this definition is biased. I can hear you saying now that by claiming matter(things outside of consciousness)is primary, it implies there is something else that is secondary. Again I must say that this is pure semantics. Believing that these things are secondary is the same as saying that they are useful concepts but they owe their entire existence to the thing that is primary.

No, no, no, it's not about their existing in a "secondary" form (or existing as "useful concepts that owe their existence to the material interactions"). Since you probably still don't see the bias, I will spell it out: If something immaterial exists as a result of something material, then the materialist viewpoint (that all things are material)is wrong, since the things that "owe their existence to" material interactions would not themselves be material!

Am I wrong?

We must agree that using concepts like love and mind to describe the results of a process is practical for communication. Whether it actually exists or not is not relevant for the definition. The materialist can claim that these things are simply words used to describe what is intrinsically the perceived results of material processes. But if we don't use these words then we have no way of expressing the idealist view.

And here you arrive at what I already posted some time ago: There is no grey area, from which to form a definition. You are trying to remain completely unbiased, but your attempt is in vain (AFAICS (as far as I can see)).

Mentat

Sep10-03, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Yes, we can say that vision exists as electrochemical brain activity. Just like we can say eating exists as ink etc. in recipes and menu cards, etc.. The descriptions can go into any desired detail. But that's not the whole story -- at least for those who don't want to acquiesce with reading recipes and menu cards etc., but instead really want to eat.

I believe, sascha, that you may have missed my point. I'm not saying information is as good as tangible things (if anything, I'm saying quite the opposite), I'm saying that, since there are no such "tangible things" in the brain, then (according to the materialist view) there are no such things at all in the mind.

sascha

Sep10-03, 03:49 PM

I was answering Zero's proposal to take the description for the thing. This does not necessarily mean only "information". For someone believing in cognitive theory, this theory is not just information, it is believed to be fact -- in fact, the only relevant fact.

Iacchus32

Sep10-03, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
There is no "image" on a stop sign. There's the paint and the metal, the photons and the neurons. Yeah, and I would like to see you explain that to the cop when he pulls you over for running the stop sign! [:D]

Zero

Sep11-03, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by sascha
Yes, we can say that vision exists as electrochemical brain activity. Just like we can say eating exists as ink etc. in recipes and menu cards, etc.. The descriptions can go into any desired detail. But that's not the whole story -- at least for those who don't want to acquiesce with reading recipes and menu cards etc., but instead really want to eat. I think this is the confusing part. What myself and Mentat are trying to say (I think) is that something like 'vision' is a word that describes a process, not something with a reality beyond the process. 'Seeing' doesn't exist, but objects, photons, and eyes do.

Iacchus32

Sep11-03, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I think this is the confusing part. What myself and Mentat are trying to say (I think) is that something like 'vision' is a word that describes a process, not something with a reality beyond the process. 'Seeing' doesn't exist, but objects, photons, and eyes do. And yet our ability to see, means just about everything in terms of our ability to "interpret" the real world.

You're just trying to sneak us past the notion that they eye itself has no functionality, and hence no purpose, nor would it allow us to keep from tripping over our big fat feet in the dark -- i.e., if we didn't have them. [;)]

Zero

Sep11-03, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet our ability to see, means just about everything in terms of our ability to "interpret" the real world.

You're just trying to sneak us past the notion that they eye itself has no functionality, and hence no purpose, nor would it allow us to keep from tripping over our big fat feet in the dark, i.e., if we didn't have them. [;)] I'm not trying to sneak anything past anything...[g)] I wish Mentat were around to help me get my point across, but I'll press on regardless. I think(correct me if I am wrong) that you and some others are objectifying the concept of processes as somehow separate from the physical workings of those processes. Claiming consiousness as distinct from the electrochemical reactions of the brain is like saying that fire is distinct from the combustion of something flamable. I seems that you would claim that an running automobile engine is made of two parts; the engine and the 'running', which exists on a different plane of existance from the engine.

sascha

Sep11-03, 05:02 AM

You say "something like 'vision' is a word that describes a process, not something with a reality beyond the process. 'Seeing' doesn't exist, but objects, photons, and eyes do". The trouble with this idea is that if it were completely true, you would have no influence over the process. The objects, photons, eyes etc. would do all of it. But in fact you can consciously control what you want to look at, i.e. you can look or not look (this is called "intentionality"). The idea which you and Mentat are exposing is contradictory with the facts as soon as one takes all of them into account. Of course one can choose to look at and thus 'see' (sic!) only part of the facts, but then this comes close to what Iacchus32 seems to address in saying you "sneak" us past something. We are not saying the engine is different from its running, but that you forget part of the engine and running.

Zero

Sep11-03, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by sascha
You say "something like 'vision' is a word that describes a process, not something with a reality beyond the process. 'Seeing' doesn't exist, but objects, photons, and eyes do". The trouble with this idea is that if it were completely true, you would have no influence over the process. The objects, photons, eyes etc. would do all of it. But in fact you can consciously control what you want to look at, i.e. you can look or not look (this is called "intentionality"). The idea which you and Mentat are exposing is contradictory with the facts as soon as one takes all of them into account. Of course one can choose to look at and thus 'see' (sic!) only part of the facts, but then this comes close to what Iacchus32 seems to address in saying you "sneak" us past something. We are not saying the engine is different from its running, but that you forget part of the engine and running. Actually, it is you that is trying to sneak something in. You are trying to claim some sort of special exception for consciousness, when in fact it is the 'running' that our brain-as-engine does. It is simply another process, and our control over it makes no difference at all.

I think that is certainly a source of your bias against materialism, isn't it? That it doesn't treat human intellect as some sort of special case? That tends to be the reason why people choose to ignore 'cold' facts, because they often don't feed people's self-centered need for meaning.

sascha

Sep11-03, 09:08 AM

I am not talking about your consciousness that is doing something, I am talking about your capacity of a willful choice, which is not explained in the machine model you present. Of course control makes all the difference, because there the machine idea is not applicable any more. Machines don't make and control themselves. You need a meta-machine (programmer, manufacturer, power, etc.) for that.
If the intellect were fully controlled by some mechanism, it would not be able to think freely, i.e. choose what it wants to think and check whether that corresponds. If your mind is under the control of something, then this is a good reason for me to stop communicating with you, because then what you think and say would be determined by that. There is nothing interestring in that, and nobody needs to lose his time with zombies.
So in what you say the problem is only shifted away into words. But of course any words can be uttered and believed in.
The real trouble is that the machine metaphore does not operate in categories that allow to think things like consciousness and personal identity in a noncompromised way. I have hinted at this many times. The Cartesian Split has some logical drawbacks which you still seem to ignore. Hard luck, buddy.

Mentat

Sep11-03, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yeah, and I would like to see you explain that to the cop when he pulls you over for running the stop sign! [:D]

LOL! [:D]

The policeman believes that there is an image there just as much as you do.

Mentat

Sep11-03, 11:18 AM

Mentat

Sep11-03, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I'm not trying to sneak anything past anything...[g)] I wish Mentat were around to help me get my point across, but I'll press on regardless.

I got your back now [:)].

I think(correct me if I am wrong) that you and some others are objectifying the concept of processes as somehow separate from the physical workings of those processes. Claiming consiousness as distinct from the electrochemical reactions of the brain is like saying that fire is distinct from the combustion of something flamable. I seems that you would claim that an running automobile engine is made of two parts; the engine and the 'running', which exists on a different plane of existance from the engine.

Good illustration, btw.

Mentat

Sep11-03, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by sascha
You say "something like 'vision' is a word that describes a process, not something with a reality beyond the process. 'Seeing' doesn't exist, but objects, photons, and eyes do". The trouble with this idea is that if it were completely true, you would have no influence over the process.

Why not? When he said that "objects, photons, and eyes exist" he may have omitted neurons and synapses, but I think they were implied.
"Choice" itself can be explained in terms of nothing more than the processes of the brain.

The objects, photons, eyes etc. would do all of it. But in fact you can consciously control what you want to look at, i.e. you can look or not look (this is called "intentionality"). The idea which you and Mentat are exposing is contradictory with the facts as soon as one takes all of them into account.

Not so. In fact, I turn this accusation back on you, and challenge you to point out the flaw in my reasoning for why there cannot be a part of the mind that is not physical.

Of course one can choose to look at and thus 'see' (sic!) only part of the facts, but then this comes close to what Iacchus32 seems to address in saying you "sneak" us past something. We are not saying the engine is different from its running, but that you forget part of the engine and running.

I didn't understand this last statement, could you please re-state it?

Mentat

Sep11-03, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by sascha
I am not talking about your consciousness that is doing something, I am talking about your capacity of a willful choice, which is not explained in the machine model you present. Of course control makes all the difference, because there the machine idea is not applicable any more. Machines don't make and control themselves. You need a meta-machine (programmer, manufacturer, power, etc.) for that.

Machines can indeed control themselves. You do it every day [;)].

Basically, your problem with the materialistic PoV is that you don't see how it can account for choices. Well, I don't see how you've explained "choices" in an Idealistic framework either.

There is, of course, my preferred explanation of "choice" from the materialistic PoV, and that is Daniel Dennett's from Consciousness Explained (this will be rather long, but I hope you endeavor to read it all before responding).

Basically (and I really mean "basically" since I couldn't possibly sum up the whole chapter in one post): An Idealist thinks of a "central id" or a "singular self" that controls the brain's functions. This is not allowable in the materialistic framework, and so we must completely eliminate the "center" altogether. In order to do this, Dennett proposes that all of the different parts of your brain can serve the multi-purpose of "asking" and "answering".

Now, there is an illustration that helps to explain what this means, and that is of the party game wherein one guest tries to figure out the content of a dream that the host (or anyone else really) has had. So, in order to figure this out, he asks each guest yes/no questions and tries to deduce the dream from their answers. However, there is a twist: the guests have not really been told a dream, but have been instructed to respond with a "yes" or a "no" depending on the last letter of the question that is asked.

So, if he were to ask you "Is the dream about the host's father", you would answer "no", because the last letter of the question ended in a letter that is in the second half of the alphabet. In this game, there is also the "non-contradiction" override rule, which doesn't allow you to contradict a previous answer, no matter what the last letter of the question was. So, if he later asked you "Is the dream about his dad?", you would still answer "no", even though the last letter is in the first half of the alphabet.

Do you understand the game? (If not, I can attempt to clarify any points you don't get.)

Dennett proposes that this is a very close model of what happens in our brains, all of the time (except, of course, for the fact that there is no central "questioner" but rather, all of the "answerers" also serve as "questioners").

Now, to apply it: Let's say that someone insults you. They thus trigger a response from the brain. The different parts of your brain involved (such as the language-producing parts, the parts that deal with emotion (since, obviously, this insult would affect how you "feel"), the "memory bank" (which is full of previous occurances that resemble this one), etc...) begin the question/answer process. This serves as a refinement of not only what you are going to say in response, but also if you are going to say anything at all.

Interestingly enough, this process doesn't necessarily stop after you respond with a witty come-back, since (as you've probably experience before) we often think about what "I should have said" (and sometimes, our memory is remodeled to think that we actually did say some of the things that we "wish we said").

I'm sorry for the length of this explanation, but it's not a matter easily addressed (and I've only given an outline).

The Cartesian Split has some logical drawbacks which you still seem to ignore. Hard luck, buddy.

It seems rather obsurd that you would direct a comment about the Cartesian division at Zero, when it is you who subscribes to a "mind" that exists seperate from the "brain" (the main concept behind Cartesian dualism).

sascha

Sep11-03, 12:33 PM

Mentat: Adding neurons and synapses (or anything else down the ladder) to objects, photons, and eyes won't change the principle. One can talk about choice as processes of the brain, at the price of nobody being responsible for anything any more (maybe this is what makes the idea so attractive to many). But this talk is an "explanation" only for the gullible, technicians who want to believe everything in the world is mechanisms. The point is not that the mind would not physical, because it evidently is, but that using it is not physical. The functioning of the mind as a "flow of consciousness" (as William James has been calling it) is not the same as your choosing what you want to be attentive to. If you were not capable of this choice, you could not coherently answer me there at your computer. You would be guided by whatever that mechanism happens to choose. That's where your flaw of reasoning is, or rather its blind spot (way back I gave the names of the logicians who proved all this). But famously blind spots are what one does not see in one's way of seeing. For the moment you seem happy this way. That's fine with me. You are free to believe whatever you like. But don't expect me to do so too. And insisting on a "blind spot" is close "sneaking us past something".

The part of control of a machine does not come from the machine itself, but from the programmer, designer, etc. You may not notice this fundamental dependency because you don't like the idea, but that's not my problem. BTW the alternative to Materialism is not Idealism. You will have to update your list. I have looked at Dennett's "Consciousness Explained", and I find he decribes a lot, but explains nothing. One can call his hypotheses "explanations", as many do, because as soon as they have some vivid imagery and scenarios, they believe they understand. But that's such a limited game. You never reach completeness, you only shift away the crucial points into ever new realms. You seem to think of the "id" as a "thing", and that's where you get off the track.

As I had expressed several times, more clearly than the usual account of the Cartesian Split, it arises every time concretely where a world view or activity is ruled by adopting the principle of distinguishing, describing, observing, measuring. This method logically inevitably entails a blind spot as to what can be distinguished, described, observed, measured. Your argument of my implying "a 'mind' that exists seperate from the 'brain'" is mechanical repetition of what is often handed around as the Cartesian idea.

Zero

Sep11-03, 12:43 PM

Zero

Sep11-03, 12:59 PM

Oh, and recall my earlier description of a plant 'choosing' to grow towards the sun. 'Consciousness' IMO, is nothing more or less than a highly complex form of simple biological function.

Iacchus32

Sep11-03, 01:49 PM

Zero

Sep11-03, 01:51 PM

Fliption

Sep11-03, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Mentat

Ok, I'll try that (and, perhaps, post some results). However, I feel it only right to inform you that people like Le Doux and Dennett (materialists who study the processes of the mind) have postulated that there are no such "emergent properties", and have explained (rather aptly, IMO) why this should be the case (just see my illustration (a few posts back, I guess) about the computer image. I came up with it from the information I gathered in these two Materialists' books).

And yet you haven't even read the opposing view?

however, you cannot (or, rather, shouldn't) use them as part of your definition of Idealism (except to say that Idealists believe that there is such a thing as an "emergent property").

And that is all I have done.

Erm...I probably shouldn't counter this, since it's not my main dispute with you, but I think you may be wrong. After all, the Materialist could tell the Idealist that the proposed kiss needn't be an indication of love, and thus "love" would still fall under the category of "things that cannot be shown to exist".

However, as I said, you may or may not be right about this and it probably makes no difference, as far as my main dispute with you goes.

Yes don't counter it cause you would be proving exactly what I was trying to prove. Don't you understand that the point of that example was not to defend Idealism? I wasn't trying to make a good argument for why love existed. I was merely trying to show that someone can take the view that it does because we cannot define "shown to exists". The fact that the materialist can make the claim you suggested just makes my point even more.

Whether the argument for or against materialism in my example is a good one or not is not the point. The point is that the definition doesn't lend itself to a debate on the topic at all. It just begs for more definitional clarification.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?! I think it's been said WAY too many times, for me to need to say it again: To say that something "exists inside of consciousness" is a completely Idealistic assumption. The true materialist cannot believe that something "exists within consciousness", since such things would not be material.

I again apologize for getting a bit "worked up", but I don't think I should edit this paragraph any further - as it may lose its "flavor".

I just don't get why you cannot accept this.Your view seems VERY extreme and impractical. What does the word "color" mean to you? Under your understanding of what "color" is, do you think it is a creation of your subjective experience or do you think color really exists?

Not at all! To ask "does the thing exist outside of consciousness" is a non-sequitor to a materialist, since nothing exists "inside of consciousness". There is no phenomenological "world", as such things (again) would have to be immaterial.

I feel that we are having severe semantic problems here. Just answer the question about color and maybe I can understand better what you're view is because it seems totally radical and unusable to me right now.

No, no, no, it's not about their existing in a "secondary" form (or existing as "useful concepts that owe their existence to the material interactions"). Since you probably still don't see the bias, I will spell it out: If something immaterial exists as a result of something material, then the materialist viewpoint (that all things are material)is wrong, since the things that "owe their existence to" material interactions would not themselves be material!

Am I wrong?

You are not wrong in your conclusion but your assumptions are wrong. I was trying to be extra careful so that you wouldn't make this claim but you did anyway. The labeling of the secondary "things" is simply assigning words to perceived effects to the processes of the primary "things". The word "color" is used to describe an effect of experiencing matter. Must people would agree color does not really exists but it is a very useful word for describing the effect. The materialists can easily make the conclusion that all things are material from this definition. The only bias here is desired bias. If you cannot see that this definition at least lends itself to helping people understand the distinctions between the views then I'm not sure what else to say.

And here you arrive at what I already posted some time ago: There is no grey area, from which to form a definition. You are trying to remain completely unbiased, but your attempt is in vain (AFAICS (as far as I can see)).

This is completely unreasonable for you to say there is no grey area. This goes against the whole idea of philosophy; claiming we cannot have a discussion on a topic because all the words are biased. When you started out participating in this thread you weren't saying this at all. You were disagreeing with me when I claimed that Zero's definition was biased and not effective for use in a discussion. Now you are trying to claim that it is impossible to come up with an unbiased definition of your view. So 2 things can be concluded from your view.

1) I was right. Zero's definition is biased.
2) There is no definition of materialism that will allow an opposing view. Because the materialists conclusion is built into the definition. And this apparently doesn't allow even a word to be assigned to an opposing view. Let alone an opposing argument.

This whole view to me is alot like writing a dissertation that brings the theory of relativity and quantum physics together mathematically and then getting graded down for improper use of commas. Not practical, unreasonable and totally missing the point.

Iacchus32

Sep11-03, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Zero
First off, no. Second, it doesn't imply anything. You are making up connections between ideas, not following from one logical conclusion to the next. Well how about this. Does the body exist for the sake of that "somebody" at the helm? Or, does that somebody at the helm exist for the sake of the body? In other words, who (or what) exactly is in control here?

Fliption

Sep11-03, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I think, 'buddy', that you need a different thread to deal with your issues...there are plenty of 'free will/determinism' threads for you to make your case in. There is no problem with a purely material brain 'running' in purely mechanical ways...except it doesn't make you feel special, does it?

I've seen a few remarks of this nature in the last few pages and thought I would offer another perspective. The view that there is something non-material has been painted as a view where people think that they are "special" and not just another lump of mechanistic clay. That somehow these people believe this because it is more pleasant for them to believe it. I think in many cases this is a motivation for this belief. On the other hand, I will also point out that the materialists view that things are nothing but mechanics is generally consistent with the idea that there is no absolute meaning to people or life in general. This allows for each person to find their own meaning in life. To define ones own meaning in life and totally disregard the possibilty of outside meaning is also a selfish position. As a matter of fact, it is probably the more selfish position. So I know many materialist desire to be materialist because it does eliminate any responsibility outside of what the self defines as important.

I don't think one view is better than another due to these motivations. But as someone who is more interested in learning rather than preaching, it helps to understand the motivations of people of all views.

Zero

Sep11-03, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Well how about this. Does the body exist for the sake of that "somebody" at the helm? Or, does that somebody at the helm exist for the sake of the body? In other words, who (or what) exactly is in control here? How about you don't start with such a huge assumption? You assume that the body is separate from the personality, that a person resides in a body. I say a person is their body, there is no distinction.

Zero

Sep11-03, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
I've seen a few remarks of this nature in the last few pages and thought I would offer another perspective. The view that there is something non-material has been painted as a view where people think that they are "special" and not just another lump of mechanistic clay. That somehow these people believe this because it is more pleasant for them to believe it. I think in many cases this is a motivation for this belief. On the other hand, I will also point out that the materialists view that things are nothing but mechanics is generally consistent with the idea that there is no absolute meaning to people or life in general. This allows for each person to find their own meaning in life. To define ones own meaning in life and totally disregard the possibilty of outside meaning is also a selfish position. As a matter of fact, it is probably the more selfish position. So I know many materialist desire to be materialist because it does eliminate any responsibility outside of what the self defines as important.

I don't think one view is better than another due to these motivations. But as someone who is more interested in learning rather than preaching, it helps to understand the motivations of people of all views. That's strange because, while I have seen many anti-materialists state that one of their reasons for opposition is a 'lack of meaning', I have NEVER seen a materialist claim that the support materialism as a vehicle for living a less than ethical life.

Fliption

Sep11-03, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Zero
That's strange because, while I have seen many anti-materialists state that one of their reasons for opposition is a 'lack of meaning', I have NEVER seen a materialist claim that the support materialism as a vehicle for living a less than ethical life.

Did I say "less than ethical"? If I did then it was a typo. Materialists may be highly ethical for all I know. But they have the luxury of choosing their own ethic. That was my only point.

But it doesn't just stop at ethics. All aspects of life can be determined by selfish desires and be consistent with materialism.

Also, you would expect the "more" selfish view to be more careful admitting the truth wouldn't you [:)]

But I hear materialist making these comments in a round-a-bout sort of way about their view all the time. Usually you can hear it in complaints about the consequences of the other view.

Zero

Sep11-03, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Did I say "less than ethical"? If I did then it was a typo. Materialists may be highly ethical for all I know. But they have the luxury of choosing their own ethic. That was my only point. EVERYONE chooses their own ethic...so what IS your point? And, if you could, make it quick so we don't go too far off-topic?[;)]

Fliption

Sep11-03, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Zero
EVERYONE chooses their own ethic...so what IS your point? And, if you could, make it quick so we don't go too far off-topic?[;)]

Techinically this is true. But a non-materialist has limits to how often they can change their view, unless they change to materialism. To get up and change ones view kind of waters down the whole premise of an outside meaning to life to begin with. Credibility is certainly at stake. A materialists however can get up each day and justify anything and maintain consistency with their world view.

Zero

Sep11-03, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Techinically this is true. But a non-materialist has limits to how often they can change their view, unless they change to materialism. To get up and change ones view kind of waters down the whole premise of an outside meaning to life to begin with. Credibility is certainly at stake. A materialists however can get up each day and justify anything and maintain consistency with their world view. I'm not buying it...you have an idealized view that suits you, but I don't think it reflects reality. Everyone can wake up every day and do as they please, even in the framework of a superstition-based worldview, and many people do.

Fliption

Sep11-03, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I'm not buying it...you have an idealized view that suits you, but I don't think it reflects reality. Everyone can wake up every day and do as they please, even in the framework of a superstition-based worldview, and many people do.

It is definitely true that if a person is going to hold that there is meaning in life beyond themselves then they are limited as to what they can claim from then on. All aspects of life must conform to that "meaning" if that persons lifestyle is going to be consistent with their beliefs(which is a big if). A materialist can justify anything and still be consistent with their beliefs. These are the facts. I wouldn't expect for you to "buy it" because it would mean you would have to refrain from the insulting comments to those that disagree with you.[;)]

Fliption

Sep11-03, 03:09 PM

Going back to the real topic, I was thinking alittle bit about what Mentat and I have been discussing. And I'd like to ask a question to all the proclaimed materialists to illustrate a point.

My question is this...."What possible result from a scientific experiment would convince you that all things are not material?"

IOW, what would it take for you to change your mind? Be very specific please.

Iacchus32

Sep11-03, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Zero
How about you don't start with such a huge assumption? You assume that the body is separate from the personality, that a person resides in a body. I say a person is their body, there is no distinction. This is really not an assumption at all, because if "I" didn't consciously tell my body what to do -- unless of course I were an automaton [;)] -- my body itself would not respond. Indeed, sometimes I feel like I'm just dragging my body around with me (more so when I'm tired). Therefore it's most appropritate to make the distinction between my conscious identity -- and hence my personality -- and, my physical body. And for anyone to suggest otherwise is totally absurd.

By the way, what happens when you fall asleep? Where do "you" go? Your body is still there, but obviously "you" are not. That is, until "you" (not your body) wake up and become consciously aware of your body laying there.

Whereas this is the very argument which is necessary to substantiate the fact that you have a soul. And, just as with the example given of the radio, the signals that it receives, is a seperate medium from the radio itself. Which is to say, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Zero

Sep12-03, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
It is definitely true that if a person is going to hold that there is meaning in life beyond themselves then they are limited as to what they can claim from then on. All aspects of life must conform to that "meaning" if that persons lifestyle is going to be consistent with their beliefs(which is a big if). A materialist can justify anything and still be consistent with their beliefs. These are the facts. I wouldn't expect for you to "buy it" because it would mean you would have to refrain from the insulting comments to those that disagree with you.[;)] You haven't seen insulting comments from me...check your PM inbox later.[!:)] I'll say that everyone does what they want to, and leave it at that.

Zero

Sep12-03, 01:48 AM

sascha

Sep12-03, 07:04 AM

Zero,
(1) The point is not threads for making a case of free will / determinism, but that the model of the purely material brain 'running' in purely mechanical ways can't explain freedom of mind beyond what a robot or animal does. This concerns your stance. So either you have a real explanation, which you did not disclose, or you do not, and then your stance is not worth while.
(2) Your desire to see a law of physics changed is quite revealing, because you don't say against what frame of reference you would be capable of understanding the change. The frame must be clarified. Or in other words, what is "a law of physics" to you? For example, in the course of time quite a few changes befell the law of gravitation. It was not always formulated in the same way. How do you distinguish one type of changes against others? Which version is the law as such?

Zero

Sep12-03, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by sascha
Zero,
(1) The point is not threads for making a case of free will / determinism, but that the model of the purely material brain 'running' in purely mechanical ways can't explain freedom of mind beyond what a robot or animal does. This concerns your stance. So either you have a real explanation, which you did not disclose, or you do not, and then your stance is not worth while.

Humans are animals...so you have no point, do you? If you had just said 'robots', you may have had a case, but since you included other animals, you showed where your bias lies...thanks for making it easy on me!!

(2) Your desire to see a law of physics changed is quite revealing, because you don't say against what frame of reference you would be capable of understanding the change. The frame must be clarified. Or in other words, what is "a law of physics" to you? For example, in the course of time quite a few changes befell the law of gravitation. It was not always formulated in the same way. How do you distinguish one type of changes against others? Which version is the law as such? Well, your concerns on this are fine, but I am talking about a major change in the physical world, with no apparent physical cause. Also, you seem to think that gravity itself is flexible?? Anyhoo, an example...Say, change the color of the sky...and, frankly, even then I would be skeptical.[:D]

sascha

Sep12-03, 12:52 PM

So if I understand you correctly, there is nothing that distinguishes humans from, say, earthworms? Interesting, isn't it? Some earthworms being capable of formulating such complex theories on the universe, and even discussing whether they are true!

Gravity itself is a phenomenon, not a law. So is the blue of the sky. Or the speed of light. This is why you would first have to tell what you mean by a law of nature. Few physicists are clear about this.

Mentat

Sep12-03, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Mentat: Adding neurons and synapses (or anything else down the ladder) to objects, photons, and eyes won't change the principle. One can talk about choice as processes of the brain, at the price of nobody being responsible for anything any more (maybe this is what makes the idea so attractive to many).

Balderdash. There is absolutely nothing in the materialistic PoV that makes one exempt from the results of their actions. This conclusion can only be drawn if one still believes that the self and the brain are two different things, and thus I can assign guilt to the brain, while leaving the "self" exempt.

But this talk is an "explanation" only for the gullible, technicians who want to believe everything in the world is mechanisms. The point is not that the mind would not physical, because it evidently is, but that using it is not physical. The functioning of the mind as a "flow of consciousness" (as William James has been calling it) is not the same as your choosing what you want to be attentive to. If you were not capable of this choice, you could not coherently answer me there at your computer.

But I am capable of that choice. When did I ever say otherwise. I spent a very long amount of time posting a post that explained a possible framework for how I make choices, did you miss it completely?

You would be guided by whatever that mechanism happens to choose. That's where your flaw of reasoning is, or rather its blind spot (way back I gave the names of the logicians who proved all this).

Again, you are referring to the self as seperate from the actions of the brain. Show how this is even possible, or stop bringing it up, please.

The part of control of a machine does not come from the machine itself, but from the programmer, designer, etc. You may not notice this fundamental dependency because you don't like the idea, but that's not my problem.

You may insist that such a dependency exists, but that's because you "don't like" the alternative, and that's not my problem either.

[quote]
BTW the alternative to Materialism is not Idealism. You will have to update your list. I have looked at Dennett's "Consciousness Explained", and I find he decribes a lot, but explains nothing. One can call his hypotheses "explanations", as many do, because as soon as they have some vivid imagery and scenarios, they believe they understand. But that's such a limited game. You never reach completeness, you only shift away the crucial points into ever new realms. You seem to think of the "id" as a "thing", and that's where you get off the track.

Ah-ha! And here is where your reasoning will get kicked in the stomach by logic itself. If the "id" is not a thing then it is nothing. And if it is nothing, then it doesn't exist (obviously). So, either it's a thing, or it doesn't exist.

As I had expressed several times, more clearly than the usual account of the Cartesian Split, it arises every time concretely where a world view or activity is ruled by adopting the principle of distinguishing, describing, observing, measuring. This method logically inevitably entails a blind spot as to what can be distinguished, described, observed, measured. Your argument of my implying "a 'mind' that exists seperate from the 'brain'" is mechanical repetition of what is often handed around as the Cartesian idea.

But you have yet to counter my reasoning for why the split of the "mind" and the brain is completely against logic.

I suggest you actually address my arguments (no offense), instead of assuming that you have it all figured out already, and need to "educate" me. This is exactly the mistake that Alexander used to make, and none of his discussions ever really got anywhere.

Zero

Sep12-03, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by sascha
So if I understand you correctly, there is nothing that distinguishes humans from, say, earthworms? Interesting, isn't it? Some earthworms being capable of formulating such complex theories on the universe, and even trying to checking whether they are true!
Ummm...we are still animals. We do teh thinking thing better than most animals, but that is a difference of degree, not kind.

sascha

Sep12-03, 01:07 PM

So, Mentat, are laws (i.e. forms of order) things? Or do they not exist? (Sonme say minds make them up; but if the world were not ordered, nobody could distinguish anything and would not even have the possibility of inventing laws about it, since that requires an orderly organism).

And, Zero, do you think that thinking e.g. infinity is only a question of degree in thinking? How come then that robot / animal / formal systems have a limit which human thinking does not have per se? (remember Goedel, etc).

Mentat

Sep12-03, 01:08 PM

Zero

Sep12-03, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by sascha
So, Mentat, are laws (i.e. forms of order) things? Or do they not exist? (Sonme say minds make them up; but if the world were not ordered, nobody could distinguish anything and would not even have the possibility of inventing laws about it, since that requires an orderly organism).

And, Zero, do you think that thinking e.g. infinity is only a question of degree in thinking? How come then that robot / animal / formal systems have a limit which human thinking does not have per se? (remember Goedel, etc). Laws are descriptions based on observation, no more or less...

What do you mean by "thinking e.g. infinity"? And why do you think that human thinking is qualitatively different from, say, canine thinking?

Zero

Sep12-03, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
And I have given a perfectly reasonable (IMO) hypothesis (not my own, but I certainly approve of it) as to how a machine can run in "purely mechanical ways", so it's not like we're clinging to materialism out of some blind faith. Of course not...we are the opposite of 'blind faith' proponents.

Mentat

Sep12-03, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...we are still animals. We do teh thinking thing better than most animals, but that is a difference of degree, not kind.

That's what I've been trying to say for quite some time. A few of the members (Royce being a really good example) have also expressed the view that consciousnesss is nothing but a highly evolved form of what other (please note: "other") animals do all of the time.

Mentat

Sep12-03, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are you trying to suggest we're just automatons then? If not, then that would imply that "somebody" is at control of the helm. Which, is something we would rather not deal with -- and perchance sneak past everybody? -- because it gives rise to this awful notion of a soul. And that I'm afraid, is just too intolerable to think of!

Whereas poof, just like that, there goes your whole materialistic point of view. [;)]

Puh-lease! It only implies that "somebody is at control of the helm" to you because you are so stuck in the Idealistic PoV. Think of this though (and please don't take this lightly), wouldn't the "somebody" who is "at the helm", have to also be conscious? Doesn't that mean that he too must have "somebody" at his helm (if you say "no", then that means that there is some other way to be conscious, and thus you have to explain why we aren't just conscious in that way), who - in turn - has somebody at his "helm", and so on ad infinitum?

Zero

Sep12-03, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
That's what I've been trying to say for quite some time. A few of the members (Royce being a really good example) have also expressed the view that consciousnesss is nothing but a highly evolved form of what other (please note: "other") animals do all of the time. Do you suppose this is the ultimate source of the bias against materialism, that it doesn't allow people to feel 'above' the rest of the animal kingdom? Maybe we should make a list of reasons for the bias:

1) Materialism isn't human-centered.
2) It doesn't provide a supernatural-based ethical foundation.
3) It requires more brain-sweat than believing in whatever makes you happiest.

Can you think of any more? I know I've missed a few.

BTW, I see many of these arguments are very 'religious', in that they depend on the same sort of thinking that requires exceptions and special cases to make sense. Cats, rats, and people have nearly identical brains...but somehow human consciousness must be different, so the 'soul' concept has to be engaged.

sascha

Sep12-03, 01:20 PM

Sure, laws can be described as mere descriptions based on observation. But mere description does not justify any validity. There is more to a law than that. Or then it is not really a law.

Zero

Sep12-03, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Sure, laws can be described as mere descriptions based on observation. But mere description does not justify any validity. There is more to a law than that. Or then it is not really a law. Good point. We'll stop calling them laws. Can we move on now?[g)] (I seriously don't care about terminology, so long as we agree on what is being talked about)

sascha

Sep12-03, 01:29 PM

Never mind what you call them (name tag); the point is what you mean by them. As long as there is something of the nature of what we call laws (or jhQWDqwe541i234lkn), the problem exists.

Zero

Sep12-03, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Never mind what you call them (name tag); the point is what you mean by them. As long as there is something of the nature of what we call laws (or jhQWDqwe541i234lkn), the problem exists. And what problem is that? I still don't understand your point about physical rules. You drop things, they fall. Any time that they don't, there is a physical reason for it. Drop something that shuld fall, and it doesn't fall, and that would be a good step towards showing me that a non-materialistic viewpoint has merit.

sascha

Sep12-03, 01:41 PM

Zero, I have much sympathy for your endeavour to emphasize a need for overcoming the hope of many people to be 'above' the rest of the animal kingdom. This is indeed an important point in our crazy times, where nearly everybody wants to overpower the others. The difference between your approach (you might want to say the "materialist" approach -- but by far not all people handle it in the same way) and mine is that you emphasize the inevitable subordination of beings under the laws of matter (if it were matter without laws, matter would have no power over them), while I emphasize the absolute need for a categoreality in thinking which is truly universal -- and which, in fact, only those minds can reach who operate in profound humility. To my sense, the subordination under matter is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for getting clear the whole philosophical riddle.

sascha

Sep12-03, 01:46 PM

The problem of laws is not only in the single "rules", such as mass attracted towards other mass, but the hierarchy of all laws, in the last resort the overall order -- e.g. what is the relation between relativity and quantum approach, what makes "things" come and go at all, etc.

Mentat

Sep12-03, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
And yet you haven't even read the opposing view?

No, because to say that the mind is anything other than physical is to imply a line of reasoning that leads to infinite regress - as I've shown numerous times in the past.

And that is all I have done.

Yeah right. No offense, but you used terms of a completely Idealistic nature (such as "inside consciousness" and "outside consciousness" and "mind" (as something other than the brain, that is)), throughout the entire discussion thusfar, and now you say that you've only been saying "Idealists believe in emergent properties"?

No, you were saying (before, at least) that Idealists believe that these "emergent properties" are primary while materialists believe them to be secondary.

Yes don't counter it cause you would be proving exactly what I was trying to prove. Don't you understand that the point of that example was not to defend Idealism? I wasn't trying to make a good argument for why love existed. I was merely trying to show that someone can take the view that it does because we cannot define "shown to exists". The fact that the materialist can make the claim you suggested just makes my point even more.

No it doesn't. Don't you realize yet that no one can show love (or anything else that isn't physical) to exist? It isn't logically possible, because, even if Idealism was correct, there would be no way to convey my "thoughts" to you, except through physical means.

Thus, when I say that Zero's definition is OK (though slightly misleading), I am saying that because no Idealist can ever *show* that there is such a thing as "things that exist only 'inside consciousness'".

Whether the argument for or against materialism in my example is a good one or not is not the point. The point is that the definition doesn't lend itself to a debate on the topic at all. It just begs for more definitional clarification.

Only when someone (you, in this case) wishes to enforce the fact that phenomenological things can be shown to exist. This is, obviously, not the case.

Now, we can either continue to debate this utterly meaningless problem that you have with Zero's original definition or we can move on (perhaps using my definition instead), like rational people do.

I just don't get why you cannot accept this.Your view seems VERY extreme and impractical. What does the word "color" mean to you? Under your understanding of what "color" is, do you think it is a creation of your subjective experience or do you think color really exists?

Color doesn't "really exist" (I can't believe that you, of all people, would ever use the term "really exist" [8)] [;)]). Color is a part of our processing incoming light of different wavelengths.

Basically, it (light of a particular wavelength) has a certain effect on our retina and that sends a distinguished message (distinguished from other wavelengths, that is) to the brain.

Color exists as much as pain does. It is just a way that our brain has evolved to process a certain kind of stimulus.

I feel that we are having severe semantic problems here. Just answer the question about color and maybe I can understand better what you're view is because it seems totally radical and unusable to me right now.

What's so "unusable" about it? I understand if it seems "radical", since it's counter-intuitive (our consciousness plays a very convincing "trick" on itself), but not unusable.

As is the case with a magician and a gullible audience, the card never really passed through the table (nor did it in any metaphysical make-believe world), it is a trick the brain plays on itself.

You are not wrong in your conclusion but your assumptions are wrong. I was trying to be extra careful so that you wouldn't make this claim but you did anyway. The labeling of the secondary "things" is simply assigning words to perceived effects to the processes of the primary "things". The word "color" is used to describe an effect of experiencing matter. Must people would agree color does not really exists but it is a very useful word for describing the effect. The materialists can easily make the conclusion that all things are material from this definition. The only bias here is desired bias. If you cannot see that this definition at least lends itself to helping people understand the distinctions between the views then I'm not sure what else to say.

Oh, it's easy to see how it helps in explanation, but it's nothing more than that. Color (and all other such words that you believe refer to some "secondary thing") does not exist (in any sense of the word).

This is completely unreasonable for you to say there is no grey area. This goes against the whole idea of philosophy; claiming we cannot have a discussion on a topic because all the words are biased. When you started out participating in this thread you weren't saying this at all. You were disagreeing with me when I claimed that Zero's definition was biased and not effective for use in a discussion. Now you are trying to claim that it is impossible to come up with an unbiased definition of your view. So 2 things can be concluded from your view.

1) I was right. Zero's definition is biased.
2) There is no definition of materialism that will allow an opposing view. Because the materialists conclusion is built into the definition. And this apparently doesn't allow even a word to be assigned to an opposing view. Let alone an opposing argument.

No, no, no, you misunderstood (probably my fault). When I said that there was no "grey area", I meant that you haven't found any unbiased way of defining Idealism. And, if you can't be unbiased, then you can't try to define immediately, but must reverse the order that you and Heusdens decided on.

Anyway, Zero's definition doesn't directly refer to what materialism is, because (and I was hoping I wouldn't have to bring this up) materialism is not a belief (any more than atheism is), but it is rather a negation of a belief. The materialist's opinion is that there are no "emergent properties", which is merely a negation of the Idealistic assumption that there are.

AFAIC, even the definition "...believes in all things that can be shown to exist" is just a negation (rightly so, since it is ascribed to materialism) of the idea that "something exists which cannot be shown to others as existing".

Mentat

Sep12-03, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Never mind what you call them (name tag); the point is what you mean by them. As long as there is something of the nature of what we call laws (or jhQWDqwe541i234lkn), the problem exists.

No it doesn't. The "problem" is not semantics (which is what you made is seem like, btw, when you kept referrring to fact that we still call "them" "laws") it's in the very concept behind the words used. There is no "law" to the Universe since there would be no one to dictate that such "laws" are to be obeyed (leaving discussions of God out of this) and the Universe isn't conscious anyway (leaving discussions of panpsychism out as well), so it wouldn't be able to "comply" with any "laws".

When a scientist says "Law", s/he is referring to an observation made about the way that the Universe behaves.

sascha

Sep12-03, 01:50 PM

Zero, if you want an example of matter not falling where it should, look at any plant. It carries matter upwards -- but why should it do so?

Zero

Sep12-03, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Mentat

Anyway, Zero's definition doesn't directly refer to what materialism is, because (and I was hoping I wouldn't have to bring this up) materialism is not a belief (any more than atheism is), but it is rather a negation of a belief. The materialist's opinion is that there are no "emergent properties", which is merely a negation of the Idealistic assumption that there are.

AFAIC, even the definition "...believes in all things that can be shown to exist" is just a negation (rightly so, since it is ascribed to materialism) of the idea that "something exists which cannot be shown to others as existing". Well, it DOES dovetail nicely with my atheism, doesn't it? Quick, someone make the calim that it is logical to assert the existance of things which cannot actually be shown to exist!!

Zero

Sep12-03, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Zero, if you want an example of matter not falling where it should, look at any plant. It carries matter upwards -- but why should it do so? That is a rather inane example, isn't it? I expected something much better. When you have a REAL example, feel free to try again.

sascha

Sep12-03, 01:58 PM

Laws have nothing to do with a dictate, but with the way things ultimately are structured, or the way processes ultimately unravel. The dictate aspect comes in only when conflating the concept of law with the concept of force. This is widespread, but certainly not what I am doing.

Mentat

Sep12-03, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Going back to the real topic, I was thinking alittle bit about what Mentat and I have been discussing. And I'd like to ask a question to all the proclaimed materialists to illustrate a point.

My question is this...."What possible result from a scientific experiment would convince you that all things are not material?"

A scientific experiment occurs in the physical realm and can thus have no relation with the metaphysical (science doesn't deal with such question anyway). So no scientific experiment could ever show this. As to this...

IOW, what would it take for you to change your mind? Be very specific please.

1) It would take an explanation of what the intermediary, between that which is physical and that which is not, is.

2) It would take an explanation of how the mind can have an "inner observer" (of all the phenomenological events) without infinite regress.

There are probably other things (perhaps Zero will post them) that would be needed, but these two seem impossible enough for the time being [;)].

sascha

Sep12-03, 02:02 PM

Sure, Zero, you will tell me that the genes of the plant make it do that. But this merely shifts the problem into the genes. Why should something want to have genes of growth? Why should matter want to live at all?

Mentat

Sep12-03, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Laws have nothing to do with a dictate, but with the way things ultimately are structured, or the way processes ultimately unravel. The dictate aspect comes in only when conflating the concept of law with the concept of force. This is widespread, but certainly not what I am doing.

The way processes unravel may or may not be an indication of how they are "ultimately stuctured". See the first post of this thread. (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2740&highlight=Universe+without+logic)

Whether or not this is the case is really the determining factor in whether these observations should (logically) be called "laws" or not.

Mentat

Sep12-03, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Sure, Zero, you will tell me that the genes of the plant make it do that. But this merely shifts the problem into the genes. Why should something want to have genes of growth? Why should matter want to live at all?

Matter doesn't "want" anything. Study some evolutionary theory, you seem to have missed that part in high school Biology.

BTW, life is a very good way to increase entropy, and that is what the Universe tends toward.

Zero

Sep12-03, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Sure, Zero, you will tell me that the genes of the plant make it do that. But this merely shifts the problem into the genes. Why should something want to have genes of growth? Why should matter want to live at all? Assigning wants and needs to matter...very anthropomorphic of you, and illogical.

sascha

Sep12-03, 02:11 PM

But if matter wants nothing, how come it invented life for increasing its entropy (as Mentat put it)? You might note that evolutionary theory does not have an answer to precisely this point.

Zero

Sep12-03, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by sascha
But if matter wants nothing, how come it invented life for increasing its entropy (as Mentat put it)? You might note that evolutionary theory does not have an answer to precisely this point. You are going backwards...and you are trying to assign porpose, which is #4 on the list of why people reject the evidence for materialism...

sascha

Sep12-03, 02:19 PM

I mean: there is no empirical evidence for matter producing life on its own, only lots of hypotheses (i.e. provisional beliefs). The Miller type experiments reach up to some tidbits, then that's it. No alive cell can be manfactured or be observed to come together. This has nothing to do with assigning purpose, but only with describing.

Mentat

Sep12-03, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by sascha
But if matter wants nothing, how come it invented life for increasing its entropy (as Mentat put it)? You might note that evolutionary theory does not have an answer to precisely this point.

It didn't "invent" life, life is still a part of nature, it's just a different (more effecient) form of the same stuff.

Mentat

Sep12-03, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by sascha
I mean: there is no empirical evidence for matter producing life on its own, only lots of hypotheses (i.e. provisional beliefs). The Miller type experiments reach up to some tidbits, then that's it. No alive cell can be manfactured or be observed to come together. This has nothing to do with assigning purpose, but only with describing.

Don't turn this into a debate about evolution, please. The last thing we need is a side-track that will potentially get the thread severed in half (or worse, moved).

sascha

Sep12-03, 02:25 PM

Either the materialist PoV can make really sure about this, or it must be doubted. That's not off topic at all.

Mentat

Sep12-03, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Either the materialist PoV can make really sure about this, or it must be doubted. That's not off topic at all.

Yes it is. You are right that it is an important point in the argument between materialistic and idealistic viewpoints, however the current discussion is of the nature of consciousness, and I don't want to leave this undecided or misunderstood.

Zero

Sep12-03, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Either the materialist PoV can make really sure about this, or it must be doubted. That's not off topic at all. Anything can be doubted...except if you believe in spirits and special cases, in which you can always have a handy non-explanation to use.

sascha

Sep12-03, 02:30 PM

BTW, why is Mentat attributing efficiency to matter?

Zero

Sep12-03, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by sascha
I mean: there is no empirical evidence for matter producing life on its own, only lots of hypotheses (i.e. provisional beliefs). The Miller type experiments reach up to some tidbits, then that's it. No alive cell can be manfactured or be observed to come together. This has nothing to do with assigning purpose, but only with describing. Again, this is a case of a complex process which mirrors less complex ones. It is just chemistry, the same things that cause rainclouds and icicles, forms life. Mo magic, nothing but a fancier result of basic reactions.

Zero

Sep12-03, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by sascha
BTW, why is Mentat attributing efficiency to matter? Actually, I think he may have misspoken...life is not efficient at all, but I think I'll leave it to him to clarify...

sascha

Sep12-03, 02:35 PM

Mentat, the alternative to Materialism is not just Idealism. There is at least another dozen positions, in case you care.
And Zero, I don't see your point about doubting and spirits etc..

Mentat

Sep12-03, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by sascha
BTW, why is Mentat attributing efficiency to matter?

I meant (as can be easily deduced from my previous posts) that it (a living organism) is very effecient at increasing entropy - which is the path of least resistance for the Universe, and thus doesn't need to be "strived for" (as I may have accidentally implied) but is the inevitable tendency.

Zero

Sep12-03, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by sascha

And Zero, I don't see your point. Which point are you missing?

Mentat

Sep12-03, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Mentat, the alternative to Materialism is not just Idealism. There is at least another dozen positions, in case you care.
And Zero, I don't see your point.

Materialism is not a belief. Materialism is the negation of Idealism. Thus, any idea that is not Idealistic in any way is Materialistic.

The same comparison can be drawn between "physical" and "metaphysical". Anything that is not physical is it's negation (the metaphysical).

Zero

Sep12-03, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
I meant (as can be easily deduced from my previous posts) that it (a living organism) is very effecient at increasing entropy - which is the path of least resistance for the Universe, and thus doesn't need to be "strived for" (as I may have accidentally implied) but is the inevitable tendency. Ahhh, that makes perfect sense. Living things are entropy machines, so their existance seems to be almost a forgone conclusion.

Mentat

Sep12-03, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Ahhh, that makes perfect sense. Living things are entropy machines, so their existance seems to be almost a forgone conclusion.

Yeah, I probably should have just said it like that and avoided misunderstanding [g)].

sascha

Sep12-03, 02:42 PM

So if I understand you correctly, Mentat, life would be most efficient if it would destroy as much as possible as quickly as possible. Interesting.

Zero

Sep12-03, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by sascha
So if I understand you correctly, Mentat, life would be most efficient if it would destroy as much as possible as quickly as possible. Interesting. Entropy doesn't mean destruction...you don't seem to have enough knowledge of the physical world to be making judgments on it, at least based on this and your posting about evolution.

Mentat

Sep12-03, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by sascha
So if I understand you correctly, Mentat, life would be most efficient if it would destroy as much as possible as quickly as possible. Interesting.

LMBO!

You can't be serious.

Yes, I suppose this could be true, but I never implied it. I was merely saying that life itself is very good - in itself - at increasing entropy.

sascha

Sep12-03, 02:48 PM

I did not want to go into the lengths of talking about usable energy and things like that, but these details do not really make so much of a difference.

Mentat

Sep12-03, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by sascha
I did not want to go into the lengths of talking about usable energy and things like that, but these details do not really make so much of a difference.

What details?

Anyway, can we get back on-topic please?

Zero

Sep12-03, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
What details?

Anyway, can we get back on-topic please? No, because if we stay on topic, he's out of special cases and exceptions!![:D]

Mentat

Sep12-03, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Zero
No, because if we stay on topic, he's out of special cases and exceptions!![:D]

Alright, let's play nice now [:D].

Back on-topic: Zero, do you agree with the necessary logical proofs to convince a materialist of an immaterial mind? Are there any that you would add?

Also, does anyone believe they can rise to the challenge of proving either of those points?

sascha

Sep12-03, 02:58 PM

How can there be special cases and exceptions in a world view that aspires to completeness?

Mentat

Sep12-03, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by sascha
How can there be special cases and exceptions in a world view that aspires to completeness?

Whoah! Be careful, sascha, this is an entirely different topic, and has much greater potential for side-tracking the thread.

sascha

Sep12-03, 03:22 PM

Mentat, when asked "what would it take for you to change your mind?" you said
1) It would take an explanation of what the intermediary, between that which is physical and that which is not, is.
2) It would take an explanation of how the mind can have an "inner observer" (of all the phenomenological events) without infinite regress.
So let me give you a proposal.
What you call the intermediary between the physical and the non-physical is the realm of laws and forces. They are not directly measurable, but effective. And the mind does not need an "inner observer" because it does not operate in the observation mode. It operates in the mode of identification with or rejection of ideas. This is an activity, not a state. But activity as such is not in the scope of scientific categories, only results of acts. (This is where the postulate of an observer comes from; it has nothing to do with the nature of the mind, but with the presently usual scientific approach.)

sascha

Sep12-03, 04:03 PM

You suddenly seem to be busy with other things. I have put my points very succinctly, but we can go into any detail. Yet I will be off for today: here it is 11 p.m.. Don't be astonished if sometimes I am long in responding, as my access to the internet is not very reliable: for the time being it is interrupted now and then.

Fliption

Sep12-03, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
No, because to say that the mind is anything other than physical is to imply a line of reasoning that leads to infinite regress - as I've shown numerous times in the past.

This is like saying that because I disagree with their conclusions I'm not going to bother reading the argument. Let's not throw out a perfectly good scientific area of study(complexity) just because we don't like where it leads, alright?

Yeah right. No offense, but you used terms of a completely Idealistic nature (such as "inside consciousness" and "outside consciousness" and "mind" (as something other than the brain, that is)), throughout the entire discussion thusfar, and now you say that you've only been saying "Idealists believe in emergent properties"?

Mentat, if you would like I can go back and show where you yourself have used words like "mind" in a casual manner. It wasn't in a sentence denying that the mind existed or anything like that. You were simply using it because it was a useful word and conveyed the point. That is all I am doing. What I keep trying to tell you is that just because we assign a word to something doesn't mean it actually exists. But once we assign the words it allows for the option of someone to claim that it does, for example an idealist. You're simply trying to build your conclusions into the definitions. A philosophical debate cannot happen when you won't allow the use of words to describe the opposing position.

No, you were saying (before, at least) that Idealists believe that these "emergent properties" are primary while materialists believe them to be secondary.

And I also explained that they don't necessarily mean different things. A materialist can claim that secondary things are only concepts used for the purposes of communication (like color). They don't really exists.

No it doesn't. Don't you realize yet that no one can show love (or anything else that isn't physical) to exist? It isn't logically possible, because, even if Idealism was correct, there would be no way to convey my "thoughts" to you, except through physical means.

Thus, when I say that Zero's definition is OK (though slightly misleading), I am saying that because no Idealist can ever *show* that there is such a thing as "things that exist only 'inside consciousness'".

MENTAT! My example HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT FOR PROVING LOVE! The fact that you don't understand the point of my example is the reason I keep responding and telling you that you aren't understanding my whole point.

I will even go so far as to say that I can agree with what you are saying about how love cannot be shown. But that isn't the point! The point is that someone thinks it can be! Namely the idealists. What is the criteria for something being "shown to exists?" The whole point is not to agree with idealism but to simply make the argument that "shown to exists" is not specific enough of a definition to draw a distinctive line. And this has always been my only point.

Only when someone (you, in this case) wishes to enforce the fact that phenomenological things can be shown to exist. This is, obviously, not the case.

Exactly! Here you are getting my point from above. I am not personally making the argument that idealism is true. I am simply saying that anyone can stand up and claim that love "can be shown to exists" and that is just as obvious to them as the opposite view is to you. The problem is that this definition uses vague words that mean different things to different people, so the definition is not useful.

Now, we can either continue to debate this utterly meaningless problem that you have with Zero's original definition or we can move on (perhaps using my definition instead), like rational people do.

I haven't seen any other definition proposed besides Heusdens and one from an office dictionary which should never be used to understand a philosophical position that has libraries of books written on it. "What rational people do" is understand how to define a dogma before they defend it. Contrary to what you are saying this is extremely important. I am pointing out to you why you will never accomplish anything on these forums on this topic. Everyone is speaking a different language. The only purpose that can be served by continuing in that manner is to use the forum as a venting place where people can be safely insulted.

Color doesn't "really exist" (I can't believe that you, of all people, would ever use the term "really exist" [8)] [;)]). Color is a part of our processing incoming light of different wavelengths.

Ok good. Color doesn't exists. But it is a word and a concept nonetheless, no? It is used to describe the subjective experience that exist along with these processes you mentioned. Now that we have a word for it, someone can now step in and claim it really DOES exists. Whether it does or not is not the point. If you don't have words to describe the distinctions then the debate is meaningless. Heusdens definition is very clear about what types of things an idealists would claim is primary. Color happened inside consciousness (and everyone knows and agrees on what that means Mentat as opposed to "shown to exists") and therefore according to a materialists doesn't exists except as another label for the physical process and according to an idealists it does exists.

What's so "unusable" about it? I understand if it seems "radical", since it's counter-intuitive (our consciousness plays a very convincing "trick" on itself), but not unusable.

As is the case with a magician and a gullible audience, the card never really passed through the table (nor did it in any metaphysical make-believe world), it is a trick the brain plays on itself.

Come on now. Let's not be patronizing. For some reason you cannot seem to separate the semantics from the debate itself. All I'm talking about is semantics. You keep dragging things into the debate itself. None of this stuff above is relevant.

Oh, it's easy to see how it helps in explanation, but it's nothing more than that. Color (and all other such words that you believe refer to some "secondary thing") does not exist (in any sense of the word).

But yet it is still a word that can be used in a definition of Idealism. Whether it exists or not IS NOT THE POINT.

And, if you can't be unbiased, then you can't try to define immediately, but must reverse the order that you and Heusdens decided on.

The order? I'm not sure what you're talking about. Heusdens and I didn't decide anything btw. He was presenting you the established philosophical definition of materialism. The one that no other famous materialist seemed to have a problem with.

When I said zero's definition was biased, I mean that the definition forces you to conclude materialism. It assumes it's conclusion. Whereas the definition that Heusdens showed does not preclude a materialist from being a materialist. I have explained how a materialist can use this definition to maintain their view. This definition is simply a better use of words to distinguish the two views. The only bias here is desired biased.

Fliption

Sep12-03, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I'll say that everyone does what they want to, and leave it at that.

I hear the echoes of a foot stomping.

Fliption

Sep12-03, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
A scientific experiment occurs in the physical realm and can thus have no relation with the metaphysical (science doesn't deal with such question anyway). So no scientific experiment could ever show this.

OK, so a person that believes knowledge can only come from science
must be a materialists according to you? And I don't know what you mean by the word "physical".

1) It would take an explanation of what the intermediary, between that which is physical and that which is not, is.

An idealists can claim this same explanation must happen but it must come from the materialist side. Who has the burden of proof depends on what view you take to begin with so this shouldn't be used as a reason to "not" accept idealism. Most people would agree that all our knowlegde is subjective. Whether what we are experiencing actually exists at all or exists in the way that we are experiencing it is an assumption. It seems the people making this assumption ought to have the burden of explaining problem number 1.

2) It would take an explanation of how the mind can have an "inner observer" (of all the phenomenological events) without infinite regress.

To be honest I've seen you type this several times but it doesn't mean anything to me. I don't understand what it means.

sascha

Sep13-03, 01:35 AM

Fliption, you don't seem to understand what Mentat means by the "inner observer", which implies an infinite regress. It is simply the so called "homunculus problem" which the cognitive sciences have. You can find a relatively good discussion of such things for example on The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, on the Web. Even for those people the problem is by far not as "solved" as for Mentat.

Mentat

Sep13-03, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by sascha
Mentat, when asked "what would it take for you to change your mind?" you said
1) It would take an explanation of what the intermediary, between that which is physical and that which is not, is.
2) It would take an explanation of how the mind can have an "inner observer" (of all the phenomenological events) without infinite regress.
So let me give you a proposal.
What you call the intermediary between the physical and the non-physical is the realm of laws and forces. They are not directly measurable, but effective. And the mind does not need an "inner observer" because it does not operate in the observation mode. It operates in the mode of identification with or rejection of ideas. This is an activity, not a state. But activity as such is not in the scope of scientific categories, only results of acts. (This is where the postulate of an observer comes from; it has nothing to do with the nature of the mind, but with the presently usual scientific approach.)

1) "The intermediary is the realm of laws and forces" is much to vague. It also fails to address the actual issue at hand: Are...they...physical? If they are not, then they are not a useful intermediary, since nothing non-physical can directly interact with anything physical (that's the whole point for the discussion of intermediaries in the first place). If it is physical, then it cannot interact with the non-physical mind, for the same reason.

2) If it is not in the form of an observer, then why must you Idealists keep talking about "emergent properties" and such phenomenological concepts? The "emergent properties" would have no meaning if there was no conscious homunculus (which, as you well know, leads to infinite regress) to "observe" them.

Mentat

Sep13-03, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by sascha
You suddenly seem to be busy with other things. I have put my points very succinctly, but we can go into any detail. Yet I will be off for today: here it is 11 p.m.. Don't be astonished if sometimes I am long in responding, as my access to the internet is not very reliable: for the time being it is interrupted now and then.

I understand that completely. I myself am only alotted about one hour, per day, of internet access.

Mentat

Sep13-03, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
OK, so a person that believes knowledge can only come from science
must be a materialists according to you? And I don't know what you mean by the word "physical".

For all practical purposes, yes. If the person believes in non-physical phenomena then that may be their own personal belief, but it can never be scientifically verified (see my currently misplaced (In the Other Sciences Forum)thread about the effect of a Materialist view of consciousness on the idea Telepathy).

As to the word "physical", that means (my own definition, though I probably should've looked it up, and given the dictionary definition) "composed of energy or capable of interacting energetically".

An idealists can claim this same explanation must happen but it must come from the materialist side. Who has the burden of proof depends on what view you take to begin with so this shouldn't be used as a reason to "not" accept idealism. Most people would agree that all our knowlegde is subjective. Whether what we are experiencing actually exists at all or exists in the way that we are experiencing it is an assumption. It seems the people making this assumption ought to have the burden of explaining problem number 1.

I have shown to points of logic that disqualify the possibility (even in principle) of their being a non-physical mind. You have shown no such points of logic in the opposite direction. Thus, the burden now falls completely on you, to show me the flaw in my reasoning (either in my counter to your reasoning, or in my materialistic stance altogether).

To be honest I've seen you type this several times but it doesn't mean anything to me. I don't understand what it means.

Ok. The Idealist believes that there is an inner phenomenological world, right? IOW, s/he believes that there is a "purple cow" (even if it doesn't exist materially, it still exists "inside consciousness" (whatever that means)), in your mind. But who is looking at the purple cow? IOW, if I deign to assume that there is a purple cow "in my mind", then I have to ask how it is that I can "see" this cow, without eyes inside of my head (a "mind's eye", as it is commonly referred to). So, we take on the assumption that there is a "mind's eye". Well, now we have an eye, but where does it relay it's information to (my eyes relay information to my brain, so these eyes must relay information to an "inner" mind, right?)? If you follow this reasoning, you will reach infinite regress.

Mentat

Sep13-03, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
This is like saying that because I disagree with their conclusions I'm not going to bother reading the argument. Let's not throw out a perfectly good scientific area of study(complexity) just because we don't like where it leads, alright?

Well, like I said, I'm going to try to look up some information. However, the very premise has (at least) two logical flaws, and neither I nor anyone else (so far) has posted a way around them.

So, basically, it'll never be on my "must-read" list, since I have found two enormous flaws in their very premise.

Mentat, if you would like I can go back and show where you yourself have used words like "mind" in a casual manner. It wasn't in a sentence denying that the mind existed or anything like that. You were simply using it because it was a useful word and conveyed the point. That is all I am doing. What I keep trying to tell you is that just because we assign a word to something doesn't mean it actually exists. But once we assign the words it allows for the option of someone to claim that it does, for example an idealist. You're simply trying to build your conclusions into the definitions. A philosophical debate cannot happen when you won't allow the use of words to describe the opposing position.

But that's not the point. You can use words to describe the opposite position; I used "emergent properties" in my definition of Idealism, but I used these words differently than you did. I said that an Idealist believes that there is such a thing as an emergent property (they believe that there is a phenomenological world). You, OTOH, said that an Idealist believes the things that exist in the "mind world" to be primary, while the Materialist believes them to be secondary. This isn't just wrong, but it takes completely for granted that there are such emergent properties (and that it is just their hierarchy in reality that is important to the issue).

And I also explained that they don't necessarily mean different things. A materialist can claim that secondary things are only concepts used for the purposes of communication (like color). They don't really exists.

What does it mean to you to "really exist". To me (taking the materialistic stand) "color" doesn't exist at all. It is just a word, that describes nothing. OTOH, "wavelength" describes something. Thus, color is nothing at all, much like the card's having passed through the table is nothing at all (in itself) but a flawed representation of what happened.

MENTAT! My example HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT FOR PROVING LOVE! The fact that you don't understand the point of my example is the reason I keep responding and telling you that you aren't understanding my whole point.

But didn't you read the second paragraph of that portion? I was merely defending the fact that Zero's definition is not logically incoherent, as you say it is, due to the fact that an Idealist really cannot show any non-physical thing to exist.

I will even go so far as to say that I can agree with what you are saying about how love cannot be shown. But that isn't the point! The point is that someone thinks it can be! Namely the idealists. What is the criteria for something being "shown to exists?"

And that is the key question. That is what it all hinges on. However, if an Idealist were open to reason (and I'm not saying that they aren't, merely saying that they must be in order to understand what I'm going to say next) it could be explained to them that they can show "acts of love" all they want, but they can never show the "love" itself.

The whole point is not to agree with idealism but to simply make the argument that "shown to exists" is not specific enough of a definition to draw a distinctive line. And this has always been my only point.

As I've said before, I don't really need to debate this point with you, as it is not the main line of argument, and I have no real reason to defend Zero's definition since (IMO) mine seems better anyway. However, I see a flaw in your reasoning against his definition, and so I'm pointing it out (in case you missed it before: "you really can't show anything non-physical to exist).

Exactly! Here you are getting my point from above. I am not personally making the argument that idealism is true. I am simply saying that anyone can stand up and claim that love "can be shown to exists" and that is just as obvious to them as the opposite view is to you. The problem is that this definition uses vague words that mean different things to different people, so the definition is not useful.

Yes, I did point out to Zero before that it uses vague terms, and can be rather easily misconstrued. However, after a degree of reasoning on the matter, it still holds up. A person may be able to say "I can show that the purple cow exists", but I challenge them to actually do it. Descartes recognized this boundary (though he was actually an Idealist (and the founder of the detestable Cartesian Dualism [s(])) when he finally conclude that the only thing he could ever be certain of where the things within "his own mind".

I haven't seen any other definition proposed besides Heusdens and one from an office dictionary which should never be used to understand a philosophical position that has libraries of books written on it. "What rational people do" is understand how to define a dogma before they defend it. Contrary to what you are saying this is extremely important. I am pointing out to you why you will never accomplish anything on these forums on this topic. Everyone is speaking a different language. The only purpose that can be served by continuing in that manner is to use the forum as a venting place where people can be safely insulted.

I never thought I was being insulting. I do apologize if I've come off that way. I also acknowledge that we cannot continue in exactly the way we have been, however we can continue with the definitions that I proposed, and that you (seemed to) agree(d) with.

Ok good. Color doesn't exists. But it is a word and a concept nonetheless, no?

No. It is a word. It describes as much of a concept as the term "nothing" (remember the "Exercise in 'Nothing' Semantics"?) or as the term that Manuel_Silvio and I coined, "Uncertainty" (with a capital "U", which was supposed to mean that one takes absolutely nothing for granted, but this is logically impossible, so "Uncertainty" doesn't describe a concept (which is what a word is supposed to do) but is just a word).

It is used to describe the subjective experience that exist along with these processes you mentioned. Now that we have a word for it, someone can now step in and claim it really DOES exists. Whether it does or not is not the point.

But the question of "whether it really does exist" has it's answer implied already in your having described it as "the subjective experience". Manuel_Silvio and I also went over this quite a bit: If a concept can be assigned to the word, then the word is describing something that "really exists". "Real existence" must account for the conceptual as well as the physical, until it is proven (as it has been, currently, in my mind) that the 'conceptual' (or subjective) doesn't exist.

If you don't have words to describe the distinctions then the debate is meaningless. Heusdens definition is very clear about what types of things an idealists would claim is primary. Color happened inside consciousness (and everyone knows and agrees on what that means Mentat as opposed to "shown to exists") and therefore according to a materialists doesn't exists except as another label for the physical process and according to an idealists it does exists.

No! Have you really missed my point this drastically, or are you speaking out of habit? Nothing exists "inside of consciousness", as far as the materialist is concerned. Don't you get that yet? The logical materialist (which is what I hope to be considered for the timebeing) doesn't make the distinction between what "really exists" and what exists "only inside consciousness", because nothing exists "inside consciousness".

Come on now. Let's not be patronizing. For some reason you cannot seem to separate the semantics from the debate itself. All I'm talking about is semantics. You keep dragging things into the debate itself. None of this stuff above is relevant.

I didn't mean to be patronizing, but my point is still relevant (I think), since you just may be the gullible audience.

I am running out of space, so I will complete my response in the next post.

Mentat

Sep13-03, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
But yet it is still a word that can be used in a definition of Idealism. Whether it exists or not IS NOT THE POINT.

But it is. A word is one thing, and I'm fine with (and, in fact, approve of) your assigning just words to the definitions. However, the words that you have chosen (some of them, anyway) imply concepts that are biased toward the Idealistic PoV (the same sin that you accuse Zero of).

When I said Zero's definition was biased, I mean that the definition forces you to conclude materialism. It assumes it's conclusion.

It does nothing of the kind. I have already vindicated it beyond your arguments thus far, since nothing that doesn't exist physically can be "shown to exist". You have even agreed on this point, just not on what it logically leads to (that Zero's definition doesn't have the implications that you originally assumed it had).

Whereas the definition that Heusdens showed does not preclude a materialist from being a materialist.

Yes it does. As I've said numerous times, to say that a Materialist believes that "the things that exist 'inside of consciousness' are secondary" is to assume that the Materialist believes there is such a thing as that which is "inside consciousness" in the first place.

sascha

Sep13-03, 01:33 PM

Mentat, concerning your saying "you really can't show anything non-physical to exist", what is a teacher doing who can make a pupil understand (and thus 'see' the logical existence of) for example the law of Pythagoras?

I can accept that in your view e.g. color doesn't exist. But it does, and is a word and a concept, for thinkers holding other positions (and as mentioned, there is not just Materialism and Idealism around). In your claim of holding the only possible world-view you forget the relativizing effect of fundamental beliefs and assumptions (not only the conscious ones).

Mentat, you ask: are laws and forces physical? But what is it to be "physical"? You say "composed of energy or capable of interacting energetically", as if this were the final solution. Well, as also this thread showed, the constitution of matter is not such a simple thing. We have been discussing how physics is presently trying out the ideas of "energy" and "information", and I have drawn the attention to the fact that even these terms are not yet strictly primal -- apart from not being very "material". So what IS physical, after all??? -- My point is that understanding fully the reality of things leads into ideas / notions / concepts / categories (call them as you may) that are precisely not any more in the realm which is associated with materiality -- such as existence, measurability, palpability, etc. One can remain in less 'ethereal' terms, but then the grasp of reality is reduced. This may not please some, but there are reasons why this is so. In my understanding, matter finally consists of laws and forces, and in this sense they are material indeed. But as your answer shows, you cannot conceive this. Well, what can I do?

To the other point of that question: the "inner observer" has not much to do with the "emergent properties"; these are not really part of a phenomenological or idealist terminology (you will find none of that with Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, etc., or with Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, etc., but only with some post-linguistic-turn interpretations of phenomenology or idealism). "Emergent properties" are only final conceptual needs, as a consequence of having chosen assumptions, in the last decades. Under the condition of choosing to consider a topic (e.g. consciousness) only from outside -- which is not the phenomenological position, nor the idealist, if you read the said authors -- one can be in seeming need of postulating "emergent properties" in the hope of solving certain self-made riddles (self-made by the assumptions). The homunculus is such a postulate; but it has to do with a 'modern' way of approaching the subject matter, it is by far not the absolute truth about it.

Beyond that, we still have some other points open.

Mentat, when I drew your attention to the fact that you must choose which thing or thought you want to be attentive to (because no material contraption does this for you), you said you had explained before how you can have choices, by referring to Dennett (i.e. by believing in his hypotheses). But you had merely indicated some invented algorithm, you gave no real explanation (strictly tracking back phenomena to laws of nature). On the other hand you maintain that the mind is determined by material contraptions. So to me your point of view is still contradictory -- less in your explicit arguments, but rather in consequnce of the tacit assumptions. Consciousness does not explain all of mental life, because it does not react on its own. There is a use of consciousness. In the end, either the intentional activity is determined by the claimed mechanism, which relativates the invented theories, or it is a free choice, which invalidates the presupposition that the determinations are material / mechanical.

Zero, you ask me why I think human thinking is qualitatively different from, say, canine thinking. The difference is that animals can develop some sort of 'language' but not conceive anything that is linked to infinity, i.e. pure ideas (laws like of the geometrical circle) and ideals (e.g. systematic completeness, truth, etc.). This does not exclude that some humans are so underprivileged or degenerated that they remain at a more or less animal level in their mental life.

The big question is to what degree people are aware of what is going on in their own minds. So many are indeed at the mercy of this and that -- and there the theories are justified whereby there is something material / mechanical that determines the outcome. But this is not a strictly universal truth, because it is not compelling for absolutely everybody. Everything depends on how the individual chooses to use his or her mind.

Fliption

Sep13-03, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
As to the word "physical", that means (my own definition, though I probably should've looked it up, and given the dictionary definition) "composed of energy or capable of interacting energetically".

What criteria would I use if I wanted to know if something qualified as energy or not?

I have shown to points of logic that disqualify the possibility (even in principle) of their being a non-physical mind. You have shown no such points of logic in the opposite direction. Thus, the burden now falls completely on you, to show me the flaw in my reasoning (either in my counter to your reasoning, or in my materialistic stance altogether).

As you stated in another post, quoting Descarte...all you can know is what is in your own mind. So to claim that there is something else is an assumption. The person who is assuming that there is something material to represent the subjective experience of the world is creating the dualism and thus has issue number one to resolve. Before you respond to this, please go read the thread started by Hypnagogue about the existince of an onjective world. The discussion that goes on there is one of the best I've seen on this topic. You'll see that your number one is more of a problem for a materialist (if you have an open mind that is)

Ok. The Idealist believes that there is an inner phenomenological world, right? IOW, s/he believes that there is a "purple cow" (even if it doesn't exist materially, it still exists "inside consciousness" (whatever that means)), in your mind. But who is looking at the purple cow? So, we take on the assumption that there is a "mind's eye". Well, now we have an eye, but where does it relay it's information to (my eyes relay information to my brain, so these eyes must relay information to an "inner" mind, right?)? If you follow this reasoning, you will reach infinite regress. [/B]

I don't see it. Sascha has posted that there is information on it. I'll have to read on it. But at the moment I don't see why the logical chain is necessarily true.

Fliption

Sep13-03, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, like I said, I'm going to try to look up some information. However, the very premise has (at least) two logical flaws, and neither I nor anyone else (so far) has posted a way around them.

So, basically, it'll never be on my "must-read" list, since I have found two enormous flaws in their very premise.

You don't know anything about it so you don't know exactly what the premises are. I cannot imagine the confidence one must have to think out a logical problem with a certain view and then not allow that view to respond. Dangerous! Get used to the taste of your toes [:)]. I used to have to brush my teeth often.

But that's not the point. You can use words to describe the opposite position; I used "emergent properties" in my definition of Idealism, but I used these words differently than you did. I said that an Idealist believes that there is such a thing as an emergent property (they believe that there is a phenomenological world). You, OTOH, said that an Idealist believes the things that exist in the "mind world" to be primary, while the Materialist believes them to be secondary. This isn't just wrong, but it takes completely for granted that there are such emergent properties (and that it is just their hierarchy in reality that is important to the issue).

I have explained 3 times that the words secondary and primary don't mean what you think it means. But I think I see the problem we're having and I'll try to point it out below.

What does it mean to you to "really exist". To me (taking the materialistic stand) "color" doesn't exist at all. It is just a word, that describes nothing. OTOH, "wavelength" describes something. Thus, color is nothing at all, much like the card's having passed through the table is nothing at all (in itself) but a flawed representation of what happened.

"really exists" is a figure of speech. This question of yours also points to the same problem that I mentioned above. I'll try to explain below...

But didn't you read the second paragraph of that portion? I was merely defending the fact that Zero's definition is not logically incoherent, as you say it is, due to the fact that an Idealist really cannot show any non-physical thing to exist.

Zero's definition is crap Mentat. It may be useful in a casual conversation but it does not lend itself to a philosophical discussion.
First of all Zero's definition doesn't mention anything about being "physical" as you are claiming. Second of all, what is physical? (you answered this in a previous post. I'm just pointing out the never ending semantic questions.) And thirdly, whether Idealism is true or not does not mean that you get to assume your conclusion in the definition.

And that is the key question. That is what it all hinges on. However, if an Idealist were open to reason (and I'm not saying that they aren't, merely saying that they must be in order to understand what I'm going to say next) it could be explained to them that they can show "acts of love" all they want, but they can never show the "love" itself.

Yep thats what it all hinges on. And an idealists would make the same claim about a materialists. I can hear them saying "If they were only open to reason." Just as you did.

I don't know how much philosophy you've studied but great care must be used on definitions if the discussion is ever going to get out of the semantic realm. So much of what gets discussed in this forum is problems with semantics. In this case, the best course of action is to arrive at a definition that doesn't require the opposite view to "use reason" and agree with your conclusion in order to agree with the definition.

As I've said before, I don't really need to debate this point with you, as it is not the main line of argument, and I have no real reason to defend Zero's definition since (IMO) mine seems better anyway.

As I said before, I have seen no other definition except for this one. What exactly is your definition?

However, I see a flaw in your reasoning against his definition, and so I'm pointing it out (in case you missed it before: "you really can't show anything non-physical to exist).

No thats not a logical flaw of mine. I'm saying nothing about the existence of things. I'm defining words.

I never thought I was being insulting. I do apologize if I've come off that way. I also acknowledge that we cannot continue in exactly the way we have been, however we can continue with the definitions that I proposed, and that you (seemed to) agree(d) with.

I wasn't referring to you specifically. By no means. But certain others here are not interested in a productive discussion and are gleeful at yet another opportunity to insult someone who disagrees with them with sarcastic, pastronizing remarks.

But the question of "whether it really does exist" has it's answer implied already in your having described it as "the subjective experience". Manuel_Silvio and I also went over this quite a bit: If a concept can be assigned to the word, then the word is describing something that "really exists". "Real existence" must account for the conceptual as well as the physical, until it is proven (as it has been, currently, in my mind) that the 'conceptual' (or subjective) doesn't exist.

AND HERE IS OUR PROBLEM! I do not believe that a concept must exist in the objective world for it to exist as a subjective idea. And you apparently don't agree. More below....

No! Have you really missed my point this drastically, or are you speaking out of habit? Nothing exists "inside of consciousness", as far as the materialist is concerned. Don't you get that yet? The logical materialist (which is what I hope to be considered for the timebeing) doesn't make the distinction between what "really exists" and what exists "only inside consciousness", because nothing exists "inside consciousness".

I have not missed your point as you will see by going back and re-reading what I'm saying. I'm saying your point is irrelevant. Over and over again I have said it. I understand that materialist don't believe anything exists "inside consciousness". But it is irrelevant. I think the problem we're having is linked to this word-concept issue. You claim that color does not exists and if we assign a word to it then we are assuming the concept it represents does exists. But color doesn't have to exist. What DOES exists is the perceived subjective experience of color. There is something distinctive that people perceive and are referring to when they refer to color. For the purposes of communication "color" is a useful word because it refers to the character of a subjective experience. The word "wavelength" just won't do. Whether this percieved thing objectively exists or not does not need to be decided at the stage of assigning a word to refer to the idea. We have a word for 'GOD' to. But using the word 'god' doesn't mean you believe it exists. Does it? The word is used to describe a "conceptual idea" that people find useful.

This is all about communication. All I am trying to do is find a definition that uses words that people can all understand and interpret exactly the same. after doing that, the "REAL" debate can procede. If I have to insert a chinese word in to help I will. It's not about proclaiming truths etc etc. It's about communicating what your view actually is so that a person who uses words differently from you can understand your view. My first example of the materialist and idealists discussing the definition says it all I think.

sascha

Sep13-03, 10:19 PM

There is one more point in this discussion, Mentat and Zero, where things are not yet clear because we have not fully come to grips with the implications of your stance: The more I think through the idea about life as entropy machines (and hence maximizers), the less it convinces me. It is easy to expound some perspective, some assumed basis of ideas, but then comes the nitty-gritty of going to the very end of its implications. And here I think your stance about life being "a very good way to increase entropy, and that is what the Universe tends toward" has an inconsistency at the very bottom. Simply consider that the law of entropy (whether Shannon or Boltzmann) is itself not subject to entropy -- while there are universal laws: eg. the principle of truth is subject to truth. I knew a physicist who ended up in suicide out of not fully coming to grips with such ideas. Somehow he hit against the sound barrier of his beliefs (i.e. he spouted out ever more epicycles to keep afloat his flawed assumptions, until having to kill himself). He did not notice his blind spot, while blind spots are what one does not see in one's way of seeing, or rather, not-seeing.....

And just for the sake of overcoming the useless opposition of Materialism against Idealism, I wanted to give a more complete account on the other positions. Some years ago I came across a book where a guy tried to go systematically through all possible positions. He came up with the following sequence (which has an inner link, closing the circle in itself): Phenomenalism, Psychism, Sensualism, Pneumatism, Materialism, Spiritualism, Mathematism, Monadism, Rationalism, Dynamism, Idealism, Realism. His point was that none of these stances can finally, at the very end of their implications, be consistent with reality. All of them have some flaw. Wisdom is to become capable of somehow integrating the whole business. One goes through the whole maze as long as necessary, maybe winding up in a craze for a while, but then things continue, etc., etc.....

Mentat

Sep14-03, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
You don't know anything about it so you don't know exactly what the premises are.

I don't need to, I have already pointed out the logical flaw in the most basic of it's premises. Again, remember that I plan to get more educated on this matter (please also remember that such a thing doesn't happen over-night, I have to find the sources, and then (much more difficult) I have to find the time), but until then my argument stands.

I cannot imagine the confidence one must have to think out a logical problem with a certain view and then not allow that view to respond. Dangerous! Get used to the taste of your toes [:)]. I used to have to brush my teeth often.

Oh, come on. If I understand nothing about the topic except it's most basic premise, and can point out a logical flaw in that very premise, then I don't really need (though I do seek to aquire) a greater understanding of the whole belief system, until someone proves that the flaw I found isn't really a flaw.

Zero's definition is crap Mentat. It may be useful in a casual conversation but it does not lend itself to a philosophical discussion.

Careful, let's not be insulting, it distracts from rational debate. Save that energy for the point that really matters in this thread (as this is not my main point of debate with you).

First of all Zero's definition doesn't mention anything about being "physical" as you are claiming.

No, but it implies it. It is impossible to show someone that something non-physical exists. Thus, if something fits the materialistic criteria that it be physical, then it can be shown to exist. Otherwise it cannot.

Second of all, what is physical? (you answered this in a previous post. I'm just pointing out the never ending semantic questions.)

I don't understand why this needs to be never-ending, if I've already attempted to define it.

And thirdly, whether Idealism is true or not does not mean that you get to assume your conclusion in the definition.

I still don't think that Zero's definition assumes it's conclusion in the definition. I don't see why you think so (though I do see why your definition (OTOH) does assume it's own conclusion (what with all of the implications to "emergent properties" and things that exist "inside consciousness", and other such purely Idealistic concepts)).

Oh, btw. I have been re-reading a few of my posts, and realized that, when I use scare-quotes it may sound sarcastic or imply a mocking tone. I never intended this, and would just like to clear that up (I only use scare-quotes to denote that I don't really believe whatever's within them to denote a concept...they are just words to me).

Yep thats what it all hinges on. And an idealists would make the same claim about a materialists. I can hear them saying "If they were only open to reason." Just as you did.

I don't know how much philosophy you've studied but great care must be used on definitions if the discussion is ever going to get out of the semantic realm. So much of what gets discussed in this forum is problems with semantics. In this case, the best course of action is to arrive at a definition that doesn't require the opposite view to "use reason" and agree with your conclusion in order to agree with the definition.

And that cannot happen if certain people make reference to certain completely Idealistic concepts in their definitions, now can it [;)]?

As I said before, I have seen no other definition except for this one. What exactly is your definition?

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I just assumed you'd read it when I posted it some time ago.

The Idealist believes that there is such a thing as a non-physical entity.

The Materialist does not.

Pretty simple, eh?

AND HERE IS OUR PROBLEM! I do not believe that a concept must exist in the objective world for it to exist as a subjective idea. And you apparently don't agree. More below....

That's because you are an Idealist [:((] [;)], I (currently) am taking the Materialistic standpoint. Thus, we will not agree on that point, because that is what it all hinges on (according to my definition of Idealism and Materialism, that is).

I have not missed your point as you will see by going back and re-reading what I'm saying. I'm saying your point is irrelevant. Over and over again I have said it. I understand that materialist don't believe anything exists "inside consciousness". But it is irrelevant.

In the immortal words of Royce: WRONG!

I'm not going to leave it at that though, but am going to re-iterate the undeniable fact that your definition directly imlies the existence of things "inside consciousness", which makes yours a biased definition.

I think the problem we're having is linked to this word-concept issue. You claim that color does not exists and if we assign a word to it then we are assuming the concept it represents does exists. But color doesn't have to exist. What DOES exists is the perceived subjective experience of color. There is something distinctive that people perceive and are referring to when they refer to color. For the purposes of communication "color" is a useful word because it refers to the character of a subjective experience. The word "wavelength" just won't do. Whether this percieved thing objectively exists or not does not need to be decided at the stage of assigning a word to refer to the idea.

This is a very dicy issue. You see, they may subjectively experience color, but they have never actually seen it (any more than this computer has ever actually seen a world or a picture (remember my analogy?)).

We have a word for 'GOD' to. But using the word 'god' doesn't mean you believe it exists. Does it? The word is used to describe a "conceptual idea" that people find useful.

But the materialist doesn't really believe in conceptual ideas. Sure s/he can take a heterophenomenological approach, and speak as though such things existed (not just "really existed" as in objective reality, but "existed" as in "there is such a thing as..."), but that is merely for same purpose that I might correct someone for saying that Sherlock Holmes lives on Butcher Street, since he (in his own world, which doesn't exist at all (not subjectively, not objectively)) actually lives on Baker Street.

This is all about communication. All I am trying to do is find a definition that uses words that people can all understand and interpret exactly the same. after doing that, the "REAL" debate can procede.

Very true. However, I think it severely hinders logical discussion for any part of the conclusion to be built into the definition (which is what you yourself have also been saying, though (hypocritically? perhaps unknowingly) commiting that very sin in your definition), which is what I mean by "biased definition".

If I have to insert a chinese word in to help I will. It's not about proclaiming truths etc etc. It's about communicating what your view actually is so that a person who uses words differently from you can understand your view.

Yes, I understand this completely, but I think you have (currently) failed at this attempt. Ironically (and I mean that in the definitive sense of the word), I think you have done so in exactly the manner that you accused Zero of.

Mentat

Sep14-03, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
What criteria would I use if I wanted to know if something qualified as energy or not?

If it can be interacted with (changed) by energetic means.

As you stated in another post, quoting Descarte...all you can know is what is in your own mind. So to claim that there is something else is an assumption. The person who is assuming that there is something material to represent the subjective experience of the world is creating the dualism and thus has issue number one to resolve.

I'm sorry, but I will not wait to read Hypnagogue's thread, before responding (though I do intend to finally read it soon (I finally feel almost "caught up" - I was gone for a month)) as what you are saying only even makes sense from an Idealistic standpoint. Remember, Descartes himself was an Idealist (there were no true materliasts at the time, AFAIK).

Anyway, it's Idealistic because it directly states that the mind is something other than the brain. Yes, I can only ever be conscious of my own conscious experience (that's a practically redundant statement), but part of my conscious experience is logic, and that logic dictates (currently) that my mind can be nothing other than the physical brain.

You'll see that your number one is more of a problem for a materialist (if you have an open mind that is)

No, only for the materialist that makes the same mistake that Descartes made, but that Dennett and Le Doux have scrupulously (Dennett more so than Le Doux, which makes me prefer Dennett when it comes down to utter specifics) avoided. They are true materialists, Descartes was not.

You are correct if you say that Descartes' (so-called) materialism runs into the Dualist problem even more so than main-stream Idealism, but mine is not Descarteian materialism.

I don't see it. Sascha has posted that there is information on it. I'll have to read on it. But at the moment I don't see why the logical chain is necessarily true.

I can try again, if you'd like [t)]:

For there to be something going on in my mind, and for me to be conscious of it, there must be an "inner observer" (someone that is conscious of that which is going on inside my head). Understand? Agree?

Now, in order for this sub-system (or inner homunculus) to be conscious of these things that are going on in my mind, he too must have someone in his own mind (since the inner person is how I'm conscious ITFP), who views that which occurs therein. But that new inner inner homunculus must also be conscious, and so must have someone within his mind, observing all of the phenomenological events from within, and so on, ad infinitum.

If I have again failed to explain it, then I refer you to one of the first (not sure if it was the first, or just one of the first) chapters of Consciousness Explained. I'm also sure that sascha could produce numerous references to the "inner homunculus" problem.

Mentat

Sep14-03, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Mentat, concerning your saying "you really can't show anything non-physical to exist", what is a teacher doing who can make a pupil understand (and thus 'see' the logical existence of) for example the law of Pythagoras?

Nothing if he gives no example that is grounded in physical occurance. Even the showing of the laws as just mathematical properties requires that he use physical means and incite physically stored memories of other patterns that the student has seen before.

It's really the same thing that he (the teacher) would be doing if we wished to program the Law of Pythagoras into a PC: feeding the appropriate information (physical stimulus) to the input channels of the computer (the keyboard, for example), causing it to encode the new information into memory (please take note of the term "encode").'

I can accept that in your view e.g. color doesn't exist. But it does, and is a word and a concept, for thinkers holding other positions (and as mentioned, there is not just Materialism and Idealism around). In your claim of holding the only possible world-view you forget the relativizing effect of fundamental beliefs and assumptions (not only the conscious ones).

I didn't quite understand this last sentence, but I do feel compelled to point out that any opinion that is no Materialistic is Idealistic, unless you can show how it could be otherwise (which is kind of like proving how something can both not be physical and not be non-physical either).

Mentat, you ask: are laws and forces physical? But what is it to be "physical"? You say "composed of energy or capable of interacting energetically", as if this were the final solution. Well, as also this thread showed, the constitution of matter is not such a simple thing. We have been discussing how physics is presently trying out the ideas of "energy" and "information", and I have drawn the attention to the fact that even these terms are not yet strictly primal -- apart from not being very "material". So what IS physical, after all??? -- My point is that understanding fully the reality of things leads into ideas / notions / concepts / categories (call them as you may) that are precisely not any more in the realm which is associated with materiality -- such as existence, measurability, palpability, etc. One can remain in less 'ethereal' terms, but then the grasp of reality is reduced. This may not please some, but there are reasons why this is so.

This is not so, at least not necessarily. I can use exactly the same terms as you would, provided I know that my audience will not take the non-physical connotations literally. They are but illustrations of the reality; indications that relate to something our brain is already familiar with, in order to bring the point across.

My definition of physical requires that we remove literal interpretation of the root-word "material" from the term "materialism", since the true materialist has no problem excpeting that most energy just hasn't manifested itself in the form of matter. Matter is energy, just another form.

In my understanding, matter finally consists of laws and forces, and in this sense they are material indeed. But as your answer shows, you cannot conceive this. Well, what can I do?

You can change your understanding. As far as Science is concerned, the "laws" are just observations of patterns (which Logic dictates to be inconclusive, since they are always based on Inductive reasoning) and "forces" may just be curvatures of spacetime (which is as physical as anything else (just not material)).

To the other point of that question: the "inner observer" has not much to do with the "emergent properties"; these are not really part of a phenomenological or idealist terminology (you will find none of that with Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, etc., or with Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, etc., but only with some post-linguistic-turn interpretations of phenomenology or idealism). "Emergent properties" are only final conceptual needs, as a consequence of having chosen assumptions, in the last decades. Under the condition of choosing to consider a topic (e.g. consciousness) only from outside -- which is not the phenomenological position, nor the idealist, if you read the said authors -- one can be in seeming need of postulating "emergent properties" in the hope of solving certain self-made riddles (self-made by the assumptions).

Exactly, that is what prompts Dennett to take the heterophenomenological approach, and the "intentional stance", at all times. This allows him to remove the assumptions, while still being able to describe the same phenomena.

The homunculus is such a postulate; but it has to do with a 'modern' way of approaching the subject matter, it is by far not the absolute truth about it.

It needn't be in homunculus form, it can be referred to as "mind's eye", or any other such reference to the same false concept; but it remains, nevertheless, illogical (since it always leads to infinite regress, as you well know).

Mentat, when I drew your attention to the fact that you must choose which thing or thought you want to be attentive to (because no material contraption does this for you), you said you had explained before how you can have choices, by referring to Dennett (i.e. by believing in his hypotheses). But you had merely indicated some invented algorithm, you gave no real explanation (strictly tracking back phenomena to laws of nature).

What is wrong with the explanation. Just read Le Doux's Synaptic Self if you want an explanation of the self (including both the conscious and the subconscious) in terms of the actual synaptic occurance in the brain. Dennett's is perfectly sound (or so it seems to me currently) in terms of Philosophy, and that is what he is (a philosopher) and what this Forum and this particular thread are about (philosophies of mind).

On the other hand you maintain that the mind is determined by material contraptions. So to me your point of view is still contradictory -- less in your explicit arguments, but rather in consequnce of the tacit assumptions.

How so? Dennett's explanation - which I out-lined in my post - is intended to lead to a scientific understanding of consciousness, but is still in itself a purely materialistic conceptualization. Re-read it if you disagree, perhaps quoting it and posting where it fails to remain completely materialistic.

Consciousness does not explain all of mental life, because it does not react on its own. There is a use of consciousness. In the end, either the intentional activity is determined by the claimed mechanism, which relativates the invented theories, or it is a free choice, which invalidates the presupposition that the determinations are material / mechanical.

This another serious problem that you (and, IIRC, Iacchus32) have had. Let me make this absolutely clear: [color=brickred]Showing consciousness and choice as being purely material does not indicate, or even imply, that they are "mechanical" or that we are automatons. It shows that we do make choices, and that we really are conscious of them, but that both of these things (consciousness and choices) are utterly physical operations.

Mentat

Sep14-03, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by sascha
There is one more point in this discussion, Mentat and Zero, where things are not yet clear because we have not fully come to grips with the implications of your stance: The more I think through the idea about life as entropy machines (and hence maximizers), the less it convinces me. It is easy to expound some perspective, some assumed basis of ideas, but then comes the nitty-gritty of going to the very end of its implications. And here I think your stance about life being "a very good way to increase entropy, and that is what the Universe tends toward" has an inconsistency at the very bottom. Simply consider that the law of entropy (whether Shannon or Boltzmann) is itself not subject to entropy -- while there are universal laws: eg. the principle of truth is subject to truth.

Actually, though I was not initially opposed to this concept of "universal truths" that you speak of, the more I examine it the more it seems like it violates Godels' Incompleteness (or, rather, the basic logical barrier to self-reference).

Aside from that, I don't see why a law (which doesn't itself exist as physical entity (except in the brains of those that have learned it) but is really just an observation) should be subject to physical laws (especially not the law that it itself proposes, since that would be self-reference (remember Russel's paradox?)).

I knew a physicist who ended up in suicide out of not fully coming to grips with such ideas. Somehow he hit against the sound barrier of his beliefs (i.e. he spouted out ever more epicycles to keep afloat his flawed assumptions, until having to kill himself). He did not notice his blind spot, while blind spots are what one does not see in one's way of seeing, or rather, not-seeing.....

I am sorry for your former aquaintance. I hope you were not close, but if you were I am sorry for you as well. As to the lesson to be learned from this experience, the problem was with your friend, he didn't see that universal laws not only didn't need to be found, but probably don't exist.

And just for the sake of overcoming the useless opposition of Materialism against Idealism, I wanted to give a more complete account on the other positions. Some years ago I came across a book where a guy tried to go systematically through all possible positions. He came up with the following sequence (which has an inner link, closing the circle in itself): Phenomenalism, Psychism, Sensualism, Pneumatism, Materialism, Spiritualism, Mathematism, Monadism, Rationalism, Dynamism, Idealism, Realism.

Surely you can see, by a quick check at my definitions of Idealism and Materialism, that all of these choices (except "Materialism") fall into the realm of Idealism.

His point was that none of these stances can finally, at the very end of their implications, be consistent with reality. All of them have some flaw. Wisdom is to become capable of somehow integrating the whole business. One goes through the whole maze as long as necessary, maybe winding up in a craze for a while, but then things continue, etc., etc.....

Hmm, well I disagree with his "point", a truth should be "findable" (if that's a word) amongst these possibilities.

Fliption

Sep14-03, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
[B]I don't need to, I have already pointed out the logical flaw in the most basic of it's premises. Again, remember that I plan to get more educated on this matter (please also remember that such a thing doesn't happen over-night, I have to find the sources, and then (much more difficult) I have to find the time), but until then my argument stands.

I'm not really interested in when you are able to educate yourself. I'm not a demanding person in that respect. I only ask that you do it before claiming a view is wrong. Contrary to what you have typed, you DO have to learn the opposing view before you insist there is a logical flaw.

Careful, let's not be insulting, it distracts from rational debate. Save that energy for the point that really matters in this thread (as this is not my main point of debate with you).

I have insulted no one. I said the definition was crap. If we're going to slap hands let's do it to those that actually require it.[;)]

No, but it implies it. It is impossible to show someone that something non-physical exists. Thus, if something fits the materialistic criteria that it be physical, then it can be shown to exist. Otherwise it cannot.

To a materialists it cannot. But to an idealists it can. This point flies over your head quite a bit.

I still don't think that Zero's definition assumes it's conclusion in the definition. I don't see why you think so (though I do see why your definition (OTOH) does assume it's own conclusion (what with all of the implications to "emergent properties" and things that exist "inside consciousness", and other such purely Idealistic concepts)).

Mentat the aim is to use a word such as "mind" so that we are able to make the following statements:

"A materialist does not believe the mind exists"
"An Idealist believes the mind does exists"

Your view won't allow the use of this word because a mind doesn't exists. Then to say this sentence "A materialists does not believe the mind exists" is assuming the mind exists, therfore the statement cannot be true. Ridiculous. This whole view of yours is so radical and unreasonable for philosophy that I'm about to give up. Even your definition is not the philophical definition. You have made up your own view and called it materialism.

That's because you are an Idealist [:((] [;)], I (currently) am taking the Materialistic standpoint. Thus, we will not agree on that point, because that is what it all hinges on (according to my definition of Idealism and Materialism, that is).

I am not an idealists. Never have I ever said I was. So you aren't debating with an idealists. You're debating with someone who understands philosophy just enough to know when it is being done poorly. Trying to find a definition that is unbiased and will allow a fair philosophical discussion doesn't require me to hold either view. The fact that you think I'm an idealists is just more proof that you have not been able to separate semantics from philsophy. And it is becoming clear that you probably won't.

In the immortal words of Royce: WRONG!

I'm not going to leave it at that though, but am going to re-iterate the undeniable fact that your definition directly imlies the existence of things "inside consciousness", which makes yours a biased definition.

WRONG!

This is a very dicy issue. You see, they may subjectively experience color, but they have never actually seen it (any more than this computer has ever actually seen a world or a picture (remember my analogy?)).

What does "seeing" have to do with anything? This seems like an intentional dodge almost as if you don't want to accept what I'm saying because you think I'm an idealists.

But the materialist doesn't really believe in conceptual ideas.

This is just nonsense Mentat. No offense, but you don't have a clue what you're talking about. This very extreme position you are taking is basically saying that no one should ever use any word like "god", "Utopia", "Philosophy", "Mind", "Free enterprise". You are basically saying that none of these things actually exists so we cannot use the words.

You don't understand why Zero's definition assumes it's conclusion and even HE said it was circular! This is a bit frustrating because anyone who has had a 101 level course in philosophy can see this is obviously true and I've wasted over 40 pages trying to explain the obvious. As far as I'm concerned, we haven't even gotten to the topic of materialism versus Idealism yet.

No hard feelings, but it is obvious that you are not willing to try to understand what I'm saying. I don't feel I'm learning very much from this discourse and that is the reason I participate here. So I'm done.

Zero

Sep14-03, 11:38 PM

Ok, hold on...something can exist, but can't be shown to exist? If it can't be shown to exist, what logical basis does anyone have to discuss it?

Zero

Sep14-03, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Fliption

No hard feelings, but it is obvious that you are not willing to try to understand what I'm saying. I don't feel I'm learning very much from this discourse and that is the reason I participate here. So I'm done.

We'll be here awhile, fell free to come back when you feel like *self censored* some more.[;)]

Zero

Sep14-03, 11:40 PM

And, I have decided that my definition isn't circular after all...[:D]

sascha

Sep15-03, 04:39 AM

Mentat, Do you realize that your answer to Fliption's question "What criteria would I use if I wanted to know if something qualified as energy or not?", which is "If it can be interacted with (changed) by energetic means" does not work, because by far not all forms of energy interact directly. This is precisely the interesting thing about the structure of energy and matter. So you need some additional criteria.

Then you say "For there to be something going on in my mind, and for me to be conscious of it, there must be an "inner observer" (someone that is conscious of that which is going on inside my head)." Understand? YES. Agree? NO! Because you forget your act of choosing what you think. If you let your mind do everything, i.e. wander where IT wants, you finally end up in the loony bin. You have doggedly been negating this fact of your own choice -- which you can only do by CHOOSING to doggedly negate it. It is as if you would not want to be responsible for your own thoughts. Strange.

The situation is quite funny. In philosophy this type of act is called "performative self-contradition". But you are in good company: all the authors you mention do the same. They believe in it, because they believe objectivity is warranted by looking from outside at something (playing God as a mind hovering over the thing) -- and they seem to believe nobody else notices the flaw. Yes, science now has chosen this position -- but it is increasingly getting into trouble for just this reason (on the whole, not in the many details). The homunculus problem does not objectively exist, it is merely the result of this one-eyed approach. Maybe now you can understand why all your "explanations" of this point are in vain: they only reiterate the one-eyedness, which obviously not everybody needs to share.

Concerning the demonstration of laws, you forget that encoding information about mathematical properties works only where there is a reader who refers to the law as a law, not only to the encoded information. Letters and numbers alone won't do a single thing. The computer alone can't think the Law of Pythagoras, or any other one. Without the actively thinking writer and reader, nothing happens. Even if somebody programs the most advanced self-replicating and self-repairing AI device, the programmer, manufacturer, etc. is not at all eliminated, only shifted away until forgetting about all that. It is again the role of playing God without wanting to be caught in the game. This is self-delusion. The situation is the same as above: you doggedly defer and negate the actual agency. No wonder some people refuse this approach. The fact that many believe in it proves nothing.

You seem to think that I am wrong in saying "understanding fully the reality of things leads into ideas ... that are precisely not any more in the realm which is associated with materiality -- such as existence, measurability, palpability, etc. One can remain in less 'ethereal' terms, but then the grasp of reality is reduced. This may not please some, but there are reasons why this is so." On the other hand, wanting to eliminate the root-word "material" from the term "materialism" won't get you to where you want, because again the necessary influence, which makes energy become matter, is eliminated from your view.

The problem is mirrored also in your view that "the "laws" are just observations of patterns (which Logic dictates to be inconclusive, since they are always based on Inductive reasoning) and "forces" may just be curvatures of spacetime (which is as physical as anything else (just not material)). As I have been expressing often on this thread, the approach of Inductive reasoning can account only for some partial laws, but precisely not for the overall order (which your saying purports to know), because no amount of Inductive reasoning can ever secure any strictly universal laws. This is one of the main problem of physics. -- So I have no reason at all to change my understanding.

Dennett's "intentional stance" is a "doing-as-if" attitude, one of pretending-that, for suiting his pet ideas. This is no real proof at all of his stance. One can juggle endlessly with words for nudging things some way or other. Do you know the Duhem-Quine Thesis?

Sure, the homunculus problem does not depend on the name tag "homunculus". Maybe I should repeat some of my post of 11 September to you:

"As I had expressed several times, more clearly than the usual account of the Cartesian Split, it arises every time concretely where a world view or activity is ruled by adopting the principle of distinguishing, describing, observing, measuring. This method logically inevitably entails a blind spot as to what can be distinguished, described, observed, measured. Your argument of my implying "a 'mind' that exists seperate from the 'brain'" is a mechanical repetition of what is often handed around as the Cartesian idea."

The homunculus / "mind's eye" / onlooker position is just one more variation of the same theme, the basic Split of Science (which is often referred to as Cartesian Split, because that is where the idea became prominent). It is true that this Split entails infinite regresses. But when you get bad news, the solution is not in killing the messenger, amputating the symptom, e.g. saying that the concept is false. You must get to the real root, which is in the type of approach. Till now the problem of the blind spot is surprisingly underestimated in the scientific community. Maybe they are too helpless or ashamed to admit it? What do you think?

The solution for shame or helplessness will not come from more of the same type of approach that had led into the problem in the first place -- like with Dennett's or Le Doux's writings. Just like so many, they too offer nice detailed descriptions, and many take these vivid images for explanations. It is obvious that one can "see" the conscious and the subconscious in that perspective, but so what. It is like I can look at everything through green glass and doggedly maintain the world is green and that everybody must only look through my beautiful green glass to see that green is what is real; I can even start selling green glasses....

Yes, there is no doubt in the very end result consciousness and choices have physical appearances. But do you know that Chinese story: A traveler comes to a village and meets the village sage and the village fool. He shows them a shining star. The sage sees an element of the universe, while the fool sees only the pointed finger.

This is indeed the problem with Goedel and so on. Yes, propositional structures (sign systems, etc) are doomed to the limitation of decidability, which metamathematics is busy with. But this concerns only the signs, not to the laws which humans ultimately try to refer to, by means of signs (as a symbolic Ersatz of perception). The point is to keep the laws as such in focus, not to lose oneself in the maze of mere signs. Whoever negates the laws as such can of course doi that (there is no limit to errors), but has to face the produced maze of self-made problems. By "universal truths" I mean pure laws -- and they do (like all laws) indeed not fit totally any language. One can only approximate them in language -- like one can only approximate e.g. the law of the geometrical circle by definitions of the geometrical circle (which are indeed material structures, even as personal representations). Of course laws never exist as physical entity, except in the brains of those that have learned it. But the addressed person can be led to think of the law as such, if the communication is good enough. If the person does not think of laws, but only of signs of laws, in the end there are problems of understanding complete reality. -- Does this seem more clear now? I am not sure, because you say quite correctly "I don't see why a law ... should be subject to physical laws". This is an interesting point, into which we could get: What is the interrelation between pure laws?

To say laws probably don't exist is of course a way of formulating a law, moreover a universal one -- and is thus a self-defeating assertion. Nevertheless yes, a truth is "findable" -- but in remaining open to the whole, not in remaining in the mere signs. Truths in signs -- as you correctly noted with Goedel etc. -- are limited.

The discussion lately about something exists or does not exist, and can or cannot be shown to exist, is turning wildly around classic stuff. Kant already had noted that existence cannot be a predicate, it is something over and beyond. Indeed, nobody can show anything to exist other that through enabling an experience of it. Nobody can show that America exists, or that Zebras exist, unless by offering an actual experience. Signs are Ersatz forms of experience, allowing to recall content for handling ideas. The other fact that experience inevitably occurs in the realm of interpretatiion, and thus in the conceptual realm (which mirrors laws) may exasperate some, but that's only y question of getting used to it. Some need a lot of time. But the universe is far more patient than some ardent souls.

Iacchus32

Sep15-03, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by sascha
Yes, there is no doubt in the very end result consciousness and choices have physical appearances. But do you know that Chinese story: A traveler comes to a village and meets the village sage and the village fool. He shows them a shining star. The sage sees an element of the universe, while the fool sees only the pointed finger. Yes, the evidence has always been there, it's just a matter if one has the means to make the association or not. [;)]

Mentat

Sep15-03, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
I'm not really interested in when you are able to educate yourself. I'm not a demanding person in that respect. I only ask that you do it before claiming a view is wrong. Contrary to what you have typed, you DO have to learn the opposing view before you insist there is a logical flaw.

Not if I have found a flaw in it's very premise. Why should a person continue with the Bible (for example) if they have believe there to be a scientific flaw with the very first chapter (the creation account)?

I have insulted no one. I said the definition was crap. If we're going to slap hands let's do it to those that actually require it.[;)]

Whatever man, I just thought that less insulting terms could be used (especially in light of the fact that you haven't proven your side yet).

To a materialists it cannot. But to an idealists it can. This point flies over your head quite a bit.

An Idealist can say that it can be shown to exist, but I challenge them to actually do it. Deductive and Inductive Logic rule in my favor, since I have deduced why something non-physical cannot be shown to exist, and I have debunked the examples given.

Mentat the aim is to use a word such as "mind" so that we are able to make the following statements:

"A materialist does not believe the mind exists"
"An Idealist believes the mind does exists"

Your view won't allow the use of this word because a mind doesn't exists. Then to say this sentence "A materialists does not believe the mind exists" is assuming the mind exists, therfore the statement cannot be true. Ridiculous. This whole view of yours is so radical and unreasonable for philosophy that I'm about to give up. Even your definition is not the philophical definition. You have made up your own view and called it materialism.

I have "made up" that view from having read the philosophies of materialists. Unfortunately(?) I haven't been exposed to any true Idealist teaching, except to be shown flaws by the materialists that I've read. No, I haven't dealt with the philosophical definition of materialism, but I know that the philosophers I've read are considered materialists, and they hold that there is no such thing as a non-physical entity.

Besides, all I'm saying is that you shouldn't have used the word "mind" as though it were established that it is something other than the brain, in your definition. That is making the same mistake that you accused Zero of: Putting your conclusion in your definition.

I am not an idealists. Never have I ever said I was.

You didn't have to say it. Your reference to emergent properties and the mind (as something other than the brain) make your current position an Idealistic one. I make no claims about your personal belief system, because that is irrelevant to the discussion. All that matters is the position that we are currently taking (which is why I contantly put "currently" in parentheses after stating that I am taking the materialist position).

So you aren't debating with an idealists. You're debating with someone who understands philosophy just enough to know when it is being done poorly. Trying to find a definition that is unbiased and will allow a fair philosophical discussion doesn't require me to hold either view.

Exactly, in fact it requires that you hold neither view, or at least that you not let that view influence the definition at all. Yet you have persisted in your reference to phenomenological events as though there were such a thing, putting your conclusion right in your definition.

The fact that you think I'm an idealists is just more proof that you have not been able to separate semantics from philsophy. And it is becoming clear that you probably won't.

As I already said, I don't care whether you yourself are an Idealist, but your stance has been one that is in contrast to all of the Materialist philosophies that I've read, and is thus Idealistic.

WRONG!

Royce is my buddy, so I witheld from him. But I think it only right to express that I think it utterly childish to plug your ears and scream "I'm right, your wrong, you don't understand enough philosophy", which is what you are (figuratively) doing (not just when you type "WRONG!" and leave it at that, but when you restate that I don't know enough, instead of addressing my point head-on). Alexander and Lifegazer did the same thing, and they are gone. Way before that, Scandium did the same thing, and he's gone too.

It is a hinderance to logical and open-minded discussion.

What does "seeing" have to do with anything? This seems like an intentional dodge almost as if you don't want to accept what I'm saying because you think I'm an idealists.

No offense, but did you think you "heard" color?

This is just nonsense Mentat. No offense, but you don't have a clue what you're talking about. This very extreme position you are taking is basically saying that no one should ever use any word like "god", "Utopia", "Philosophy", "Mind", "Free enterprise". You are basically saying that none of these things actually exists so we cannot use the words.

Just because they don't exist, doesn't mean that we can't use the words as short-cuts. IOW, we don't have to change the way we speak, the point is to recognize that these are short-cuts toward understanding the reality, they are not real in themselves. The fact that you (and most other people) don't "like it" or find it counter-intuitive is almost completely irrelevant.

You don't understand why Zero's definition assumes it's conclusion and even HE said it was circular! This is a bit frustrating because anyone who has had a 101 level course in philosophy can see this is obviously true and I've wasted over 40 pages trying to explain the obvious. As far as I'm concerned, we haven't even gotten to the topic of materialism versus Idealism yet.

What difference does it make if Zero admits his definition is circular?! That just means that he didn't understand his own definition as well as I do (or that I have misunderstood something, though I keep asking you to tell me what I could have possibly misunderstood and you keep re-iterating the same flawed argument). If you want, since there's obviously a personal issue, let's not call it Zero's definition, but just "definition 1" or "attempt 1".

No hard feelings, but it is obvious that you are not willing to try to understand what I'm saying. I don't feel I'm learning very much from this discourse and that is the reason I participate here. So I'm done.

I would ask you not to leave this discussion open like this, but if you stayed you'd probably continue to get more and more frustrated about how counter-intuitive my "radical" ideas are (though they are not my own, but those of very highly respected Philosophers; not that that matters to me, but it seems to matter to you), instead of addressing my arguments head-on. It's probably a waste of your time and mine (though an excellent way to increase post-count [:D]) to continue as we are, but I don't have anything else to say until you counter what I've alread said (and "it's radical" or "it's not the traditional definition" or "you haven't studied the opposite position enough" are not counters they are dodges, and weak ones at that since you also have not studied the positions that I'm holding (those of Dennett, Le Doux, and Schwartz (sort of, though he's less materialistic)), and your ideas seem equally "radical" to me, since they imply a way for the physical to interact (physically? metaphysically?) with the metaphysical).

I am ready to continue discussion whenever you are.

Zero

Sep15-03, 02:23 PM

I'm just thinking that there cannot be a coherent, logical discussion of non-material concepts, that can lead anywhere but in circles. Is that such a wrong idea, and if so, why?

Mentat

Sep15-03, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Mentat, Do you realize that your answer to Fliption's question "What criteria would I use if I wanted to know if something qualified as energy or not?", which is "If it can be interacted with (changed) by energetic means" does not work, because by far not all forms of energy interact directly. This is precisely the interesting thing about the structure of energy and matter. So you need some additional criteria.

Not really, it doesn't need to be able to effect other energy, of it's own accord, but can use other forms of energy to accomplish this task. Besides, if you want to get real technical, then the criteria are that it has to be composed of subatomic particles. Is that easier to deal with?

Then you say "For there to be something going on in my mind, and for me to be conscious of it, there must be an "inner observer" (someone that is conscious of that which is going on inside my head)." Understand? YES. Agree? NO! Because you forget your act of choosing what you think.

What does my choice have to do with it? If there was something going on "inside my mind" then there would have to be an inner observer, who "sees" these things - my eyes don't turn that way [;)]. Do you still disagree?

If you let your mind do everything, i.e. wander where IT wants, you finally end up in the loony bin. You have doggedly been negating this fact of your own choice -- which you can only do by CHOOSING to doggedly negate it. It is as if you would not want to be responsible for your own thoughts. Strange.

I am not "letting my mind do everything", I am my mind. And my mind is my brain. You are making to many (Idealistic) distinctions that needn't be made, and are really detrimental if you are trying to avoid the Cartesian traps.

The situation is quite funny. In philosophy this type of act is called "performative self-contradition". But you are in good company: all the authors you mention do the same. They believe in it, because they believe objectivity is warranted by looking from outside at something (playing God as a mind hovering over the thing) -- and they seem to believe nobody else notices the flaw.

Balderdash! (No offense.) It is obvious (to anyone who's actually examined it) that the heterophenomenological stance does not remove one from oneself, but simply studies others like oneself. It's like Dennett's illustration of the anthropologist and the tribes that believe in the god, Feenoman. Do you remember that (from Consciousness Explained)?

Yes, science now has chosen this position -- but it is increasingly getting into trouble for just this reason (on the whole, not in the many details). The homunculus problem does not objectively exist, it is merely the result of this one-eyed approach. Maybe now you can understand why all your "explanations" of this point are in vain: they only reiterate the one-eyedness, which obviously not everybody needs to share.

I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense. Is your problem with Science as a whole, or with applying it to consciousness? Besides, the homunculus problem is the inevitable result of saying that something "occurs within my mind", surely you can see that.

Concerning the demonstration of laws, you forget that encoding information about mathematical properties works only where there is a reader who refers to the law as a law, not only to the encoded information. Letters and numbers alone won't do a single thing. The computer alone can't think the Law of Pythagoras, or any other one.

It could if it were capable of consciousness (and that just may be possible in the near future). Consciousness is a more refined (in some ways) version of exactly these same processing laws. The analogy of the "Joycean" machine is often used (Dennett makes very good use of it in the same book I've been referring you to this entire time), and it does nothing that can't be handled by any material (organic or otherwise), but is conscious (as Dennett's scheme shows).

Without the actively thinking writer and reader, nothing happens. Even if somebody programs the most advanced self-replicating and self-repairing AI device, the programmer, manufacturer, etc. is not at all eliminated, only shifted away until forgetting about all that. It is again the role of playing God without wanting to be caught in the game. This is self-delusion. The situation is the same as above: you doggedly defer and negate the actual agency. No wonder some people refuse this approach. The fact that many believe in it proves nothing.

The "actual agency"? The actual agency is the brain, until you can prove otherwise (which I severly doubt, since you quickly run into both the infinite regress problem and the physical/non-physical problem before any coherent stance can even be made). You might as well try to prove the Earth may still be flat (you immediately run into the observations and calculations that prove otherwise).

On the other hand, wanting to eliminate the root-word "material" from the term "materialism" won't get you to where you want, because again the necessary influence, which makes energy become matter, is eliminated from your view.

There is no "necessary influence" it is just the path of least resistance. I hate to say it, but you really don't seem to understand even the most basic concepts of matter and energy (I really mean no offense by this, it's just an observation). I (humbly) suggest The Universe, the Tenth Dimension and Everything by Richard Morris, as a good introduction to what is known in the Scientific paradigm, or perhaps "A short history of nearly everything" (or something like that) by Bryson.

The problem is mirrored also in your view that "the "laws" are just observations of patterns... As I have been expressing often on this thread, the approach of Inductive reasoning can account only for some partial laws, but precisely not for the overall order (which your saying purports to know), because no amount of Inductive reasoning can ever secure any strictly universal laws. This is one of the main problem of physics. -- So I have no reason at all to change my understanding.

But "universal laws" don't exist. They can't logically exist (Russel's paradox, Godel's Theorem, even one of Zeno's paradoxes... do these mean nothing to you?).

I will continue my response tomorrow, as I have run out of space in this post, and run out of time for the day. 'Till then, I refer you to my responses to hypnagogue in "The implications of a materialistic consciousness on telepathy".

Mentat

Sep15-03, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I'm just thinking that there cannot be a coherent, logical discussion of non-material concepts, that can lead anywhere but in circles. Is that such a wrong idea, and if so, why?

I guess it's not necessarily a wrong (though I haven't ever had a conversation about non-physical concepts without eventually dead-ending or going in circles before) observation, but it is based on Inductive reasoning, and is thus could thus be wrong in any occasion in the future. IOW, we can logically say (if it's true) that we have not had such a conversation, but can incompletely reason that such a conversation cannot occur.

Zero

Sep15-03, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
I guess it's not necessarily a wrong (though I haven't ever had a conversation about non-physical concepts without eventually dead-ending or going in circles before) observation, but it is based on Inductive reasoning, and is thus could thus be wrong in any occasion in the future. IOW, we can logically say (if it's true) that we have not had such a conversation, but can incompletely reason that such a conversation cannot occur. True enough, but, as I stated about nine hundred pages ago, this is more of a working viewpoint, rather than ultimate truth.

Mentat

Sep15-03, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Zero
True enough, but, as I stated about nine hundred pages ago, this is more of a working viewpoint, rather than ultimate truth.

You mean kind of like an easy way of referring to much more complicated issues?

Zero

Sep16-03, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Mentat
You mean kind of like an easy way of referring to much more complicated issues? Kind of as a useful guide, considering the likelihood that we will never know everything, and the fact that treating the universe as though every effect has a physical cause is the only consistantly successful method of finding useful answers.

sascha

Sep17-03, 09:45 AM

Mentat and Zero, your view is still not clear to me. When you say your brain does the thinking, how do you know when it does that correctly and when it does not? What is the criterion?

Zero

Sep17-03, 09:54 AM

sascha

Sep17-03, 11:15 AM

Interesting. So you are proposing yourself as my guru?

Seriously: what is your answer to my question?

Zero

Sep17-03, 11:57 AM

Brain fuction would be judged on....hmmm, I'm not sure. Accurate processing of external stimulus, internal cohesion, and not hearing strange voices?

sascha

Sep17-03, 01:04 PM

Okay, but the problem is that all these functions require a verification which for their part require a verification which for their part require a verification which for their part require a verification which for their part require a verification which for their part .... ?

Note that in philosophy there is a section called predication theory, and it has a problem: predicating leads finally into a version of Russell's paradox (the property of being a non-self-predicable property both falls and does not fall under the concept of being a non-self-predicable property -- or on the other side it both falls and does not fall under the concept of being self-predicable. The proposed solutions till now are of mere avoidance ....).

More in the field which you probably know better, you have the crux of the continuum hypthesis, the indeterminism of QT, the floating character of RT, etc.....

In the last resort things are not as easy as many believe. We must be very careful. That's what I am advocating here, since quite a while and in many ways of expressing it -- including positive proposals. I mean: I don't think we have to postulate some barrier, or limit, or so ....

Mentat

Sep17-03, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Mentat and Zero, your view is still not clear to me. When you say your brain does the thinking, how do you know when it does that correctly and when it does not? What is the criterion?

How do "I" know when my brain "does it correctly"? I am fully confused by this question.

First off, "I" cannot know anything that my brain doesn't because I am my brain.

But, more importantly, I don't think it's possible for my brain to "do it wrong", who would be the judge? What would be the criteria (I really don't know since I never said (I don't think I said, anyway) anything about whether it thought "correctly" or "incorrectly")?

sascha

Sep17-03, 03:41 PM

That's why this question is so interesting. If (as you seem to believe) it is not possible for your brain to "do it wrong", and you "are" your brain, you are compelled to feel infallible, isn't it. This reminds me of Zero's sneering remark on 11 September "There is no problem with a purely material brain 'running' in purely mechanical ways... except it doesn't make you feel special, does it?"

If you tell me the brain knows, then you are at the mercy of whatever happens to go on in your brain. And if you have to check, it is not the brain that has the ultimate word, and hence it is not the brain that thinks.

Mentat

Sep17-03, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by sascha
That's why this question is so interesting. If (as you seem to believe) it is not possible for your brain to "do it wrong", and you "are" your brain, you are compelled to feel infallible, isn't it. This reminds me of Zero's sneering remark on 11 September "There is no problem with a purely material brain 'running' in purely mechanical ways... except it doesn't make you feel special, does it?"

The brain is mechanical (it is an organic machine), but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exert self-control. It obviously does, or else we humans wouldn't have free will (and we are assuming, for the purpose of this thread, that we do).

If you tell me the brain knows, then you are at the mercy of whatever happens to go on in your brain. And if you have to check, it is not the brain that has the ultimate word, and hence it is not the brain that thinks.

When will you stop seperating us from our brains? Seriously, you say that the "automaton human" is a result of our being the same thing as our brains, but then you speak of "us" being "at the mercy of our brains". You speak of "you" having "it" in check. This is a non-sequitor: "WE" ARE "IT"!

sascha

Sep17-03, 04:03 PM

You should read my post a bit more attentively, especially for the second part of your answer. Or does your brain not want to?
I am not separating you from your brain. Or do you see some surgical instruments hovering over you?
Exactly how do you link self-control and free will?
When you say "WE" ARE "IT"!, you merely express a massive conflation: everything of "you" is one big mix of everything. But then why do you only declare being your brain and not also your toenails, your stomach, your excretions, etc?

Mentat

Sep17-03, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by sascha
You should read my post a bit more attentively, especially for the second part of your answer. Or does your brain not want to?
I am not separating you from your brain. Or do you see some surgical instruments hovering over you?
Exactly how do you link self-control and free will?
When you say "WE" ARE "IT"!, you merely express a massive conflation: everything of "you" is one big mix of everything. But then why do you only declare being your brain and not also your toenails, your stomach, your excretions, etc?

Actually I have said, and do say, that the "self" is the entire organism. However, the conscious self is a part of the brain, and nothing more, that is the point that I was trying to get accross.

Anyway, when I said that you keep "seperating me from my brain", it's because you continually refer to things like "keeping our brains under our control", which seperates the concept of the conscious self (which would be the thing that "keeps things under control") and the brain.

sascha

Sep17-03, 04:54 PM

Ugh, where did I continually "refer to things like 'keeping our brains under our control'"? Nobody can control his brain, but only his thoughts, and some have trouble even with that.

Mentat

Sep18-03, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Ugh, where did I continually "refer to things like 'keeping our brains under our control'"? Nobody can control his brain, but only his thoughts, and some have trouble even with that.

Originally posted by you (if you don't believe me, look a few posts above this one):

If you tell me the brain knows, then you are at the mercy of whatever happens to go on in your brain. And if you have to check, it is not the brain that has the ultimate word, and hence it is not the brain that thinks.

When you say your brain does the thinking, how do you know when it does that correctly and when it does not? What is the criterion?

In the first one you speak of "us" having to check "our brains" (clear, obvious, seperation of the "self" from the "brain").

In the second one you speak of "our brains" doing the thinking; and ask "how do you know when it does that correctly...?"[Italics mine].

Fliption

Sep18-03, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Royce is my buddy, so I witheld from him. But I think it only right to express that I think it utterly childish to plug your ears and scream "I'm right, your wrong, you don't understand enough philosophy", which is what you are (figuratively) doing (not just when you type "WRONG!" and leave it at that, but when you restate that I don't know enough, instead of addressing my point head-on). Alexander and Lifegazer did the same thing, and they are gone. Way before that, Scandium did the same thing, and he's gone too.

It is a hinderance to logical and open-minded discussion.

I'm going to respond to this comment because I don't like to be preached to. Especially when it is by someone who does the very thing they are accusing me of. There is only one person posting in this thread who has admitted to reading only the views that suit them. So I don't believe I'm the one with fingers in my ears. Regardless, I said "WRONG" because it was a word that you used in the previous paragraph. I HATE that word. It is a most arrogant and pathetic use of language in a philosphy forum. I just thought I'd let you taste it. As for who has been banned from the forum? Well, of those that you mentioned that I am aware of, I notice one thing they all had in common. They all knew exactly what they believed in and nothing anyone ever said could change their minds. Even if you posted links/references to established industry literature for them to research. Sounds familiar to me.

BTW, I have read much of Dennett. I haven't read the specific book that you refer to all the time in it's entirety but I suspect it is classic Dennett based on what I've read in it and about it. Since I don't perceive us as being able to get past semantics, I haven't had a chance to say what I think of the actual debate itself or Dennett. My general observation is that typically Dennett doesn't actually solve any problem. He merely reframes the issue and defines his way out of it so that there is no problem to begin with. Whether this is correct or not depends on the topic and the way it is done. That many philosphers still think he has only avoided the issue of consciousness, is a good enough reason for me to read what others think. But this is off topic for now.

I would ask you not to leave this discussion open like this, but if you stayed you'd probably continue to get more and more frustrated about how counter-intuitive my "radical" ideas are (though they are not my own, but those of very highly respected Philosophers; not that that matters to me, but it seems to matter to you), instead of addressing my arguments head-on. It's probably a waste of your time and mine (though an excellent way to increase post-count [:D]) to continue as we are, but I don't have anything else to say until you counter what I've alread said (and "it's radical" or "it's not the traditional definition" or "you haven't studied the opposite position enough" are not counters they are dodges, and weak ones at that since you also have not studied the positions that I'm holding (those of Dennett, Le Doux, and Schwartz (sort of, though he's less materialistic)), and your ideas seem equally "radical" to me, since they imply a way for the physical to interact (physically? metaphysically?) with the metaphysical).

I am ready to continue discussion whenever you are.

There is a big difference between discussion and talking to a brick wall. I'll remind you that any person has the intellectual right to leave a discussion if they feel that the conversation is not productive. Neither I nor anyone else has to submit to on-going nonsense for the sake of "saving face" or to refrain from being a "cop out" or whatever else you can think of.

And I cannot keep spending my time responding to your quick responses and telling you over and over that I am not claiming idealists things to be true. Even this very post I am responding to is littered with the same accusations of "you haven't proved your point blah blah blah". I have no point on the materialism/Idealism debate to prove! We either "can" use words in a sentence to communciate what an idealists believes or we cannot. The view that you and Zero are taking (Zero's last post on page 47 is an example) make it impossible to even define idealism! Read his last post on page 47 and tell me that this isn't true. You will see that if you accept what he's saying then you have allowed your materialistic conclusion to constrain the definitions to the point that Idealism cannot be defined, let alone be argued for. This is what I've been saying all along about your conclusion being built into the definitions. Now the definition that "You" have proposed does not necessarily have this flaw. But it is too vague. It simply invites an infinite regress of semantics as I've shown. The reason why is because the true distinction between the 2 views has not been touched by that definition. Both sides would not be able to use that definition and agree on what their beliefs represent. A philosophical discussion cannot happen with such a definition.

Mentat, if you can define the 2 views to the point that everyone can agree on it, then fine I'll move on. But I don't believe that you can do it while restricting your use of useful words. Before you respond, PLEASE read what zero is posting and read what I've posted and actually "think" about it. Don't spend what little time you have online (1 hour?) doing your thinking and responding. Print this stuff out if you can and in your non- internet time, think about it. Then come back and respond. Otherwise we get no where.

And since I was mentioned in the same sentence with names like Alexander, LifeGazer etc, I'll leave with a quote from another member here. This thread is so long we may have forgotten that it isn't just me making the claims of sloppy semantics:

LWSleeth

You believe matter is all there is, but you want to put a spin on that so it comes out "materialists only believe in what can be shown to exist."

That is NOT the definition of materialism, which means that all which exists is either material or derived from what is material. Matter, for a materialist, is the origin and end of all, which at least Heusdan and AG honestly acknowledge. It is obvious to me you are playing mind games to get a tactical advantage in this debate. "We superior materialists only believe what is shown to exist." Of course, the only thing you are willing to accept as having been shown to exist is that which is material. Fliption was on to you right off.

amadeus

Sep19-03, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by sascha
Mentat and Zero, your view is still not clear to me. When you say your brain does the thinking, how do you know when it does that correctly and when it does not? What is the criterion?

Sascha, this is not as simple as you are trying to make it. I think you are exposing a major flaw in the materialist position, but I don't think any of the alternative views are free from paradox either. I guess the best way to put it is that everyone is wrong, and the issue is simply to choose which part of our knowledge we don't mind being wrong. That is, as far as I can tell, where materialists and spiritualists differ - they are wrong in different ways.

Sure, it does seem like the result of our thinking has to be judged. That's how people learn that something they took to be true or fact was not so. That's how we know we make mistakes and experience illusions. But the problem is, who or what plays the role of judge? If you say something other than the brain does it, you have to explain what this "something" has which the brain lacks - not a simple thing to do.

I believe it's easier to assert that whatever it is that does the thinking is the same thing that does the judgement. The reason I say that is because there's a clear way to judge your own thoughts, which is by seeking for self-consistency. That is, you choose a set of things that can be taken for granted (axioms) and make sure that all your knowledge and experiences can be expressed in terms of those axioms. No need for an infinite chain of a judge who judges the judge who judges the judge...

If the mind really works like that, by seeking self-consistency, then we can immediately explain why people believe in different things. First, it's because people have different experiences. For instance, a person who has an out-of-body experience needs to see his experience in a way that is consistent with all his other experiences. That process often leads to a change in the things one takes for granted. The particular axioms we choose as our basic beliefs are not important, any set that yields self-consistency is good enough.

Second, a good way to achieve self-consistency is by playing with language. Except for tautological statements, words do not have clear, fixed meanings, so we always have some room to interpret a particular word in a certain way that makes some statements sound as true. For instance, if I define "God" as "that which I do not understand", then it becomes true for me that "God exists". Of course people who define "God" differently will disagree, and there's nothing we can do about it.

So, to wrap it all up, I think we play the role of our own judges by a process of constantly searching for self-consistency in our ideas and experiences. But I also think you're right in that the brain cannot possibly "think", although that only means you and I define "brain" and "think" in similar ways.

Have fun,

Amadeus

sascha

Sep19-03, 10:02 AM

Mentat, I have looked through all post lately with the search word "control", and I found nothing of the sort you say I said ('keeping our brains under our control'). What you quote is the result of your interpretation. In what I wrote, 'havc to check' refers to what 'the brain knows', i.e. if you have to check its results, then it is not the brain that does the final thinking. I admit that my formulation might have been a bit flimsy. BTW, what I say does not exclude the automatisms in judging which many people have installed -- gut reactions, knee jerk gestures, etc. But that's not the best of the mind -- which is why, for making sure, the automat won't do (which some call "the brain", but which is in fact only the automatized mind and its physiological traces of mental activity). When I talk about our brains doing some thinking, I take up your own view, and I ask how that can be. There is no need to mix up things.

Amadeus, you are of course right in saying that ultimately "whatever it is that does the thinking is the same thing that does the judgement" (of the result of our thinking). Maybe what I just mentioned about automatized ('learned') reactions is helpful for necessary distinctions. In everyday life the automat is most often sufficient, there is no need for anything else than the memorized items. But whenever one is not sure, or something new crops up, the automat is not reliable any more. Then we have to really think, attentively checking what is the case. The use of axioms is fine in the field for which they are designed. But when it comes to the whole -- quaestions of foundation of a science -- they are too limited. Self-consistency in the sense of logical systems is fine for specific aims, but self-limited. Wanting to clarify the role of the mind needs better than that, because it is simultaneously the agency and the acted upon. This requires conceptual (in fact: categoreal) systems that are up to the task.

amadeus

Sep19-03, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Amadeus, you are of course right in saying that ultimately "whatever it is that does the thinking is the same thing that does the judgement" (of the result of our thinking). Maybe what I just mentioned about automatized ('learned') reactions is helpful for necessary distinctions. In everyday life the automat is most often sufficient, there is no need for anything else than the memorized items. But whenever one is not sure, or something new crops up, the automat is not reliable any more. Then we have to really think, attentively checking what is the case. The use of axioms is fine in the field for which they are designed. But when it comes to the whole -- quaestions of foundation of a science -- they are too limited. Self-consistency in the sense of logical systems is fine for specific aims, but self-limited. Wanting to clarify the role of the mind needs better than that, because it is simultaneously the agency and the acted upon. This requires conceptual (in fact: categoreal) systems that are up to the task.

Well, what I meant by "axiom" was not necessarily the same thing as used in logic, after all our minds are capable of thinking in ways that transcend logic. Perhaps "belief" would be a better word. So all our experiences must be consistent with our beliefs. If we experience something which does not agree with our beliefs, we only have two options: change our beliefs or dismiss the experience.

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that this mechanism of constantly seeking for "consistency with belief" works, because it's self-reflexive and requires no infinite chain of regression. But it does require that the self be separated from its perceptions - in other words, that the mind is not made of matter. The alternative leads to solipsism.

Mentat

Sep19-03, 12:59 PM

Fliption, it's probably not going to make any difference that I right this, but I am sorry about having sounded preachy. I was already in a bad mood, and then I started to see indications that we were still going around in circles (partially my fault) and so I just wrote what came to mind (which, FYI, I don't usually do) and posted it. You are one of the few people that I really worry about offending, and yet I seem to keep doing it. Sorry again.

Originally posted by Fliption
There is only one person posting in this thread who has admitted to reading only the views that suit them.

If I may interject, I didn't say that, I just said that I had seen a logical flaw with certain views, and so I didn't spend my time reading how someone expounded on a view that was already (as far as I could see) logically impossible.

So I don't believe I'm the one with fingers in my ears. Regardless, I said "WRONG" because it was a word that you used in the previous paragraph. I HATE that word. It is a most arrogant and pathetic use of language in a philosphy forum. I just thought I'd let you taste it.

Already have, Royce used it (much to my irritation). However, I (at least) explained why I used it, though I probably shouldn't have anyway...

As for who has been banned from the forum? Well, of those that you mentioned that I am aware of, I notice one thing they all had in common. They all knew exactly what they believed in and nothing anyone ever said could change their minds. Even if you posted links/references to established industry literature for them to research. Sounds familiar to me.

Oh please, you have yet to get beyond the two logical (notice, not scientific or philosophical, but just plain logical) flaws in the Idealistic (any Idealistic) philosophies of the mind. I know that you weren't trying to prove Idealism, but you have taken the side of many Idealistic beliefs in previous threads, and (more importantly) have used Idealistic terms in your very definitions (which you said were supposed to be free of bias).

BTW, I have read much of Dennett. I haven't read the specific book that you refer to all the time in it's entirety but I suspect it is classic Dennett based on what I've read in it and about it.

For most practical purposes, you are right, except that he never really tackled the subject of consciousness - in nearly that amount of depth - in any of his other books, and thus left some room for interpretation of what his personal opinion on consciousness really was.

There is a big difference between discussion and talking to a brick wall.

Yes, but you must realize that I often feel the same way about you. I have shown (repeatedly) a bias in your definitions (biased definitions being a severe flaw according to Heusdens and yourself, since they attempt to tackle the issue itself before having fully defined it), and you have yet to counter, and show that your definitions really aren't biased.

I, OTOH, have presented a possible set of definitions (almost ridiculously simple ones, but that's what you need (IMO) when you are trying to remain free of bias (I didn't want to make the same mistake that you accuse Zero of and that I accuse you of)) which seemed to fit the purpose of this discussion and I still don't know what was wrong with them.

And I cannot keep spending my time responding to your quick responses and telling you over and over that I am not claiming idealists things to be true. Even this very post I am responding to is littered with the same accusations of "you haven't proved your point blah blah blah". I have no point on the materialism/Idealism debate to prove!

I know this, I have and do acknowledge that you are not "choosing sides" yet, you are just trying to come up with definitions that are not biased toward either side, so that we can know what it is that we are arguing about later. I just don't think you have yet succeeded, since I see clear bias in your definition.

We either "can" use words in a sentence to communciate what an idealists believes or we cannot.

I know, and I'm of the belief that we can use words. I just think that none of these words should be ones that only make sense in an Idealisitic paradigm...you are going to be debating with Materialists, so it (the definition that we decide on) should at least mean something in both paradigms. That's the point of my simplifying and saying that Idealistic philosophy of the mind is: The belief that is something other than the physical involved in consciousness.

What's wrong with that? (refine it, if you feel it needs refining, but is there anything logically wrong or biased in it?)

The view that you and Zero are taking (Zero's last post on page 47 is an example) make it impossible to even define idealism! Read his last post on page 47 and tell me that this isn't true.

His last post on page 47 is:
Originally posted by Zero
No, because if we stay on topic, he's out of special cases and exceptions!! [:D]

What does that have to do with defining Idealism?

Originally posted by Fliption
You will see that if you accept what he's saying then you have allowed your materialistic conclusion to constrain the definitions to the point that Idealism cannot be defined, let alone be argued for.

This may or may not be true. Try using the definition that I suggested. It just might still be usable.

This is what I've been saying all along about your conclusion being built into the definitions. Now the definition that "You" have proposed does not necessarily have this flaw. But it is too vague. It simply invites an infinite regress of semantics as I've shown. The reason why is because the true distinction between the 2 views has not been touched by that definition. Both sides would not be able to use that definition and agree on what their beliefs represent. A philosophical discussion cannot happen with such a definition.

I disagree here. I've though about it and I think that the distinction is perfectly clear in my definitions:

Idealistic philosophy of mind: There is something more to consciousness than the physical.

Materialist philosophy of mind: There is nothing more to consciousness than the physical.

What's wrong here?

Mentat, if you can define the 2 views to the point that everyone can agree on it, then fine I'll move on. But I don't believe that you can do it while restricting your use of useful words. Before you respond, PLEASE read what zero is posting and read what I've posted and actually "think" about it. Don't spend what little time you have online (1 hour?) doing your thinking and responding. Print this stuff out if you can and in your non- internet time, think about it. Then come back and respond. Otherwise we get no where.

Well, I'm responding to an E-mail, looking up information for my friend who's wife is dying of cancer, and reading two other threads. However, I have put all of these other things on hold (as I usually do when responding to one of your posts) and giving it my undivided attention. I've thought carefully before typing, and I hope it shows (even though that's what I've been doing this whole time (except when I got angry, and I apologize again for that)).

As to Zero's post on page 47, I don't see it's relevance. Maybe you meant a different page?

Mentat

Sep19-03, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Mentat, I have looked through all post lately with the search word "control", and I found nothing of the sort you say I said ('keeping our brains under our control').

The word probably hasn't come up, but the implication is rather common in your posts (of which I quoted just two examples).

What you quote is the result of your interpretation. In what I wrote, 'havc to check' refers to what 'the brain knows', i.e. if you have to check its results, then it is not the brain that does the final thinking.

That's the point! You cannot say "YOU" keep "IT" in check unless "YOU" are something other than "IT". You continually refer to the self as "checking" on the brain, but that implies that the conscious self is something other than the brain.

I admit that my formulation might have been a bit flimsy. BTW, what I say does not exclude the automatisms in judging which many people have installed -- gut reactions, knee jerk gestures, etc. But that's not the best of the mind -- which is why, for making sure, the automat won't do (which some call "the brain", but which is in fact only the automatized mind and its physiological traces of mental activity). When I talk about our brains doing some thinking, I take up your own view, and I ask how that can be. There is no need to mix up things.

But you are not "taking up my view". You are getting close sometimes, but you always fall short of truly understanding me, since you continually refer to the conscious self as something other than a part of the brain.

Fliption

Sep19-03, 05:06 PM

Ok, lets see if we can make some progress here.

Originally posted by Mentat
If I may interject, I didn't say that, I just said that I had seen a logical flaw with certain views, and so I didn't spend my time reading how someone expounded on a view that was already (as far as I could see) logically impossible.

I understand this. But as info, complexity theory is a scientific topic that has nothing directly to do with the philosophical discussion of materialism versus Idealism. So to say that's it's premises are flawed based on your understanding of Idealism is not entirely appropriate. Also, I've been reading your dialogue with Hypnagogue in the thread on telepathy. I see him using "emergent properties" and similar concepts several times and you have allowed him to do it with little fuss. I can only guess as to why this is.

Oh please, you have yet to get beyond the two logical (notice, not scientific or philosophical, but just plain logical) flaws in the Idealistic (any Idealistic) philosophies of the mind. I know that you weren't trying to prove Idealism, but you have taken the side of many Idealistic beliefs in previous threads, and (more importantly) have used Idealistic terms in your very definitions (which you said were supposed to be free of bias).

Let me define how I use the term "bias" because you keep saying that my definition is biased in the same way that Zero's is and it clearly is not. To me the words that the definition uses don't determine whether it is biased or not. To determine whether a definition is biased, I envision it being used in a discussion between a materialist and an idealist. If the definition uses words that mean the same things for the 2 sides and they are clear on what their disagreement is, then the definition is successful. If the definition does not allow one side to make any statements at all because it assumes the conclusion of the opponent, then it is biased. If you go back to the thread where I typed in the dialogue between the materialist and the idealist, you'll see that I was trying to show how Zero's definition is not useful because the words mean different things to different people.

HOWEVER, I can make the statement "A materialist does not believe that anything originating from the "mind" actually exists because a materialists doesn't believe the mind exists". The idealist view would simply be the reversal of this view. By using this as our distinction, the views of the materialists ARE NOT compromised in any way. Hence it is not biased. All you have done is state that it is biased because certain words are present. You have not shown an example in a mock dialogue or anything else showing how this definition disallows the materialists conclusion simply because it uses a word like "mind" in the sentence. But lets move off of this for now and move to your definition rather than Zero's.

For most practical purposes, you are right, except that he never really tackled the subject of consciousness - in nearly that amount of depth - in any of his other books, and thus left some room for interpretation of what his personal opinion on consciousness really was.

In readings that I have had, he has expressed opinions on the mind/body problem. I assume they would be similar.

and you have yet to counter, and show that your definitions really aren't biased.

In my view, it is you who must show why my definition is biased. All you have said is that it uses idealistic words. But you haven't shown why this doesn't allow the materialists to maintain his views. The use of these "idealist" words are merely for communication. I'll try to show why this definition is better than the alternatives.

Idealistic philosophy of mind: There is something more to consciousness than the physical.

Materialist philosophy of mind: There is nothing more to consciousness than the physical.

What's wrong here?

Well thats the first time I've seen your definition written like that. The first issue is that I wonder if ldealistic ideas only apply to consciousness? Does it not apply to the whole universe? It seems the definition would have to be expanded a bit. But you did say it was a "theory of the mind" so I'll go with it.

The biggest problem with this definition is the word "physical". First of all, I don't think an idealists gives a rats rear what is physical or what isn't. An idealist believes that the products of mind (or consciousness if you like) have a primary existence over things not of the mind. Whether it is physical or not isn't as relevant as whether it is a product of the mind. This is the true distinction between the 2 views. Whether something is "physical" or not is simply a characteristic that materialists have placed on it after the fact.

But putting that opinion aside there are still more problems. What does it mean to be physical? Earlier you said something about energy and interactions. OK, so what exactly are the criteria for something to be considered energy? These questions will continue with each answer you give. I'm not trying to be difficult. But I know that these words have a common sense meaning to all of us and we all have our own understanding. Can these labels be applied to "new" things as we discover them and the definition of Idealism/Materialism be maintained? What if we discover something new that doesn't fit into these definitions? Then we either have to go ask idealists and materialists what their beliefs are with regard to this thing so that we can tweak our definitions of energy and matter so that the definition of materialism and idealism remain intact. Or, we have to change the definitions of idealism to say something like "we believe nothing is physical....with the following exceptions...." Very sloppy.

If I can look at any thing, idea, concept, etc in the universe and claim that either an idealist or a materialist does or does not believe in it, based on the definition of Idealism/materialism, then it is a good definition. For example, if 50 years from now we come across a new "thing" in the universe that doesn't quite fit your definition of energy does that mean it isn't physical? What am I to do if I want to know what the idealists position is on such a thing? Do I ask the idealists what he thinks of this new things existence and then call it physical or not based on his answer? Or do I claim it is physical or not base on other criteria at the expense of the idealists definition?

The better option is to use Heusdens academic definition. To just say that creations of the "mind" (as it is consistently understood by everyone) are what Idealists believe are the primary existence. So if we consider a black hole or some exotic form of dark matter(or even some other unimaginable thing). I no longer need to study whether it meets all the criteria of "physical" or "energy" or whatever other criteria I would eventually need. All I have to ask is, "would an existing black hole continue to exist without a mind to conceive of it? Does it exists separate from my mind?" The answer is "yes". So it is a materialists concept. The same thing can be applied to "color", and "taste". However, both of these things would cease to exist if I didn't exists to conceive of them. So they are not material(in the philosophical sense). Using words like "mind" and "consciousness" is for convenience only. Because everyone knows what we're talking about and there is no gray area. Is there? No matter what thing you think up or discover, I automatically know whether it is idealists or materialist by asking the questions above. And I think everyone would agree. Because that IS the distinction between the 2 views.

As I said earlier, if we use your definition I can continue to ask you more and more questions about what the words really mean. It will eventually come to an end somewhere, where everyone agrees on the definition and no more questions need to be asked. But I am certain that what you'll find when you get to that point is that you have built materialism into your definition. We can go through the exercise if you want but I'm certain if you go through the exercise in your head you'll see it too. This is why I asked pages ago "what would it take for you to be convinced that materialism is wrong?" using your own definition of materialism as your basis. I asked this question because I know there is no answer. The answer that you gave begged the question because you merely said that "an idealiists would have to show X" You didn't say what X could be, nor whether it is logically possible at all [b]by definition

As to Zero's post on page 47, I don't see it's relevance. Maybe you meant a different page?

Sorry, it is on page 49.

Fliption

Sep19-03, 10:42 PM

Sorry this was a duplicate and the forum won't let me delete it. So I edited it to say this! [:)]

BoulderHead

Sep19-03, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Sorry this was a duplicate and the forum won't let me delete it. So I edited it to say this! [:)]
When did this happen?

Let me see if I can delete this...
[edit]
Hmmm, the function has been disabled I'd say.

Zero

Sep20-03, 02:01 AM

I'm sorry...idealism is nonsense, and if that makes materialism circular, then so be it. Idealism, by definition, is irrational, illogical, and cannot construct a useful and coherent position. Therefore, circular or not, materialism is the best we have to go on. Sorry you geys wasted all this time posting, but I am right, you are wrong, and that's what you'll have to live with.[6)]

Zero

Sep20-03, 02:04 AM

BTW...I ROCK!![:D]

Seriously, though...idealism is useless as a tool, whether it is true or not. Because it is based on subjectivism, it suggests that the universe is different for each person, and is therefore useless for communicating ideas. It is similar to allowing each person to invent their own language; while each individual language may be perfectly suited to its inventor, it makes communication impossible.

sascha

Sep20-03, 03:38 AM

Mentat, you are rather amusing in wanting to tell people what they mean when they say something -- for example in addressing this to me: "The word probably hasn't come up, but the implication is rather common in your posts (of which I quoted just two examples)."

In detail, the self being something other than the brain does not imply that checking means checking the brain, especially if I have made clear that I mean checking one's thoughts. Whether you believe these are the result of the brain -- just like piss is the result of the kidneys (a view dating back to LaMettrie, many cemnturies back) -- is none of my business. You should not mix up what you think and what others think. Maybe you should tell this to your brain....

In what you say afterwards, as so many other times you only ask me to follow your beliefs. This is precisely what I will never do. In insisting you miss the point of what I discuss: the role of automatisms.

amadeus

Sep22-03, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Seriously, though...idealism is useless as a tool, whether it is true or not. Because it is based on subjectivism, it suggests that the universe is different for each person, and is therefore useless for communicating ideas. It is similar to allowing each person to invent their own language; while each individual language may be perfectly suited to its inventor, it makes communication impossible.

But, Zero, look at this forum and tell me if that isn't exactly what's happening. Communication is, more often than not, impossible. You are claiming that materialism would improve communication, but you don't seem more successful at communicating your ideas than the idealists are. What is wrong? Why is it that your claims of improved communication lack substantiation in fact?

(I can already hear you saying, "what's wrong? the non-materialists are what's wrong, they don't understand what I say!". Just kidding...)

Zero

Sep22-03, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by amadeus
But, Zero, look at this forum and tell me if that isn't exactly what's happening. Communication is, more often than not, impossible. You are claiming that materialism would improve communication, but you don't seem more successful at communicating your ideas than the idealists are. What is wrong? Why is it that your claims of improved communication lack substantiation in fact?

(I can already hear you saying, "what's wrong? the non-materialists are what's wrong, they don't understand what I say!". Just kidding...) What I mean by communication, is that if I see a ball, and decribe it as an object, someone else can come behind me and identify that object. A materialists says 'There is a ball on the couch, it had a diameter of about 8 inches, it is made of knobby red rubber, and it has a picture of Elmo on it'
An Idealist would say 'look at the lovely ball, it makes me feel gooshy inside...'

Mentat

Sep22-03, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Ok, lets see if we can make some progress here.

I sure hope so.

I understand this. But as info, complexity theory is a scientific topic that has nothing directly to do with the philosophical discussion of materialism versus Idealism. So to say that's it's premises are flawed based on your understanding of Idealism is not entirely appropriate. Also, I've been reading your dialogue with Hypnagogue in the thread on telepathy. I see him using "emergent properties" and similar concepts several times and you have allowed him to do it with little fuss. I can only guess as to why this is.

Well...actually, I have rebuked (probably the wrong term, since I have no authority to "rebuke" anyone...perhaps "corrected" or "commented on" is better?) him for having used such terms that imply "emergent properties", but, IIRC, we came to an agreement on which terms were OK to use provided the understanding was made beforehand that these were just for the purpose of discussion.

Let me define how I use the term "bias" because you keep saying that my definition is biased in the same way that Zero's is and it clearly is not. To me the words that the definition uses don't determine whether it is biased or not. To determine whether a definition is biased, I envision it being used in a discussion between a materialist and an idealist. If the definition uses words that mean the same things for the 2 sides and they are clear on what their disagreement is, then the definition is successful. If the definition does not allow one side to make any statements at all because it assumes the conclusion of the opponent, then it is biased. If you go back to the thread where I typed in the dialogue between the materialist and the idealist, you'll see that I was trying to show how Zero's definition is not useful because the words mean different things to different people.

Yes, I completely agree with this definition of "bias", and I was making (or, attempting to make) the same distinction, but I focused on the fact that it was the words being used which make the definition unintelligible to both sides of the discussion. That's why I said that yours made the same mistake as what you accused Zero's of (btw, we can completely drop the discussion of Zero's original definition if you want...perhaps starting a seperate thread about it later, because I think it's side-tracking this thread way too much).

HOWEVER, I can make the statement "A materialist does not believe that anything originating from the "mind" actually exists because a materialists doesn't believe the mind exists". The idealist view would simply be the reversal of this view. By using this as our distinction, the views of the materialists ARE NOT compromised in any way. Hence it is not biased.

Actually (man, I wish I could just leave this alone!), it is still slightly biased. Remember your thread (at least I think it was yours) some time ago that dealt with what it really meant to "exist" (oh, wait a minute, that could have been Eh's thread...I'm not really sure). After all, if you can refer to "it" then there is an "it" and thus "it" exists. Anyway, this point comes back to mind when you say that "A materialist doesn't believe that anything originating from the mind actually exists..." because: 1) Everything that exists, actually exists; and 2) According to the materialist, nothing "originates from the mind".

Thus, I guess what I'm saying is that the distinction between Materialism and Idealism is not (as you seem to be saying) a difference in belief on whether the things that exist "inside the mind" "actually exist", but rather whether there is really anything that exists "inside the mind".

I will have to complete my response in my next post, since I have run out of space.

Mentat

Sep22-03, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
All you have done is state that it is biased because certain words are present. You have not shown an example in a mock dialogue or anything else showing how this definition disallows the materialists conclusion simply because it uses a word like "mind" in the sentence.

Ok, a mock dialogue:

Materialist: So what really is the difference between your beliefs and mine?
Idealist using Fliption's definition: Well, I believe that the things produced by the mind are what really exist, and the physical things are just secondary.
Materialist: You believe that what is what really exists?
Idealist: The things produced by the mind.
Materialist: What things that are produced by the mind? You mean electrical stimuli?
Idealist: No, not the physical things produced by the brain, the phenomenal things produced by the non-physical mind.
Materialist: There is no non-physical mind.
Idealist: Oh, then I guess the difference isn't that you believe the things in the mind don't "really exist", but rather that there are no things produced in the mind.
Materialist: That's right, in fact I don't think there is a mind, except for the physical organ called the "brain".

So, you see, the difference was not (as the Idealist using Fliption's definition believed) what importance or what status (really existing or just emerging from what really exists) was placed on phenomenal events, but rather the difference was whether one believed that there were phenomenal events ITFP.

But lets move off of this for now and move to your definition rather than Zero's.

Good idea.

In my view, it is you who must show why my definition is biased. All you have said is that it uses idealistic words. But you haven't shown why this doesn't allow the materialists to maintain his views. The use of these "idealist" words are merely for communication. I'll try to show why this definition is better than the alternatives.

Yes, but when (in my mock dialogue) the Materialist was confronted with the idea of "things that exist inside the mind", he was at a complete loss, since there are no such things in his paradigm. The fact that the implication of "non-physical thoughts" exists in the Idealist's original definition made his original definition biased and unintelligible by his Materialist aquaintance.

Well thats the first time I've seen your definition written like that. The first issue is that I wonder if ldealistic ideas only apply to consciousness? Does it not apply to the whole universe? It seems the definition would have to be expanded a bit. But you did say it was a "theory of the mind" so I'll go with it.

You have point. Yes, I suppose we should limit ourselves to just discussing the Idealistic approach to theories of mind for now. However, I think it can be applied in many different circumstances if we just remember that the Idealist believes that something other than the physical exists, and the Materialist does not.

The biggest problem with this definition is the word "physical". First of all, I don't think an idealists gives a rats rear what is physical or what isn't. An idealist believes that the products of mind (or consciousness if you like) have a primary existence over things not of the mind. Whether it is physical or not isn't as relevant as whether it is a product of the mind. This is the true distinction between the 2 views. Whether something is "physical" or not is simply a characteristic that materialists have placed on it after the fact.

I disagree. A person who believes that something exists "in the mind" (no matter what status they give such a thing) is an Idealist, and is believing in something non-physical, since there are obviously no "purple cows" in my physical brain.

But putting that opinion aside there are still more problems. What does it mean to be physical? Earlier you said something about energy and interactions. OK, so what exactly are the criteria for something to be considered energy? These questions will continue with each answer you give. I'm not trying to be difficult.

No, I think you are making a valid point. However, for the purpose of this discussion, I think I can re-define "physical" as: Composed of wavicles and/or having effect on spacetime.

Thus, something that is produced "inside consciousness" cannot be physical, since it is not composed of wavicles (wave/particles) and has no effect on spacetime.

But I know that these words have a common sense meaning to all of us and we all have our own understanding. Can these labels be applied to "new" things as we discover them and the definition of Idealism/Materialism be maintained? What if we discover something new that doesn't fit into these definitions? Then we either have to go ask idealists and materialists what their beliefs are with regard to this thing so that we can tweak our definitions of energy and matter so that the definition of materialism and idealism remain intact. Or, we have to change the definitions of idealism to say something like "we believe nothing is physical....with the following exceptions...." Very sloppy.

Again, very valid point, however I think my new "redefinition" may help some (possibly not though, I await your scrutiny of it).

If I can look at any thing, idea, concept, etc in the universe and claim that either an idealist or a materialist does or does not believe in it, based on the definition of Idealism/materialism, then it is a good definition. For example, if 50 years from now we come across a new "thing" in the universe that doesn't quite fit your definition of energy does that mean it isn't physical? What am I to do if I want to know what the idealists position is on such a thing? Do I ask the idealists what he thinks of this new things existence and then call it physical or not based on his answer? Or do I claim it is physical or not base on other criteria at the expense of the idealists definition?

I will answer your question with a question: How do you "come across" something that doesn't interact with energy or spacetime? After all, as humans, our only way of percieving anything about the world is through our five senses, and they only percieve effects of energy and spacetime.

So, really, your hypothetical scenario becomes rather moot, when confronted with the fact (fact according to Materialists that is) that one can never become conscious of something without using one of his five physical senses.

This is why I asked pages ago "what would it take for you to be convinced that materialism is wrong?" using your own definition of materialism as your basis. I asked this question because I know there is no answer. The answer that you gave begged the question because you merely said that "an idealiists would have to show X" You didn't say what X could be, nor whether it is logically possible at all by definition

I don't quite understand your problem with my response. I said that they would have to show that an intermediary, that was neither physical nor non-physical, exists (which is logically impossible, but is absolutely vital to the Idealistic approach*) and that they would have to get around the homunculan problem as well. Neither of these seem to "beg the question" as you say; they appear to be perfectly rational objections to me.

*It is not really vital to holding an Idealistic view (which is the view that non-physical things exist), however, it is vital to believing that the mind is non-physical, since the mind interacts with the rest of the self on a constant basis.

amadeus

Sep22-03, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Zero
What I mean by communication, is that if I see a ball, and decribe it as an object, someone else can come behind me and identify that object. A materialists says 'There is a ball on the couch, it had a diameter of about 8 inches, it is made of knobby red rubber, and it has a picture of Elmo on it'
An Idealist would say 'look at the lovely ball, it makes me feel gooshy inside...'

I knew that's what you meant, but I still think you are missing an important point. First, your distinction between materialists and idealists above is not correct; idealists know as much about inches, rubber, and Elmo as materialists do. If anything, the major difference between them is that the materialist will say there is no such thing as a lovely ball, unless "lovely" can be demonstrated to be similar to "inches", "rubber", etc. If anything, the problem with non-materialists is that they insist on talking about things that cannot be talked about. With that part of your argument I would have no problem but...

What exactly is "materialism"? How many inches does it measure? What is it made of? Does it look like Elmo?

So while materialistic things are easy to describe, materialism itself is as subjective as anything idealists talk about. Worse, I take it that the reason materialists like materialism is because "it's lovely and makes them feel gooshy inside..."

You can run but you cannot hide...

Mentat

Sep22-03, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Mentat, you are rather amusing in wanting to tell people what they mean when they say something -- for example in addressing this to me: "The word probably hasn't come up, but the implication is rather common in your posts (of which I quoted just two examples)."

I wasn't telling you what you meant, merely what you implied (whether on purpose or not).

In detail, the self being something other than the brain does not imply that checking means checking the brain, especially if I have made clear that I mean checking one's thoughts. Whether you believe these are the result of the brain -- just like piss is the result of the kidneys (a view dating back to LaMettrie, many cemnturies back) -- is none of my business. You should not mix up what you think and what others think. Maybe you should tell this to your brain....

Understand what I'm saying, please: If "I" check on my "thoughts" then (according to the materialist view, which I am currently taking) that means that the brain (which is the same as "me") checks on it's thoughts. But this is not logical since the "thoughts" themselves are merely physical functions of the brain, having no seperate existence.

In what you say afterwards, as so many other times you only ask me to follow your beliefs. This is precisely what I will never do. In insisting you miss the point of what I discuss: the role of automatisms.

I didn't ask you to take on my beliefs, I only assumed that you were (for the sake of this part of the debate) taking my side hypothetically. You said - in a previous post, from which all of this recent discussion (between you and I) has followed - that "if you take the Materialist PoV, that the brain is the self, then you have the problem of whether "it" does it right", or something like that. My problem with that statement (and the subsequent justifications of it) is that you are not taking my side of the argument, even though you said that this problem arises from doing just that.

sascha

Sep22-03, 01:27 PM

But, Mentat, there still is a problem with what you say: If for you the only way of understanding "checking one's thoughts" is to mean "the brain checks on it's own thoughts (which is illogical, because it introduces a split)", then there is no way in which logic can make sense to you, since in pure logic there is only one thought checking on other thoughts -- and thus in your terminology 'the brain checking the brain'.... Or what?

Fliption

Sep22-03, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
we came to an agreement on which terms were OK to use provided the understanding was made beforehand that these were just for the purpose of discussion.

Actually (man, I wish I could just leave this alone!), it is still slightly biased. Remember your thread (at least I think it was yours) some time ago that dealt with what it really meant to "exist" (oh, wait a minute, that could have been Eh's thread...I'm not really sure). After all, if you can refer to "it" then there is an "it" and thus "it" exists. Anyway, this point comes back to mind when you say that "A materialist doesn't believe that anything originating from the mind actually exists..." because: 1) Everything that exists, actually exists; and 2) According to the materialist, nothing "originates from the mind".

I've placed these 2 paragraphs above together because my comment addresses them both. I did see you comment on Hypnagogues words and I saw the agreement. This agreement is exactly what I've been trying to get here. The whole reason you were able to make that agreement was because you understood what he meant by the words and phrases that he was using. And that is the only objective that language has. To allow for communication. So the words worked. This is what I've been trying to do here for the last 40 pages. I've pointed out that the whole point in using certain words was to allow for a definition that everyone understood and a clear distinction could be made. Whether these concepts actually exists or not is not relevant. Maybe I've just done a poor job of trying to get this because Hypnagouge seemed to accomplish it so easily.

Also, for the whole "existence" discussion, I just don't understand how you think you can disagree with anyone if you aren't willing to accept the words that the other side uses? For example, if a guy on the street tells you to watch out for the Pink Unicorn in your path, you will likely disagree with him that a pink unicorn even exists. Not to mention you see nothing in front of you. So, pink unicorns don't exists, yet you are using the word. The existence of the pink unicorn(and all it's droppings) IS the distinction between your 2 views. How can you disagree with this man if you aren't even willing to use the word of the very thing that separates your view? IMO, you can't. Which is what I've been saying. You cannot disallow these key words without completely crippling idealisms ability to argue it's point.

Thus, I guess what I'm saying is that the distinction between Materialism and Idealism is not (as you seem to be saying) a difference in belief on whether the things that exist "inside the mind" "actually exist", but rather whether there is really anything that exists "inside the mind".

I could be slow but I've read this several times and I don't see a difference. It's probably me but maybe there's a typo?

Fliption

Sep22-03, 03:40 PM

Ok, a mock dialogue:

Materialist: So what really is the difference between your beliefs and mine?
Idealist using Fliption's definition: Well, I believe that the things produced by the mind are what really exist, and the physical things are just secondary.
Materialist: You believe that what is what really exists?
Idealist: The things produced by the mind.
Materialist: What things that are produced by the mind? You mean electrical stimuli?
Idealist: No, not the physical things produced by the brain, the phenomenal things produced by the non-physical mind.
Materialist: There is no non-physical mind.
Idealist: Oh, then I guess the difference isn't that you believe the things in the mind don't "really exist", but rather that there are no things produced in the mind.
Materialist: That's right, in fact I don't think there is a mind, except for the physical organ called the "brain".

But you didn't do this in the thread with Hynogogue. Why? The reason is because you DO understand what is being referred to when we speak of things of the mind. Pretending you don't is much like you pretending you can't disagree with the crazy street man who is seeing pink unicorns just because you don't know what a pink unicorn is. You do know what one is, just like you know what a mind is. The whole point is to communicate; not state truths.

Firstly, even if this dialogue you wrote actually happened, it didn't prevent the materialist from making his conclusion. So it's not biased IMO. So it seems the only way there can be a problem according to you is if we actually come across a materialist who was raised in a cave and doesn't know what is meant by "the mind". Not likely considering he would need to know what it refers to in order to deny it! Also, it doesn't seem to be a big problem anyway seeing as how both parties eventually understood one another in your dialogue.

So, you see, the difference was not (as the Idealist using Fliption's definition believed) what importance or what status (really existing or just emerging from what really exists) was placed on phenomenal events, but rather the difference was whether one believed that there were phenomenal events ITFP.

Ok now I can see the distinction in this version. But I don't see them as contradicting positions at all. I just see one as a more extreme position of the other. Kinda like the relationship between a republican and a libertarian. I just think of these things as different versions of idealism/materialism. I hope this point hasn't been a sticking point for you. There are people who believe that nothing physical exists. There are people who believe that nothing non-physical exists. And there are people who believe that both non-physical and physical exists. And some people who claim to be materialists say they believe the latter. I've seen this in these very forums. So whether something physical or non-physical exists or not is not the understood distinction between the 2 views, necessarily.

Yes, but when (in my mock dialogue) the Materialist was confronted with the idea of "things that exist inside the mind", he was at a complete loss, since there are no such things in his paradigm. The fact that the implication of "non-physical thoughts" exists in the Idealist's original definition made his original definition biased and unintelligible by his Materialist aquaintance.

A pink unicorn is not in your paradigm either but that doesn't prevent you from using those 2 words as the distinction between your view and the street guy's view. Whats the difference?

I disagree. A person who believes that something exists "in the mind" (no matter what status they give such a thing) is an Idealist, and is believing in something non-physical, since there are obviously no "purple cows" in my physical brain.

This doesn't contradict anything I said. So maybe you aren't disagreeing with me? I wouldn't deny that an idealists believes in non-physical things. I just deny that this is the criteria in the definition of idealism. For example, let's assume a person claimed that everyone that walked out of a certain building within the next hour is smarter than everyone else in the world. Now if only midgets walked out in that hour, you wouldn't say that this person believed that midgets were the smartest people in the world. No, because their view is that the people who walked out of that certain building in that hour were the smartest. That these people just happen to be midgets shouldn't be part of the criteria for identifying these people. The same for "non-physical". An idealists isn't going to believe in every non-physical thing you can imagine. So what's the difference between the non-physical things they believe in and the ones they don't? The difference is that the ones they do believe in are products of the mind. Thats the true distinction between the 2 views.

No, I think you are making a valid point. However, for the purpose of this discussion, I think I can re-define "physical" as: Composed of wavicles and/or having effect on spacetime.

And then what happens if 4 thousand years from now our conception of these words change? I am not scientifically educated enough to continue to ask these questions but I don't think the issue I addressed goes away just because you and I can't imagine it. Could we have ever imagined black holes 3 thousand years ago?

Thus, something that is produced "inside consciousness" cannot be physical, since it is not composed of wavicles (wave/particles) and has no effect on spacetime.

Agreed. But this is just a casual observation. Kinda like all those people being midgets.

I will answer your question with a question: How do you "come across" something that doesn't interact with energy or spacetime? After all, as humans, our only way of percieving anything about the world is through our five senses, and they only percieve effects of energy and spacetime.

So, really, your hypothetical scenario becomes rather moot, when confronted with the fact (fact according to Materialists that is) that one can never become conscious of something without using one of his five physical senses.

But you see how you are using a materialists philosophy to make assumptions and then procede to define the terms accordingly?

I don't quite understand your problem with my response. I said that they would have to show that an intermediary, that was neither physical nor non-physical, exists (which is logically impossible, but is absolutely vital to the Idealistic approach*) and that they would have to get around the homunculan problem as well. Neither of these seem to "beg the question" as you say; they appear to be perfectly rational objections to me.

Well as I pointed out earlier and Hynogogue did the same thing in the other thread, the first issue is not a problem with Idealism. It is a problem with Dualism. A materialist who isn't a dualists also has problems here because the only thing you can really know are your subjective interpretations. Even the materialists' Almighty Brain is merely a subjective creation. So to get from the subjective to an Objective reality that we are certain has the features a, b and c is quite a leap, philosphically. To then assume that the subjective doesn't really exists and only the assumed Obective exists in order to avoid the problems of dualism opens its own can worms.

I still don't understand the "homunculan" problem. But it seems like it is a logical flaw that you think exists and not something someone can do anything about. Am I right?

Mentat

Sep23-03, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by sascha
But, Mentat, there still is a problem with what you say: If for you the only way of understanding "checking one's thoughts" is to mean "the brain checks on it's own thoughts (which is illogical, because it introduces a split)", then there is no way in which logic can make sense to you, since in pure logic there is only one thought checking on other thoughts -- and thus in your terminology 'the brain checking the brain'.... Or what?

Why should one thought ever "check on" another? I don't see the necessity (logical or scientific) why a "thought" (which doesn't really even exist) should "check on" another thought, nor can I see what it even means for one thought to check on another.

Mentat

Sep23-03, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
I've placed these 2 paragraphs above together because my comment addresses them both. I did see you comment on Hypnagogues words and I saw the agreement. This agreement is exactly what I've been trying to get here. The whole reason you were able to make that agreement was because you understood what he meant by the words and phrases that he was using. And that is the only objective that language has. To allow for communication. So the words worked. This is what I've been trying to do here for the last 40 pages. I've pointed out that the whole point in using certain words was to allow for a definition that everyone understood and a clear distinction could be made. Whether these concepts actually exists or not is not relevant. Maybe I've just done a poor job of trying to get this because Hypnagouge seemed to accomplish it so easily.

My sincere apologies, but I must once again re-iterate that a definition that requires reference to non-physical products of physical interactions in the brain will never be accepted (at least not by me). Hypnogague never tried to define the terms, we just worked around definitions (basically assuming we knew what we were talking about), which isn't really good philosophy (which is why I fully agree with you about making definitions first) but worked for the time.

Also, when I agree with Hypnogague that certain terms could be used, that didn't refer to anything, but help one to understand, I still made it clear that these words were not to be taken as refering to something.

Also, for the whole "existence" discussion, I just don't understand how you think you can disagree with anyone if you aren't willing to accept the words that the other side uses? For example, if a guy on the street tells you to watch out for the Pink Unicorn in your path, you will likely disagree with him that a pink unicorn even exists. Not to mention you see nothing in front of you. So, pink unicorns don't exists, yet you are using the word.

As Mr. Robin Parsons has said before, "it confirms nothing about the existence of anything except the words being used". Yes, the words exist, but they don't refer to anything.

The existence of the pink unicorn(and all it's droppings) IS the distinction between your 2 views. How can you disagree with this man if you aren't even willing to use the word of the very thing that separates your view? IMO, you can't. Which is what I've been saying. You cannot disallow these key words without completely crippling idealisms ability to argue it's point.

But this situation (with the pink unicorn) is very different from our problem. If someone says, "Watch out for the Pink Unicorn", I just disagree that such a thing exists. However, if we are having a philosophical discussion about the processes of the brain and consciousness, then I would mention not only that there is no such thing as a Pink Unicorn, but also that neither of us ever thought of one.

I could be slow but I've read this several times and I don't see a difference. It's probably me but maybe there's a typo?

Sorry, no typo. This is the central problem between us, and as small as the difference may seem, it is the deciding factor of which one of us is correct. The difference between Materialism and Idealism, is not a distinction between opinions on the status of things that exist "inside consciousness", but a distinction between opinions on whether there is such a thing as "inside consciousness" or not.

IOW, if I take the definition of Materialist to mean "believes things that exist inside consciousness to be secondary" then I allow for a Materialist that believes there is such a thing as "inside consciousness" when, in fact, no Materialist can believe this.

Mentat

Sep23-03, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
But you didn't do this in the thread with Hynogogue. Why? The reason is because you DO understand what is being referred to when we speak of things of the mind. Pretending you don't is much like you pretending you can't disagree with the crazy street man who is seeing pink unicorns just because you don't know what a pink unicorn is. You do know what one is, just like you know what a mind is. The whole point is to communicate; not state truths.

I know that, but this is a serious discussion about philosophies of the mind. One cannot use terms that apply to normal human speech, since normal human speech has evolved from an Idealistic standpoint. Materialism is a very new meme, compared to Idealism. I don't know why this is the case, but it is. Thus, I have to speak entirely from the Materialistic standpoint, and resist the urge to use common terms that refer to Idealistic concepts.

That's why I choose my definition above all the others I've seen, because it can be used with a person who refuses to refer to anything outside of the Materialistic paradigm until such a thing is proven to exist. So, we don't refer to any of those things (thus keeping ourselves intelligible to the die-hard Materialist) and simply say "He doesn't believe consciousness is anything but a physical working of the brain".

Firstly, even if this dialogue you wrote actually happened, it didn't prevent the materialist from making his conclusion. So it's not biased IMO.

The Materialist did not make his conclusion until the Idealist modified the definition to mine.

So it seems the only way there can be a problem according to you is if we actually come across a materialist who was raised in a cave and doesn't know what is meant by "the mind".

Yes, and that's the point, since you are not supposed to be attacking a person who believes in Materialism, you are supposed to be attacking Materialism itself. Of course, you are not necessarily attacking Materialism either, but you are trying to define it, and you must thus do so in a completely unbiased manner (even unbiased to typical human common sense, which I posit has (by its very nature) Idealistic tendencies entrenched in it).

Not likely considering he would need to know what it refers to in order to deny it! Also, it doesn't seem to be a big problem anyway seeing as how both parties eventually understood one another in your dialogue.

Only after the Idealist changed his definition to mine.

Ok now I can see the distinction in this version. But I don't see them as contradicting positions at all. I just see one as a more extreme position of the other. Kinda like the relationship between a republican and a libertarian. I just think of these things as different versions of idealism/materialism. I hope this point hasn't been a sticking point for you. There are people who believe that nothing physical exists. There are people who believe that nothing non-physical exists. And there are people who believe that both non-physical and physical exists. And some people who claim to be materialists say they believe the latter. I've seen this in these very forums. So whether something physical or non-physical exists or not is not the understood distinction between the 2 views, necessarily.

Fine, it may not be the understood distinction, but it is the true distinction. Materialism and Idealism are completely opposite sides of the issue, so there can be no middle ground (believing that there are both non-physical and physical things but calling yourself a Materialist is just looking for such a middle ground). Now, I can believe that there are things that are non-physical, but still argue for a purely Materialistic Philosophy of the Mind, and my argument would change not at all (since I would still not believe that a non-physical thing could interact with a physical one, even if I believe that there are non-physical things).

Does that make sense (I want to make sure, since I'm in a hurry and have to get off-line soon)?

A pink unicorn is not in your paradigm either but that doesn't prevent you from using those 2 words as the distinction between your view and the street guy's view. Whats the difference?

I've covered this already: I'm not debating philosophy of the mind with the man on the street corner.

Besides, if I didn't have the (rather Idealistic) common human tendencies entrenched in my brain - which would allow me to be a complete Materialist - then I would be completely lost at the very mention of a Pink Unicorn.

This doesn't contradict anything I said. So maybe you aren't disagreeing with me? I wouldn't deny that an idealists believes in non-physical things. I just deny that this is the criteria in the definition of idealism. For example, let's assume a person claimed that everyone that walked out of a certain building within the next hour is smarter than everyone else in the world. Now if only midgets walked out in that hour, you wouldn't say that this person believed that midgets were the smartest people in the world. No, because their view is that the people who walked out of that certain building in that hour were the smartest. That these people just happen to be midgets shouldn't be part of the criteria for identifying these people. The same for "non-physical". An idealists isn't going to believe in every non-physical thing you can imagine. So what's the difference between the non-physical things they believe in and the ones they don't? The difference is that the ones they do believe in are products of the mind. Thats the true distinction between the 2 views.

But there are no products of the mind! I keep telling you that, but it doesn't seem to sink in (no offense). The Materialistic view is NOT just that the things produced by the mind are not real, but that there is no such thing as something produced by the mind. Indeed, "something produced by the mind" is a connection of words that fails to perform the duty of words which is to convey meaning (in the eyes of the Materialist).

And then what happens if 4 thousand years from now our conception of these words change? I am not scientifically educated enough to continue to ask these questions but I don't think the issue I addressed goes away just because you and I can't imagine it. Could we have ever imagined black holes 3 thousand years ago?

It doesn't matter if these things change in the future, we can still use this as our definition of "physical".

Agreed. But this is just a casual observation. Kinda like all those people being midgets.

Well, with regard to the "midgets"...I want to make clear that I agree that the Idealist may not believe in all things that are non-physical, but rather just in the non-physical things that s/he believes are produced in the mind. But I maintain that the Materialist position on philosophies of the mind is the position that nothing is "produced in the mind".

But you see how you are using a materialists philosophy to make assumptions and then procede to define the terms accordingly?

Not really. Can you show me exactly how I did that?

Well as I pointed out earlier and Hynogogue did the same thing in the other thread, the first issue is not a problem with Idealism. It is a problem with Dualism. A materialist who isn't a dualists also has problems here because the only thing you can really know are your subjective interpretations. Even the materialists' Almighty Brain is merely a subjective creation. So to get from the subjective to an Objective reality that we are certain has the features a, b and c is quite a leap, philosphically. To then assume that the subjective doesn't really exists and only the assumed Obective exists in order to avoid the problems of dualism opens its own can worms.

Actually, it is the next step (IMO) in scientific progress. The step has been made (whether we like it or not), and Solipsism (for example) is not scientifically possible.

sascha

Sep23-03, 04:31 PM

Mentat, I know you don't see why one thought should ever "check on" another. Yet logic is exactly about that: the correct interrelation between nothing but thoughts. If that does not exist in your system, it is not my problem.

Fliption

Sep24-03, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Mentat

Fine, it may not be the understood distinction, but it is the true distinction.

There is no such thing as a "true" distinction when we are talking about man made concepts. You cannot intuit what words mean Mentat. They mean whatever the people who use them say they mean. This is why I think you should stop pontificating and start reading some established(unbiased)philosophy. You are taking a word that has an established meaning and making it your own simply because you have used it to label yourself in the past and may have used it incorrectly.

I still do not understand how you think you can distinguish between you and an opposite view if you aren't willing to use the words that the opposite view uses to make the very claims that you disagree with. As I said before you cannot claim there is no mind if you do not know what is meant by using the word "mind".

But there are no products of the mind! I keep telling you that, but it doesn't seem to sink in (no offense). The Materialistic view is NOT just that the things produced by the mind are not real, but that there is no such thing as something produced by the mind. Indeed, "something produced by the mind" is a connection of words that fails to perform the duty of words which is to convey meaning (in the eyes of the Materialist).

It has sunk in Mentat but it is irrelevant! Will this ever sink in?

"something produced by the mind" does convey meaning to a materialists! How else can you deny it if you don't know what it means? This is the distinction! Let's just go with your extreme (and made up imo) view of materialism. Then the distinction between your view and Idealism is that "the mind exists". You claim it doesn't, they claim it does. This IS the distinction. The distinction is not physical versus non-physical because there are many non-physical things the idealists would never entertain.

Having said that, now I'll go the next step. Whether you want to accept it or not, there are many proclaimed materialists who are willing to enter into discourse on the things a mind produces. For those materialists we can now say the distinction is not only whether a mind exists but also whether the things produced by the mind are primary over those things outside the mind. It is this extra step that you have been unwilling to entertain. Fine. Ignore it. Forget I said anything about it. This definition is for those that hold the acedemic view of materialism. Besides, even If you ran across such an Idealists, you would never be able to have a philosophical discussion with him/her. You would have to go find one of the acedemic materialists to do that for you. You woudln't even be able to disagree with this idealists because you don't know what they're talking about.

Well, with regard to the "midgets"...I want to make clear that I agree that the Idealist may not believe in all things that are non-physical, but rather just in the non-physical things that s/he believes are produced in the mind. But I maintain that the Materialist position on philosophies of the mind is the position that nothing is "produced in the mind".

So then, as I said above, this is the distinction between your view of materialism and your view of idealism and not whether or not something is physical. But the distinction between less extreme views of materialism and idealism is as I have explained it, which encorporates not only the existence of the mind but mind stuff as well.

Let's see where we are now.

Can we not agree that this quote from you is the dsintinction between the 2 views and not whether something is physical?

If not then I think we ought to wrap this one up. It is obvious we aren't going to make any progress here. The sad part is that your definition doesn't allow us to come to any common terms to even discuss materialism vs idealism(which I have yet to do). I think you'll find that this language barrier is exactly why these topics on this forum are so philosophically pathetic. Because everyone is using the same word and means 5 different things.

It seems now that you think the point of our disagreement centers around what is to me simply 2 different derivations of materialism. While I think the materialism that you claim is simply the more extreme version you aren't willing to concede that other materialists who have different beliefs from you are actually using the term correctly. Your definition cannot accomodate these differences but mine can. Anyway, I say we end this one because I don't think there is anything else I can say that I haven't already said and vice versa. And I see that you are participating in many threads here and I shouldn't make the seemingly impossible task of thinking through all these topics and responding in 1 hour any harder than it already is; especially when no progress can be made.

Mentat

Sep24-03, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by sascha
Mentat, I know you don't see why one thought should ever "check on" another. Yet logic is exactly about that: the correct interrelation between nothing but thoughts. If that does not exist in your system, it is not my problem.

You are dead wrong. Logic is not about thoughts checking on each other. You should take a look at Tom's "Logic" thread.

Mentat

Sep24-03, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
There is no such thing as a "true" distinction when we are talking about man made concepts. You cannot intuit what words mean Mentat. They mean whatever the people who use them say they mean. This is why I think you should stop pontificating and start reading some established(unbiased)philosophy. You are taking a word that has an established meaning and making it your own simply because you have used it to label yourself in the past and may have used it incorrectly.

I use it the way I do because both the dictionary of Philosophy (I think it was called the "Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy") and a book on opposing Philosophies that I read in my high school library (back when I was in public school) have said that the Materialistic position is the position that nothing but the physical exists (which is already implied by the name anyway) and that the Idealistic standpoint is that there is something else.

I still do not understand how you think you can distinguish between you and an opposite view if you aren't willing to use the words that the opposite view uses to make the very claims that you disagree with. As I said before you cannot claim there is no mind if you do not know what is meant by using the word "mind".

That's why I'm not currently debating that there is no mind. I'm debating that there isn't anything non-physical about consciousness (or any other brain-function), which is what the Materialistic approace is. Thus, we can use the definitions that I proposed (perhaps refined somewhat, but they fit into both the references on this particular subject that I have read) and debate only whether there is or is not a non-physical aspect to the mind and consciousness.

It has sunk in Mentat but it is irrelevant! Will this ever sink in?

"something produced by the mind" does convey meaning to a materialists! How else can you deny it if you don't know what it means? This is the distinction! Let's just go with your extreme (and made up imo) view of materialism. Then the distinction between your view and Idealism is that "the mind exists".

What?! Is that what you've taken from what I said? That's not the distinction, the distinction is that Idealists believe that there is something non-physical to the mind.

You claim it doesn't, they claim it does. This IS the distinction. The distinction is not physical versus non-physical because there are many non-physical things the idealists would never entertain.

But that's completely irrelevant, since if I say "consciousness is a non-physical process" I have not admitted the truth of the existence of all non-physical things, merely the belief that consciousness is non-physical.

Having said that, now I'll go the next step. Whether you want to accept it or not, there are many proclaimed materialists who are willing to enter into discourse on the things a mind produces. For those materialists we can now say the distinction is not only whether a mind exists but also whether the things produced by the mind are primary over those things outside the mind. It is this extra step that you have been unwilling to entertain. Fine. Ignore it. Forget I said anything about it. This definition is for those that hold the acedemic view of materialism. Besides, even If you ran across such an Idealists, you would never be able to have a philosophical discussion with him/her. You would have to go find one of the acedemic materialists to do that for you. You woudln't even be able to disagree with this idealists because you don't know what they're talking about.

You are missing the point, and I think it's caused by the fact that (somehow) you have taken my defintions to mean that the difference between Materialism and Idealism is that one believes in the mind and one does not. The difference is that one believes in a non-physical mind and the other does not.

Look, Fliption, I don't think we should quit this thread just yet. I think that a few clarifications need to be made, which I thought I had made clear a long time ago:

1) IMCO, the difference between Materialistic Philosophies of the Mind and Idealistic ones is that the Materialist doesn't believe in anything non-physical (including a non-physical consciousness), while the Idealist (In Philosophies of the Mind) believes that consciousness is non-physical.

2) Your definition (again, IMO) is biased, because it makes reference to supposed non-physical things under the assumption that "they'll understand what I mean", even though, as far as the Materialistic paradigm is concerned you have not referred to anything, but have simply used words in your definition for the mistaken purpose of expressing a concept when in fact no concept was expressed or made reference to.

3) The debate on Materialism and Idealism is obviously not resolved, but there are two logical errors with an Idealistic approach (unless that Idealistic approach is Solipsistic in nature, in which case you are not really discussing anything with "me" anyway [;)]) to consciousness, and I have pointed them out, and no one has been able to get by them yet.

Iacchus32

Sep24-03, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
You are dead wrong. Logic is not about thoughts checking on each other. You should take a look at Tom's "Logic" thread. But what does logic involve if it doesn't involve the process of thinking? Indeed, if there was nothing to think about, where would the logic be? So all I ask is that you think about -- and process -- what I'm saying here. [;)]

sascha

Sep24-03, 05:13 PM

Mentat, I am not astonished that you believe I am dead wrong, and that you don't see the acts of thinking occurring in logic, but only that which is thought about. Yet I have some nice quotations from Tom, which show who is dead wrong here, by being deeply one-eyed:

"Logic is the study of the prescriptive laws of reasoning"

Do you realize that following a prescriptive law is possible only if one thought -- i.e. the thought of the required law -- applies this law to what it must control, i.e. to another thought?

And another of Tom's tidbits:

"Deductive validity is no safeguard against false conclusions. In fact, ... the truth of the statements in an argument cannot be determined by logic, and so logicians typically restrict their attention to analysis of validity."

Fliption

Sep24-03, 10:51 PM

Mentat this whole discussion has been one big evolving semantic mess.

I'm going to try to stop the cycle of non-productive circular argument and start from the beginning. I have in no way suggested a biased definition. Firstly, I claimed that the difference between the 2 views was that an idealists believes that "things of the mind" have a primary existence and therefore cause the things outside the mind to exists. And a materialist claims that the things outside the mind are primary and causes the thinks inside the mind to exists. You then said that this asssumed a non-physical thing called "the mind" so I wasn't allowed to go in this direction. Now it seems you are no longer denying the existence of a mind. You're just saying that it is physical and not non-physical. Great! Considering this new information I don't understand why my original distinction cannot work. Since the distinction of what is primary and what is secondary is not dependent on whether the mind is physical or not.

Here is where I get my info:

You are missing the point, and I think it's caused by the fact that (somehow) you have taken my defintions to mean that the difference between Materialism and Idealism is that one believes in the mind and one does not. The difference is that one believes in a non-physical mind and the other does not.

This last sentence implies that there is such a thing as a physical mind. The reason that I have interpreted your belief as being that one view believes in mind and the other does not is because you have been disallowing the use of the word "mind" by claiming it must be referring to a non-physical thing. For example....

2) Your definition (again, IMO) is biased, because it makes reference to supposed non-physical things under the assumption that "they'll understand what I mean", even though, as far as the Materialistic paradigm is concerned you have not referred to anything, but have simply used words in your definition for the mistaken purpose of expressing a concept when in fact no concept was expressed or made reference to.

The concept you are referring to that I used is "mind". So you can see how I am even more confused as to why my definition is not the better one.

The problem with your definition is that it does not provide the same distinction to everyone. I have tried to illustrate and show this and you seemingly agreed with me. I haven't seen any good reason that refuted anything I said. I've seen basic dictionaries make similar attempts as you but then they go on to say things like 'this doesn't mean that materialistic don't believe in "love" because they do'. So they're full of contradictions.

Originally posted by Mentat
The debate on Materialism and Idealism is obviously not resolved, but there are two logical errors with an Idealistic approach (unless that Idealistic approach is Solipsistic in nature, in which case you are not really discussing anything with "me" anyway [;)]) to consciousness, and I have pointed them out, and no one has been able to get by them yet. [/B]

This is a pet peeve of mine. When people continually keep referring to their argument totally ignoring the counter arguments to it. LifeGazer used to do this. I have explained to you at least 3 times and Hynagogue in another thread explained the same thing to you once. Your first logical error is not an error with Idealism. It is a problem with dualism. It is as much a problem for a materialist as an idealist.

The second logical problem makes no sense. I cannot agree with it or refute it if I don't know what it means. I suspect I am not the only one.

Mentat

Sep27-03, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by sascha
Mentat, I am not astonished that you believe I am dead wrong, and that you don't see the acts of thinking occurring in logic, but only that which is thought about. Yet I have some nice quotations from Tom, which show who is dead wrong here, by being deeply one-eyed:

"Logic is the study of the prescriptive laws of reasoning"

Do you realize that following a prescriptive law is possible only if one thought -- i.e. the thought of the required law -- applies this law to what it must control, i.e. to another thought?

The required law is not a thought, it is thought about but it itself is not a thought. A law is a pattern of behavior that has been observed to hold true. Thus, we think about laws, but we are not applying the thought to new circumstances, we are applying the law itself and (of course) resultant thoughts thereof.

And another of Tom's tidbits:

"Deductive validity is no safeguard against false conclusions. In fact, ... the truth of the statements in an argument cannot be determined by logic, and so logicians typically restrict their attention to analysis of validity."

What does this have to do with thoughts checking on thoughts? What Tom was saying was that Deductive validity is only that which can be attained by proposing two propositions and then seeing which logically follows - and that this is in no way a determined "truth", merely a valid deduction.

Mentat

Sep27-03, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Mentat this whole discussion has been one big evolving semantic mess.

I'm going to try to stop the cycle of non-productive circular argument and start from the beginning. I have in no way suggested a biased definition. Firstly, I claimed that the difference between the 2 views was that an idealists believes that "things of the mind" have a primary existence and therefore cause the things outside the mind to exists. And a materialist claims that the things outside the mind are primary and causes the thinks inside the mind to exists. You then said that this asssumed a non-physical thing called "the mind" so I wasn't allowed to go in this direction. Now it seems you are no longer denying the existence of a mind. You're just saying that it is physical and not non-physical. Great! Considering this new information I don't understand why my original distinction cannot work. Since the distinction of what is primary and what is secondary is not dependent on whether the mind is physical or not.

Ok, let me break it down for you again...I said your definition was biased, not because it implies a mind, but because it implies a non-physical mind. The very fact that it refers to things that exist within the mind, as though these also existed in the Materialistic paradigm, jumps the gun of neutral defining before debating.

Anyway, I was trying to clarify before: I do not/have not deny(ied) the existence of the mind. All I'm saying is that a Materialist is incapable of believing in a non-physical mind.

btw, the distinction of what is primary and what is secondary is entirely dependent on whether the mind is physical or not, since, if the mind is physical then everything (or, rather, everything that pertains to philosophies of the mind (thoughts, consciousness, etc)) is physical, and there is thus no such thing as the primary/secondary distinction at all. However, if the mind is not physical (as the Idealist philosopher of the mind believes) then - and only then - the distinction of primary and secondary existence is a factor.

This last sentence implies that there is such a thing as a physical mind. The reason that I have interpreted your belief as being that one view believes in mind and the other does not is because you have been disallowing the use of the word "mind" by claiming it must be referring to a non-physical thing.

The concept you are referring to that I used is "mind". So you can see how I am even more confused as to why my definition is not the better one.

I was not referring to the word "mind", but to the phrase "things that exist only inside the mind" or "...only inside consciousness". These are non-sequitors in the Materialist paradigm, and thus make any definition that uses them biased.

Remember, if I ever refer to "mind" derogatorily, it's because it was used in a context that implies a non-physical nature.

The problem with your definition is that it does not provide the same distinction to everyone. I have tried to illustrate and show this and you seemingly agreed with me. I haven't seen any good reason that refuted anything I said. I've seen basic dictionaries make similar attempts as you but then they go on to say things like 'this doesn't mean that materialistic don't believe in "love" because they do'. So they're full of contradictions.

But a Materialist does believe in "love". They just don't believe that the word refers to something non-physical. They believe that the word "love" only refers to a particular rush of hormones, or (alternately, since there are different kinds of love) an innate tendency toward taking care of another being (called "imprinting" in Biology).

This is a pet peeve of mine. When people continually keep referring to their argument totally ignoring the counter arguments to it. LifeGazer used to do this. I have explained to you at least 3 times and Hynagogue in another thread explained the same thing to you once. Your first logical error is not an error with Idealism. It is a problem with dualism. It is as much a problem for a materialist as an idealist.

But (and take note of this, please, because I was attempting to imply this before, but am stating it directly now that I've figured out how) this is only a problem for the Materialist that has not rid him/herself of all Idealistic dispositions.

The Materialist that is completely rid of Idealistic tendencies of thought (which have somehow become natural to humans over the course of time) can avoid the dualistic problem.

Besides, my first objection is to the idea that a non-physical entity interacts with a physical one. This is not logically possible, and only the Idealistic PoV requires it.

The second logical problem makes no sense. I cannot agree with it or refute it if I don't know what it means. I suspect I am not the only one.

Would you like me to try again?

The whole point of the kind of philosophies that we are discussing is to determine how one becomes conscious. Now, if one believes that the mind is something "within" the brain, instead of a process of many parts of the brain, then they fall into the homunculan problem. The homunculan problem is the problem of determining how it is that the "inner mind" can make sense of the information that is being related to it by the brain. The only way to account for that is to say that the "inner mind" is conscious. But, the whole point of this philosophy was to determine how something is conscious (as I said in the first sentence), and so we thus have to figure out how this "inner mind" is conscious. So, now we postulate (since it is our opinion that conscious beings have "inner minds" (that is, after all, how we arrived at the problem of describing the consciousness of the "inner mind" ITFP)) that the "inner mind" has an "inner inner mind". Well, obviously our problem is only getting worse, since now this "inner inner mind" must also be conscious (or else it would be useless in processing and understanding the information given it by the "inner mind"), and we must thus postulate an "inner inner inner mind", and this cycle will continue ad infinitum.

Maybe I haven't made it any clearer, but I'm trying as hard as I can. If it helps at all, remember that this has been a philosophical Achilles' heel for Idealistic philosophies of the mind for many centuries, and is a real problem (I didn't make it up).

Basically, all it says is that, for Idealists:

1) The way a human is conscious, is not through just the brain, but through an "inner mind" (or "inner observer") which "makes sense" of the input from the brain. This is, in fact, how all things are conscious.

2) The "inner mind" must (logically) be conscious, otherwise it would have no use at all for the input from the brain, and would be useless to philosophies of the mind.

3) According to #1 the "inner mind" (in order to be conscious) must have, within it, an "inner inner mind" (not a techincal term, I know, but it illustrates the point that this next postulate is of a mind within the "inner mind").

4) This "inner inner mind" must also (logically) be conscious, according to #2.

5) Again, according to #1, this new "inner inner mind" must (in order to be conscious) have an "inner inner inner mind".

This process will continue in infinite regress, which signals to logicians and philosophers alike that it is wrong.

Mentat

Sep27-03, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Mentat
1) The way a human is conscious, is not through just the brain, but through an "inner mind" (or "inner observer") which "makes sense" of the input from the brain. This is, in fact, how all things are conscious.

btw, I meant here "This is, in fact, how all conscious things are conscious. That may have been obvious, but I wanted to leave no room for misunderstanding (if that's possible).

sascha

Sep27-03, 10:41 AM

Mentat, do you realize that you are merely trying to find excuses in ever new pirouettes? When you say "... we think about laws, but we are not applying the thought to new circumstances, we are applying the law itself and (of course) resultant thoughts thereof", you say that we do e.g. not think when we apply the law of excluded middle (to quote just an example). So the law applies itself, or what?

And the next tidbit of Tom's means that doing logic, as you can advocate it, allows to express only logical validities, not truths -- as need for example to clarify the relation between thoughts and laws, etc. But I understand that you cannot see the connection.

Fliption

Sep27-03, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
btw, the distinction of what is primary and what is secondary is entirely dependent on whether the mind is physical or not, since, if the mind is physical then everything (or, rather, everything that pertains to philosophies of the mind (thoughts, consciousness, etc)) is physical, and there is thus no such thing as the primary/secondary distinction at all. However, if the mind is not physical (as the Idealist philosopher of the mind believes) then - and only then - the distinction of primary and secondary existence is a factor.

Why must the word 'secondary' imply another type of existence to you? Why can it not be used to describe the "effects" rather than the "cause"? If you look at it like this rather than as "physical" or not then all your objections of the definition go away and you have a much more functional definition for philosophy purposes as a result.

It seems you're denying the definition that isn't dependent on "physicality" by relying on the physicality distinction. This to me is just another example of assuming the conclusion.

But (and take note of this, please, because I was attempting to imply this before, but am stating it directly now that I've figured out how) this is only a problem for the Materialist that has not rid him/herself of all Idealistic dispositions.

Certainly this is true. But surely you can see that the same applies to an Idealists who has rid themselves of Materialistsic dispositions? Must Idealists be dualists?

Also, a materialists who has rid themselves of idealistic dispositions avoids your problem #1 but they open up a whole new can of philosophical worms; as I said the first time you mentioned these 2 points.

Besides, my first objection is to the idea that a non-physical entity interacts with a physical one. This is not logically possible, and only the Idealistic PoV requires it.

Why? Why musts an Idealists be a dualists?

The whole point of the kind of philosophies that we are discussing is to determine how one becomes conscious. Now, if one believes that the mind is something "within" the brain, instead of a process of many parts of the brain, then they fall into the homunculan problem. The homunculan problem is the problem of determining how it is that the "inner mind" can make sense of the information that is being related to it by the brain. The only way to account for that is to say that the "inner mind" is conscious. But, the whole point of this philosophy was to determine how something is conscious (as I said in the first sentence), and so we thus have to figure out how this "inner mind" is conscious. So, now we postulate (since it is our opinion that conscious beings have "inner minds" (that is, after all, how we arrived at the problem of describing the consciousness of the "inner mind" ITFP)) that the "inner mind" has an "inner inner mind". Well, obviously our problem is only getting worse, since now this "inner inner mind" must also be conscious (or else it would be useless in processing and understanding the information given it by the "inner mind"), and we must thus postulate an "inner inner inner mind", and this cycle will continue ad infinitum.

Ok, I think I understand that. I hate to say it but it seems like it just backs the debate up one more step. In order for this point to work, it seems you are assuming that consciousness is a complex thing that requires parts and an explanation. What this point is essentially claiming is that Idealism doesn't answer the question of consciousness. It merely begs the question and makes you go back one more step and ask the same question. But I don't think Idealism is attempting to explain consciousness. The idealistic assumption is that consciousness is the fundamental substance of existence(as opposed to matter) so no more explanation is required. You find infinite regress because you are looking at it materialistically. An idealists can ask the same questions of matter.

So if I've understood this correctly, it is no different then the old argument about god that I see here all the time. If people use god as an explanation for existence then the next question is simply "Then how do you explain god?" i.e. god explains nothing. But this argument can be made against most anything. "Consciosness"(and god in the previous example) seems more vulnerable than "matter" because you materialisitcally perceive those things to be more complex and made up of matter.

sascha

Sep28-03, 01:21 AM

Mentat, maybe it is time to realize that this discussion is getting a bit boring. There is no point in insisting so doggedly on something as fallible as 'materialism'! Let me recapitulate briefly, to show you why.

The title and basic question of this thread is "Why this bias against materialism?"

Long ago I showed that in fact materialism itself introduces a bias, by its postulates for approaching matter, which influence how matter is being understood. But postulates are always a form of prejudice. Some may gradually be overcome (e.g. primitive forms of atomism, in later forms of QT), but this does not warrant that all of them are overcome.

Moreover these postulates are conceptual, not material -- contradicting the postulate that everything must be material.

Moreover they lead to no totally secure conclusion: in the end, they are subject to undecidability (e.g. as the crux of the continuum hypthesis, the indeterminism of QT, the floating character of RT, etc.).
So it is perfecly reasonable to refuse this biased world view. Refusing it is therefore not a bias, as the thread question accusingly claims.

But one could also argue from the other side than the systematic buildup: from the side of the result.
The argument that this biased world view actually works is not totally conclusive: being able to do things with this world view does not imply having understood fully what one is moving. Any ape can move matter but does not need to know the ultimate reason why it happens. He can imagine reasons, but they would be secure only once he can prove them with absolute certainty. Yet undecidability makes the absolute certainty impossible. The certainty remains relative, partial, pragmatic, provisional.

On the other hand, all you are asking for is that others should accept this relative, partial, pragmatic, provisional view as if it were an absolute. In other (somewhat metaphorical) words, you chose to look through a piece of green glass, see the world as green, and ask everybody else to adopt the same view, i.e. to take the same piece of glass for looking at the world -- merely because indeed everything can be seen through it (also e.g. consciousness) and still appears somehow recognizable.

The argument is that the only alternative to the green glass (the materialist world view) is an even worse piece of glass (the idealist world view). This argument is perfectly well understandable. But one should not agree with it, because its authors have projected their categoreal problems into the realm of ideas, calling the 'opponent' idealism. In fact, the attack is donquichottesque, a result of psychological projection. (There is ample literature on that.)

You are so proud of the 'materialist' capacity to talk 'realistically' about the world (supposed to be only material), in what I call the language of manipulability (objects and their predicates). But at the very end of that line there is a snag, which you do not seem to even know of: The welcome structure that a concept can be predicated of the property which is its intensional content (e.g. 'is round' referring to 'roundness') has its shadow in the other fact that "is a property" can be predicated of the property denoted by "being a property" (the property of being a property is a property), which leads into one version of Russell's paradox, in this case of the property of being a non-self-predicable property, which is the intensional content of the concept represented by "is a non-self-predicable property". So the property of being a non-self-predicable property both falls and does not fall under the concept of being a non-self-predicable property -- or on the other side it both falls and does not fall under the concept of being self-predicable. The proposed solutions till now are of mere avoidance, while ever-more epicycles are necessary to take into account the newly arising borderline areas (this is what your growing number of words is documenting). The structure of the problem corresponds to what Goedel has shown on (in)completeness. (There is ample literature on the the problems of predication theory.)

So what is all this insistence supposed to be??

Mentat

Sep29-03, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by sascha
Mentat, do you realize that you are merely trying to find excuses in ever new pirouettes? When you say "... we think about laws, but we are not applying the thought to new circumstances, we are applying the law itself and (of course) resultant thoughts thereof", you say that we do e.g. not think when we apply the law of excluded middle (to quote just an example). So the law applies itself, or what?

No, we apply the law, not the concept of the law, but the law itself. A law is based on the patter-recognition abilities of the brain (which I have already brought up numerous times before, as essential to conscious thought), and the brain can apply these laws to similar circumstances, if it recognizes the pattern. Thus, as I said before, it is not applying some non-physical thought to the situation, but is applying a remembered pattern.

And the next tidbit of Tom's means that doing logic, as you can advocate it, allows to express only logical validities, not truths -- as need for example to clarify the relation between thoughts and laws, etc. But I understand that you cannot see the connection.

Could you restate this part of the post, please? I don't see why the fact that Deductive logic can only express validities and not absolute "truths" should have anything to do with the relationship between "thought" and "laws".

Mentat

Sep29-03, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
Why must the word 'secondary' imply another type of existence to you? Why can it not be used to describe the "effects" rather than the "cause"? If you look at it like this rather than as "physical" or not then all your objections of the definition go away and you have a much more functional definition for philosophy purposes as a result.

No, I'm sorry, but I cannot (having taken the completely Materialistic side of the argument) accept the existence of any so-called "effects". I have been saying throught my entire participation in this thread that the problem of communication is not what status to give to the "effects" of physical processes in the brain, but is instead a disagreement on whether there are "effects" at all. I have been saying that there are no such effects of physical processes, but there are only the physical processes themselves. So, when someone refers to the "effects" as being secondary, they have assumed the existence of these "effects", which is a step that the Materialist will not take.

It seems you're denying the definition that isn't dependent on "physicality" by relying on the physicality distinction. This to me is just another example of assuming the conclusion.

Not really, Fliption. I'm not realying on the physicality distinction in order to deny your definition. I would be just as happy to use your definition if it fit logically, but I don't think it does (as I've said before). My argument against your definition is simply that it makes reference to the status of "..." (nothing). It doesn't make reference to the status of anything, as far as the pure Materialist is concerned, and is thus useless to the pure Materialist since it's not refering to anything.

Trying to define the status of "effects of physicality", to a Materialist, would be like trying to define "nothingness". It just doesn't have meaning.

Certainly this is true. But surely you can see that the same applies to an Idealist who has rid himself of Materialistsic dispositions?

Not at all, and Idealistic philosopher of the mind is either a dualist or a solipsist.

Must Idealists be dualists?

No, they can be Solipsists.

Seriously, if they believe that there is a physical brain, and are still Idealists, then they must believe that there is a physical brain, and a non-physical mind...dualism.

Also, a materialists who has rid themselves of idealistic dispositions avoids your problem #1 but they open up a whole new can of philosophical worms; as I said the first time you mentioned these 2 points.

What "can of worms"?

Why? Why musts an Idealists be a dualists?

Let's clarify again that when we refer to "Idealists" in this thread, we are referring to Idealistic philosophers of the mind. IOW, a person can be an Idealist in other matters, but not in the matter of philosophies of the mind, and would thus be irrelevant to this discussion, since we are talking about the philosophies of the mind for the time being.

Anyway, an Idealist philosopher of the mind must be a dualist because s/he believes that there is a non-physical mind. If there is a non-physical mind and a physical brain, then they must correspond somehow...again, dualism.

As to the subject of Materialism and Idealism altogether (not just restricted to philosophies of the mind), it becomes not a matter of what status is given to occurances "inside consciousness" (since such a thing makes no sense to a Materialist), but rather a matter of whether anything non-physical exists(as my definition indicates). [color=purple]Thus, philosophy of the mind is both an example of where Materialism and Idealism contend with each other (and I believe, currently, that Materialism must win, since dualism (which is the only alternative to Solipsism, if you take the Idealistic stance) is logically impossible) and an issue that will be raised every time someone puts forth the idea that the distinction between Idealism and Materialism is what status is given to phenomenological events (you are not the first, as you have said before; it is an old mistake (IMO)).

Ok, I think I understand that. I hate to say it but it seems like it just backs the debate up one more step. In order for this point to work, it seems you are assuming that consciousness is a complex thing that requires parts and an explanation. What this point is essentially claiming is that Idealism doesn't answer the question of consciousness. It merely begs the question and makes you go back one more step and ask the same question. But I don't think Idealism is attempting to explain consciousness. The idealistic assumption is that consciousness is the fundamental substance of existence(as opposed to matter) so no more explanation is required.

But, that's the point of what I've posted just above this quote (which you've hopefully read): The subject of Idealism vs. Materialism is NOT resolved by saying that Idealists believe the fundamental substance is "consciousness", since there is a logical flaw in postulating that something exists "in consciousness" in the first place (since it would be non-physical, and thus incapable of interacting with the physical brain). So, the resolution comes instead (IMO) from saying "The Idealist believes in something non-physical. The Materialist does not".

You find infinite regress because you are looking at it materialistically. An idealists can ask the same questions of matter.

Not exactly, they'd still have to contend with the issue of non-physical things interacting with physical ones (unless they are Solipsists, but I'd really rather not address that issue, since Solipsism is a philosophy that negates philosophizing, and is utterly worthless for rational debate (for the obvious reason that a Solipsist has no one to argue with [;)])), while the Materialist has completely avoided that logical flaw.

So if I've understood this correctly, it is no different then the old argument about god that I see here all the time. If people use god as an explanation for existence then the next question is simply "Then how do you explain god?" i.e. god explains nothing. But this argument can be made against most anything. "Consciosness"(and god in the previous example) seems more vulnerable than "matter" because you materialisitcally perceive those things to be more complex and made up of matter.

I didn't understand this last sentence, but I think I get what you are saying. I disagree, however, since the idea consciousness (as anything other than a physical process, of course) is inherently flawed, while the idea that all is physical is not (AFAIK).

Fliption

Sep29-03, 01:06 PM

[Originally posted by Mentat
No, I'm sorry, but I cannot (having taken the completely Materialistic side of the argument) accept the existence of any so-called "effects". I have been saying throught my entire participation in this thread that the problem of communication is not what status to give to the "effects" of physical processes in the brain, but is instead a disagreement on whether there are "effects" at all. I have been saying that there are no such effects of physical processes, but there are only the physical processes themselves. So, when someone refers to the "effects" as being secondary, they have assumed the existence of these "effects", which is a step that the Materialist will not take.

Not really, Fliption. I'm not realying on the physicality distinction in order to deny your definition. I would be just as happy to use your definition if it fit logically, but I don't think it does (as I've said before). My argument against your definition is simply that it makes reference to the status of "..." (nothing). It doesn't make reference to the status of anything, as far as the pure Materialist is concerned, and is thus useless to the pure Materialist since it's not refering to anything.

Trying to define the status of "effects of physicality", to a Materialist, would be like trying to define "nothingness". It just doesn't have meaning.

Please take a moment and really think about what I'm saying Mentat. I never said that "effects" are non physical. You keep assuming this because you are preoccupied with "physical" as the distinction, when I'm suggesting to you that it isn't. Do you believe that a physical process can be the effect of another physical process? If you say 'yes', then you DO believe in "effects". Therefore, to you the materialist, the physical processes that you call consciousness are the effects of other physical processes. An Idealists would simply reverse the order of those 2 processes. Whether it is physical or not is not the distinction. It isn't even relevant. Once we rid ourselves with this pre-occupation with the "physical" concept, then we can accept this definition.

Not at all, and Idealistic philosopher of the mind is either a dualist or a solipsist.

Seriously, if they believe that there is a physical brain, and are still Idealists, then they must believe that there is a physical brain, and a non-physical mind...dualism.

When did we assume that we are only talking about non-solipsist idealism here?

What "can of worms"?

This is a topic for another thread. This one is too long. For starters I suggest reading the thread by hypnagogue on the existence of an Objective reality. Hynogoue and Heusdens have a great dialogue around the can of worms that you seem to ignore.

Anyway, an Idealist philosopher of the mind must be a dualist because s/he believes that there is a non-physical mind. If there is a non-physical mind and a physical brain, then they must correspond somehow...again, dualism.

But when did we assume that Idealists believe in physical brains?

(and I believe, currently, that Materialism must win, since dualism (which is the only alternative to Solipsism, if you take the Idealistic stance) is logically impossible) and an issue that will be raised every time someone puts forth the idea that the distinction between Idealism and Materialism is what status is given to phenomenological events (you are not the first, as you have said before; it is an old mistake (IMO)).

Logically Impossible? Then how did you do you conclude that a physical brain exists when all you have ever seen is a subjective, conscious representation of it? Who's making the leap in logic?

So, the resolution comes instead (IMO) from saying "The Idealist believes in something non-physical. The Materialist does not".

But then this means different things to different people and no meaningful conversation can be had. I'll reference most of the threads in this forum(including this one) as evidence.

Not exactly, they'd still have to contend with the issue of non-physical things interacting with physical ones (unless they are Solipsists, but I'd really rather not address that issue, since Solipsism is a philosophy that negates philosophizing, and is utterly worthless for rational debate (for the obvious reason that a Solipsist has no one to argue with [;)])), while the Materialist has completely avoided that logical flaw.

I think you use the phrase "logical flaw" too carelessly. But then everyone thinks the opponent view has logical flaws.

Just because you think solipsism is meaningless to discuss means it is illogical? What if it's actually true?

I didn't understand this last sentence, but I think I get what you are saying. I disagree, however, since the idea consciousness (as anything other than a physical process, of course) is inherently flawed, while the idea that all is physical is not (AFAIK). [/B]

Inherently flawed? Whether it is flawed or not depends completely on how one defines the word "physical". This has been my COMPLETE point. There is nothing "inherent" in definitions. They are arbitrary concepts assigned by man for the purposes of communication. People who do not define "physical" the same way you do will not see this flaw that you see. Whatever it is.

Overall I think your pre-disposition to focus on "physical" is getting in your way of understanding my point about it's inability to serve as a good basis for distinction.

Mentat

Oct1-03, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Please take a moment and really think about what I'm saying Mentat. I never said that "effects" are non physical.

You didn't have to say those words, you just have to look at the meaning of the word "effect". If there are both physical processes, and their effects, then their effects are not physical processes. (Deductive Logic, I think).

You keep assuming this because you are preoccupied with "physical" as the distinction, when I'm suggesting to you that it isn't. Do you believe that a physical process can be the effect of another physical process? If you say 'yes', then you DO believe in "effects".

Yes, I believe that a physical process can be the effect of another physical process, however that is not really relevant. My problem with your using the term "effect" is that these "effects" must be the results of the physical processes in the brain. But if they are the effects of the physical processes, then they themselves are not the physical processes, but something else.

Therefore, to you the materialist, the physical processes that you call consciousness are the effects of other physical processes. An Idealists would simply reverse the order of those 2 processes. Whether it is physical or not is not the distinction. It isn't even relevant. Once we rid ourselves with this pre-occupation with the "physical" concept, then we can accept this definition.

Not true, and attempt to say that there is an "effect of physical processes" is against the rule of Materialism (that all things be physical). The Materialist cannot assume that there is anything other than the physical brain function to consciousness. Where would such a process occur (not in the brain, since we already said that they are only "effects" of what happens in the brain)? In another part of the body? That would defy most of the scientific study that's been done in the fields of cognitive science and neurology.

When did we assume that we are only talking about non-solipsist idealism here?

Sorry, I made that assumption when I assumed that you believed you were conversing with someone other than yourself [:D]. Seriously, we can consider Solipsism, if you want, but must either agree that it cannot be true or that I don't exist.

This is a topic for another thread. This one is too long. For starters I suggest reading the thread by hypnagogue on the existence of an Objective reality. Hynogoue and Heusdens have a great dialogue around the can of worms that you seem to ignore.

Fine, I'll try. I've a throbbing headache and inflamation of the throat, right now, so I don't think I'll be doing that today, but maybe tomorrow.

But when did we assume that Idealists believe in physical brains?

That's a completely other matter, since any Idealist that doesn't believe in a physical brain is (I think) a Solipsist.

Logically Impossible? Then how did you do you conclude that a physical brain exists when all you have ever seen is a subjective, conscious representation of it? Who's making the leap in logic?

You and I both are. You think that I have only seen a subjective conscious representation of it. I don't make that assumption at all, but instead only believe that I've processed the light coming from an actual brain or picture thereof.

I think you use the phrase "logical flaw" too carelessly. But then everyone thinks the opponent view has logical flaws.

Just because you think solipsism is meaningless to discuss means it is illogical? What if it's actually true?

Fliption, please. It's not that we can't have a meaningful conversation, we can't have a conversation at all. There is no point in continuing any discussion of any kind, when it is even possible that Solipsism is true, since I'd merely be talking to myself (which is in itself something of a non-sequitor to the Solipsist, since one doesn't ever talk (outputting of information through any external media)).

I'm sorry, I just don't see the point of discussing anything that deals with the possibility of Solipsism being true, since in that case you don't even exist, and have nothing to offer me that is not already in my mind.

Inherently flawed? Whether it is flawed or not depends completely on how one defines the word "physical". This has been my COMPLETE point. There is nothing "inherent" in definitions. They are arbitrary concepts assigned by man for the purposes of communication. People who do not define "physical" the same way you do will not see this flaw that you see. Whatever it is.

The flaw is only "inherent" since it is a flaw in the use of concepts, not in the use of words. You are right, unbiased definitions which use only neutral words cannot be inherently flawed, but the use of biased terms makes them inherently flawed (doesn't it?).

Fliption

Oct1-03, 10:54 PM

I have no idea why you cannot see what I'm saying. I can tell from this response that you have not understood me.

Physical processes can result from other physical processes. You said so yourself.... So why can't you accept that consciousness is a physical process that results from another physical process? I do not understand why you cannot see this point. It seems basic to me. That's why I asked that you think about what I was saying before you responded. Maybe you've been at this too long and now cannot see the forest for the trees?

Originally posted by Mentat
You didn't have to say those words, you just have to look at the meaning of the word "effect". If there are both physical processes, and their effects, then their effects are not physical processes. (Deductive Logic, I think).

How can you say that the effects of physical processs cannot be physical processes themselves when you claim that they can be below? Right here...

Yes, I believe that a physical process can be the effect of another physical process, however that is not really relevant.

If it isn't relevant then why deny it in the previous quote? I'm completely lost.

My problem with your using the term "effect" is that these "effects" must be the results of the physical processes in the brain. But if they are the effects of the physical processes, then they themselves are not the physical processes, but something else.

Of course they are something else. They are different physical processes. What's so hard about this?

Not true, and attempt to say that there is an "effect of physical processes" is against the rule of Materialism (that all things be physical). The Materialist cannot assume that there is anything other than the physical brain function to consciousness. Where would such a process occur (not in the brain, since we already said that they are only "effects" of what happens in the brain)? In another part of the body? That would defy most of the scientific study that's been done in the fields of cognitive science and neurology.

And I don't know where any of this came from since I never said anything of the sort.

Sorry, I made that assumption when I assumed that you believed you were conversing with someone other than yourself [:D]. Seriously, we can consider Solipsism, if you want, but must either agree that it cannot be true or that I don't exist.

Now I'm really confused Mentat. If the distinction between Materialism and Idealism is the belief in physical versus non physical, then why would an Idealists who does not believe that anything physical exists be a solipsist? Why would the belief in only non-physical things mean that I am the only mind that exist?

You and I both are. You think that I have only seen a subjective conscious representation of it. I don't make that assumption at all, but instead only believe that I've processed the light coming from an actual brain or picture thereof.

You are the only person I have ever met that denies the problem of Objective knowledge.

Fliption, please. It's not that we can't have a meaningful conversation, we can't have a conversation at all. There is no point in continuing any discussion of any kind, when it is even possible that Solipsism is true, since I'd merely be talking to myself (which is in itself something of a non-sequitor to the Solipsist, since one doesn't ever talk (outputting of information through any external media)).

So I ask again, this means it isn't true?

I'm sorry, I just don't see the point of discussing anything that deals with the possibility of Solipsism being true, since in that case you don't even exist, and have nothing to offer me that is not already in my mind.

So if I don't see the point in a meaningless materialistic view of the world, does that mean I don't have to argue against it?

The flaw is only "inherent" since it is a flaw in the use of concepts, not in the use of words. You are right, unbiased definitions which use only neutral words cannot be inherently flawed, but the use of biased terms makes them inherently flawed (doesn't it?).

Definitions of words cannot be "inherently" flawed. Like Zero's original definition. There is nothing wrong with that definition if everyone agrees with it. But everyone doesn't. That definition cannot be used to distinguish 2 opposing views and allow for philosophical discussion. Your definition is better but it has the same weakness eventually.

Mentat

Oct2-03, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
I have no idea why you cannot see what I'm saying. I can tell from this response that you have not understood me.

Physical processes can result from other physical processes. You said so yourself.... So why can't you accept that consciousness is a physical process that results from another physical process? I do not understand why you cannot see this point. It seems basic to me. That's why I asked that you think about what I was saying before you responded. Maybe you've been at this too long and now cannot see the forest for the trees?

Maybe. The problem is I constantly get the same feeling you are getting (that you are not understanding me).

How can you say that the effects of physical processs cannot be physical processes themselves when you claim that they can be below?

Wait a minute, I'm not saying that the effects of a physical process cannot be physical processes. I'm saying that if I say there is process A, which is the collection of physical processes of the brain (electrochemical transmissions through neurons and synapses), then I say that process B is an "effect" of process A, then I imply that process B is something other than process A.

Of course they are something else. They are different physical processes. What's so hard about this?

The fact that it all has to be processes of the brain. It is one thing to say that this or that collection of physical processes in the brain are necessary for one to think of a purple cow, and quite another to imply the existence (any kind of existence) of a purple cow; no matter what status you give its existence (primary, secondary, infinitesimal, whatever).

And I don't know where any of this came from since I never said anything of the sort.

Well, that part of the post was directed at the idea that there are A (=electrochemical processes of the brain) and B (=phenomenological events). If you seperate one from the other than where does the other occur?

Now I'm really confused Mentat. If the distinction between Materialism and Idealism is the belief in physical versus non physical, then why would an Idealists who does not believe that anything physical exists be a solipsist?

What do you mean? Anyone who doesn't believe that anything physical exists (i.e. that reality is just their own thoughts) must be a Solipsist. How can you believe that everything is just a thought of your own mind and yet not be a Solipsist?

Why would the belief in only non-physical things mean that I am the only mind that exist?

I don't understand. If I only believe in the non-physical, then I have no physical body, thus I need no home, no environment, no planet, no Universe, since I am not a living replicating being, but an immaterial mind.

You are the only person I have ever met that denies the problem of Objective knowledge.

And?

So I ask again, this means it isn't true?

Probably. I can't say for sure, since I cannot experience anything outside of my own experience. Thus, I cannot state with 100% accuracy that you definitely exist, much like you cannot state with 100% accuracy that I definitely exist. However, there is still no point in debating the possibility that we are not debating at all.

So if I don't see the point in a meaningless materialistic view of the world, does that mean I don't have to argue against it?

It's not about what I think of Solipsism, it's about that Solipsism itself. As I said above, any debate with a Solipsist might just as well not have happened, since you don't really exist, as far as s/he's concerned.

Definitions of words cannot be "inherently" flawed. Like Zero's original definition. There is nothing wrong with that definition if everyone agrees with it. But everyone doesn't. That definition cannot be used to distinguish 2 opposing views and allow for philosophical discussion.

That's the point. According to you, the definition is unusable...I call that "flawed".

Fliption

Oct2-03, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Wait a minute, I'm not saying that the effects of a physical process cannot be physical processes. I'm saying that if I say there is process A, which is the collection of physical processes of the brain (electrochemical transmissions through neurons and synapses), then I say that process B is an "effect" of process A, then I imply that process B is something other than process A.

Ok, I can agree with all of this. So if we can agree one process (let's say Process A) can cause another process(process B), then why can't a distinction between 2 views be made based on this? In other words, why can't Person X claim that Process A causes Process B and then Person Y claim that Process B causes process A? Why is this not an acceptable distinction?

The fact that it all has to be processes of the brain.

And processes of the brain are merely the effects of processes of evolution, sex(of the parents), digestion, etc. depending on what level you want to look at it. But this really isn't relevant so don't let this comment bog you down.

The fact that it all has to be processes of the brain. It is one thing to say that this or that collection of physical processes in the brain are necessary for one to think of a purple cow, and quite another to imply the existence (any kind of existence) of a purple cow; no matter what status you give its existence (primary, secondary, infinitesimal, whatever).

Great! The first part is all I'm saying! That it takes a collection of processes for one to think of a purple cow. The existence of that purple cow has no place in the definition discussion. Let's keep the philosophical discussion of Materialism versus Idealism separate from the discussion about the definition/distinction of the 2 views. This is part of the confusion I think.

What do you mean? Anyone who doesn't believe that anything physical exists (i.e. that reality is just their own thoughts) must be a Solipsist. How can you believe that everything is just a thought of your own mind and yet not be a Solipsist?

What? Why does a person who doesn't believe in anything physical believe that everything is just a thought of their own mind? You talk of these things as if they are synonymous. I don't see it.

I don't understand. If I only believe in the non-physical, then I have no physical body, thus I need no home, no environment, no planet, no Universe, since I am not a living replicating being, but an immaterial mind.

But if one non-material mind can exists, why can't 2? Why does the belief in nothing physical limit the number of non-physical minds?

HINT: By defining solipsism the way you are, you are using my definition of Materialism/Idealism which says that the distinction between the 2 views is a belief of what's inside the mind versus outside. So you're right, the extreme Idealists using this definition is a solipsists. But if you insist on the distinction being "physical" or "non-physical" then an Idealists and a solipsist are 2 different things.

That's the point. According to you, the definition is unusable...I call that "flawed".

Flawed, yes. Inherently flawed, no. That is the point. The usefulness is contingent on whether everyone can agree to the terminology to allow for proper communication. Otherwise, it is not flawed. "Inherent" implies an attribute that is separate from anything else. It's kinda like saying liver inherently taste bad.(Although I probably wouldn't argue against this too much [:D])

Mentat

Oct3-03, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Ok, I can agree with all of this. So if we can agree one process (let's say Process A) can cause another process(process B), then why can't a distinction between 2 views be made based on this? In other words, why can't Person X claim that Process A causes Process B and then Person Y claim that Process B causes process A? Why is this not an acceptable distinction?

Because person X, the Materialist does not believe that A causes B, s/he believes that A is B.

Forgive me if that sounded angry, I was just trying to stress the point.

Anyway, as to that whole part about the "effects" also being physical, that still leads to the homonculan problem, which I still don't think I've explained well enough to you.

Great! The first part is all I'm saying! That it takes a collection of processes for one to think of a purple cow. The existence of that purple cow has no place in the definition discussion. Let's keep the philosophical discussion of Materialism versus Idealism separate from the discussion about the definition/distinction of the 2 views. This is part of the confusion I think.

I'm sorry, my dear fellow, but that first point is not all you were saying. If it were all you were saying than we wouldn't be speaking of the "effects of physical processes", since the logical Materialist cannot believe in such effects.

To put the homunculan problem simply: What would be the point of a monitor screen inside your PC?

What? Why does a person who doesn't believe in anything physical believe that everything is just a thought of their own mind? You talk of these things as if they are synonymous. I don't see it.

My apologies, I simply assumed we were still on the subject of philosophies of the mind. A person can be an Idealist in some manners and a Materialist in others. However, in order for them to be an Idealist in the matter of philosophies of the mind, they must believe there is some non-physical aspect to thought.

But if one non-material mind can exists, why can't 2? Why does the belief in nothing physical limit the number of non-physical minds?

Because, Solipsism is only a philosophy of mind. It is not a philosophy of anything else, and doesn't need to be, because all that exists is the individual's mind. Thus, Idealists can believe in many non-physical minds floating about, but if they are dealing directly with the philosophy of the workings of the mind, and choose to believe that nothing is physical, then they choose Solipsism, and nothing else can exist.

HINT: By defining solipsism the way you are, you are using my definition of Materialism/Idealism which says that the distinction between the 2 views is a belief of what's inside the mind versus outside.

Fliption, please pay attention to what I'm actually saying. If the distinction between the Materialistic view and the Idealistic view were the belief about what's "inside the mind" versus what's "outside the mind", then the Materialist would believe that there is something "inside the mind" (otherwise the very distinction on which his belief system hinges would be unintelligible to him).

And, btw, when I define Solipsism the way I do I am merely showing the most extreme example of an Idealistic philosophy of the mind. If the distinction between Materialistic and Idealistic philosophies of the mind is (as I still hold) the distinction between whether there is something non-physical to it or not, then Solipsism follows as the most extreme example of Idealism (it holds that there is nothing but the non-physical to it ("it" being the workings of the mind)).

So you're right, the extreme Idealists using this definition is a solipsists. But if you insist on the distinction being "physical" or "non-physical" then an Idealists and a solipsist are 2 different things.

Not at all. See my above comment, and remember that Solipsism is only a philosophy of mind, while Idealism has many different applications (the part that relates to philosophies of mind, being the one that we are discussing right now).

Flawed, yes. Inherently flawed, no. That is the point. The usefulness is contingent on whether everyone can agree to the terminology to allow for proper communication. Otherwise, it is not flawed. "Inherent" implies an attribute that is separate from anything else. It's kinda like saying liver inherently taste bad.(Although I probably wouldn't argue against this too much [:D])

[:D]

Alright, I can drop the term "inherent", and hold that it is merely "flawed".

Fliption

Oct3-03, 04:02 PM

I have been trying to wipe the slate clean and start over with a new example. Just when I think we can't help but make progress, you keep going back and inserting things from the prior discussion. Please let's stick with the example and explain to me why it doesn't follow.

Originally posted by Mentat
Because person X, the Materialist does not believe that A causes B, s/he believes that A [b]is B.

No, this was not our assumption. Remember, we both agreed that physical processes can be caused by other physical processes. They are different processes from each other. One of them is the effect of the other. I fully expected this assumption to be used when I asked my question about process A and B. SO given this as an assumption, my earlier question still stands. Why can't a distinction between 2 views be made on which process causes the other? Given the assumption that we're talking about, it doesn't make sense to say that the Materialist believes process A is process B. The assumption establishes them as separate processes as I've already explained.

I hope you aren't going to respond to this by now claiming that there is no physical process that causes the physical process of consciousness. I hope we aren't going to disagree that the physical process of consciousness is caused by more basic physical process in the brain. Are we?

Anyway, as to that whole part about the "effects" also being physical, that still leads to the homonculan problem, which I still don't think I've explained well enough to you.

Well Mentat the only way to avoid this problem is for the entire universe to be one big, non-reductive process with no cause. You're saying that we cannot claim a physical process is created by other more basic physical processes?

I'm sorry, my dear fellow, but that first point is not all you were saying. If it were all you were saying than we wouldn't be speaking of the "effects of physical processes", since the logical Materialist cannot believe in such effects.

I keep getting lost with your words Mentat. First you agree that physical processes can cause other physical processes and then you turn right around and keep saying things like above. Just for clarification, a physical process that is caused by another physical process I'm calling an "EFFECT". That's been my terminology. You seem to be using this word differently. For purposes of progressing, please use it this way.

To put the homunculan problem simply: What would be the point of a monitor screen inside your PC?

So are you claiming that processes cannot cause other processes?

However, in order for them to be an Idealist in the matter of philosophies of the mind, they must believe there is some non-physical aspect to thought.

I disagree, obviously.

Because, Solipsism is only a philosophy of mind. It is not a philosophy of anything else, and doesn't need to be, because all that exists is the individual's mind. Thus, Idealists can believe in many non-physical minds floating about, but if they are dealing directly with the philosophy of the workings of the mind, and choose to believe that nothing is physical, then they choose Solipsism, and nothing else can exist.

I do not understand this distinction you keep making about "philosophy of mind" as if it's relevant to my point. Solipsism is hardly limited to an opinion on mind since it clearly is making a statement about all of reality. If somehow this "philosophy of mind" point is relevant (and I don't see how) then let's drop it and refer to the definition of Materialism and Idealism as a whole.

Fliption, please pay attention to what I'm actually saying. If the distinction between the Materialistic view and the Idealistic view were the belief about what's "inside the mind" versus what's "outside the mind", then the Materialist would believe that there is something "inside the mind" (otherwise the very distinction on which his belief system hinges would be unintelligible to him).

This is why I have tried to change the terminology for you to show you that your being entirely too picky and missing the point. I have been trying to step you through slowly how we can drop this "inside the mind" terminology and pick up terminolgy like "as a result of the process of consciousness".

You and I can agree that there is a process called Consciousness, right? I hope we can. You and I can agree that the purple cow is a result of or a representation of this process, right? You believe that the purple cow does not exists, therefore you are a materialist. If I believe that the purple cow does exists then I am an Idealist. Notice that the distinction between our 2 views is a belief about the results of a process called "consciousness". Notice how I was able to distinguish between the 2 views and there is no reference to physical or non-physical? Notice that whether or not "the process of consciousness" itself is a physical process or not doesn't interfere with our ability to discern the 2 views. As long as both views recognize the process.

Earlier I was using the word "mind" and you would claim that it doesn't work because "inside the mind" doesn't mean anything to a materialist. So I've tried to change the approach to use "physical processes" to get us past that point and show how the definition can work to distinguish the 2 views. Whether the "mind" was non-physical or not is not relevant and never was but I never could get you past that point. So as I said above, replace the word "mind" with the name of whatever physical process you think creats the purple cow and see how the distinction works.

And, btw, when I define Solipsism the way I do I am merely showing the most extreme example of an Idealistic philosophy of the mind. If the distinction between Materialistic and Idealistic philosophies of the mind is (as I still hold) the distinction between whether there is something non-physical to it or not, then Solipsism follows as the most extreme example of Idealism (it holds that there is nothing but the non-physical to it ("it" being the workings of the mind)).

So you're saying that a solipsist believes in nothing but the non-physical? How does this tie to the belief that a solipsist mind is the only mind that exists? This was my original question and you still haven't linked the two.

Mentat

Oct10-03, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
No, this was not our assumption. Remember, we both agreed that physical processes can be caused by other physical processes. They are different processes from each other. One of them is the effect of the other.

Fine, this is true. Physical processes can be produced by others, but if thought was a physical process that was produced by other physical processes in the brain, then you would have a full-blown homunculun regression.

I fully expected this assumption to be used when I asked my question about process A and B. SO given this as an assumption, my earlier question still stands. Why can't a distinction between 2 views be made on which process causes the other?

Because the homunculun regression will come up either way. The truth is, Materialism can also fall into the dualistic problem, but only Idealism can ever fall into the "non-physical/physical" problem.

Given the assumption that we're talking about, it doesn't make sense to say that the Materialist believes process A is process B. The assumption establishes them as separate processes as I've already explained.

But I never agreed that we should assume there to even be a process B. If there is, you have infinite regress, so I don't see myself accepting that assumption in the near future [;)].

I hope you aren't going to respond to this by now claiming that there is no physical process that causes the physical process of consciousness. I hope we aren't going to disagree that the physical process of consciousness is caused by more basic physical process in the brain. Are we?

Consciousness is caused by more basic physical processes in the brain, but so are many subsonscious activities (even ones as simple as breathing). Nothing occurs from just one "piece" of the brain working alone, there needs to be cooperation.

Well Mentat the only way to avoid this problem is for the entire universe to be one big, non-reductive process with no cause. You're saying that we cannot claim a physical process is created by other more basic physical processes?

No, I'm not. I'm saying that consciousness (including any kind of "thought") cannot be a physical process that is caused by other physical processes in the brain.

I keep getting lost with your words Mentat. First you agree that physical processes can cause other physical processes and then you turn right around and keep saying things like above. Just for clarification, a physical process that is caused by another physical process I'm calling an "EFFECT". That's been my terminology. You seem to be using this word differently. For purposes of progressing, please use it this way.

Yes, but the "effect" can be physical or non-physical and it will still fall into infinite regress. That is why I was using it somewhat differently from you: I have been aware of the homunculun problem from the beginning (I added the non-physical/physical distinction due to having read "Consciousness Explained", and it is a real problem, but I guess it's no longer relevant if you want the "effect" to be physical (now you've got the problem of why these physical "effects" don't take up space - not to mention the homunculun problem which I believe is completely insurmountable after having taken your approach)).

I do not understand this distinction you keep making about "philosophy of mind" as if it's relevant to my point. Solipsism is hardly limited to an opinion on mind since it clearly is making a statement about all of reality.

Wrong. Solipsism doesn't describe any reality except that which exists "in the mind", since it's primal principle is that there is nothing else.

If somehow this "philosophy of mind" point is relevant (and I don't see how) then let's drop it and refer to the definition of Materialism and Idealism as a whole.

I can't do that. The discussion of philosophies of the mind is an essential step, since one can constantly refer to things that occur "inside the mind" or "within consciousness", unless the point is cleared up from the get-go.

This is why I have tried to change the terminology for you to show you that your being entirely too picky and missing the point. I have been trying to step you through slowly how we can drop this "inside the mind" terminology and pick up terminolgy like "as a result of the process of consciousness".

But there can be no "resultant" or "emergent" properties. There can be no monitor in the PC. It would fall into infinite regress, and what would be its purpose be anyway?

You and I can agree that the purple cow is a result of or a representation of this process, right?

NO!!

That's the whole point, I don't believe a purple cow results from any process of the mind, just as I don't believe an actual cow has any representation in your brain when you see one with your eyes. There are electrochemical processes and nothing else (unless you leave the Materialistic paradigm, and I can't (currently) do that).

You believe that the purple cow does not exists, therefore you are a materialist.

What purple cow?

If I believe that the purple cow does exists then I am an Idealist. Notice that the distinction between our 2 views is a belief about the results of a process called "consciousness". Notice how I was able to distinguish between the 2 views and there is no reference to physical or non-physical?

But you did it wrong (no offense), and so of course you were able to do it without reference to the non-physical/physical distinction.

Earlier I was using the word "mind" and you would claim that it doesn't work because "inside the mind" doesn't mean anything to a materialist. So I've tried to change the approach to use "physical processes" to get us past that point and show how the definition can work to distinguish the 2 views. Whether the "mind" was non-physical or not is not relevant and never was but I never could get you past that point.

Because the homunculun problem is a reflexively expressed problem in my mind. It does not go away, even if I don't express it "out loud" all the time.

So you're saying that a solipsist believes in nothing but the non-physical? How does this tie to the belief that a solipsist mind is the only mind that exists?

Because, if only some singular mind exists, then there are no physical realities.

Fliption

Oct10-03, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Fine, this is true. Physical processes can be produced by others, but if thought was a physical process that was produced by other physical processes in the brain, then you would have a full-blown homunculun regression.

I do not understand why you keep bringing up this homunculun problem. I am trying to accomodate your materialistic assumptions by claiming that the mind, consciousness etc is nothing special and is nothing more than physical processes. These physical processes are no different then the physical process of an automobile working. The process of an automobile working is of course dependent on the less complex processes involving fuel consumption, lubrication, frictionless revolution and shock absorbtion of wheels, etc etc. What is wrong with this comparison? Why does this homunculun problem only a problem when I'm talking about the brain and no other physical process? It seems you are the one glorifying consciousness.

Because the homunculun regression will come up either way. The truth is, Materialism can also fall into the dualistic problem, but only Idealism can ever fall into the "non-physical/physical" problem.

Perhaps this is getting close to a response of what I've written above but I don't understand exactly what you mean.

But I never agreed that we should assume there to even be a process B. If there is, you have infinite regress, so I don't see myself accepting that assumption in the near future [;)].

So you're saying that everything in the universe is just one big process and cannot be reductively separated? This just doesn't make sense to me.

You said this...

Consciousness is caused by more basic physical processes in the brain, but so are many subsonscious activities

Then you said this....

I'm saying that consciousness (including any kind of "thought") cannot be a physical process that is caused by other physical processes in the brain.

Tell me why these don't contradict one another. I'm not trying to be difficult, I really just don't understand your point. These 2 quotes seem like contradictions so I cannot grasp what your trying to say.

Yes, but the "effect" can be physical or non-physical and it will still fall into infinite regress. That is why I was using it somewhat differently from you: I have been aware of the homunculun problem from the beginning (I added the non-physical/physical distinction due to having read "Consciousness Explained", and it is a real problem, but I guess it's no longer relevant if you want the "effect" to be physical (now you've got the problem of why these physical "effects" don't take up space - not to mention the homunculun problem which I believe is completely insurmountable after having taken your approach)).

Here I don't think you've understood what I'm saying. I'm not claiming the existence of any effects and trying to called them physical. It seems you think I am because you're asking me "why don't they take up space?". I'm just restating what you've told me. I'm saying let's assume consciousness is nothing but a physical process. Do you not agree with this?

Wrong. Solipsism doesn't describe any reality except that which exists "in the mind", since it's primal principle is that there is nothing else.

To claim there is nothing else but what is in my mind is making statements about reality, Mentat.

I can't do that. The discussion of philosophies of the mind is an essential step, since one can constantly refer to things that occur "inside the mind" or "within consciousness", unless the point is cleared up from the get-go.

But I'm not using that terminology anymore. I've moved from that terminology several posts ago. My position isn't changing but I'me having to jump through semantic hoops to get you to see that you're definition doesn't work. So I'm not using things like "inside the mind" anymore.

NO!!
That's the whole point, I don't believe a purple cow results from any process of the mind, just as I don't believe an actual cow has any representation in your brain when you see one with your eyes. There are electrochemical processes and nothing else (unless you leave the Materialistic paradigm, and I can't (currently) do that).

I just do not understand this point. It seems like a semantic nightmare.

What purple cow?

You tell me Mentat. You're the one that initially brought it up. Why would you do that if it communicates nothing?

Because, if only some singular mind exists, then there are no physical realities.

Ahh but see you reversed it. This definition is not what you said an idealist believes. Of course, if a person believes they are the only mind to exists then you could conclude that they also believe there is nothing physical.But the definition is flipped in that example.

You said that an idealists believes there is nothing physical. So you have to begin with this belief! Not the belief that "I am the only mind". If you start with that belief then you're using my definition of ldealism.

I'm trying to get you to make the connection from the belief that nothing is physical(first!) to one that says "I am the only mind". You'll notice that if you reverse your statement above, it is no longer true. It would read

"Because, if there are no physical realities then only some singular mind exists. This is not necessarily true.

If you go back to how this discussion started, you'll see that this is the more relevant order.

Esoteric

Oct10-03, 11:36 PM

“Scientific reasoning,” Alfred North Whitehead wrote, is itself — and must be — “completely dominated by the presupposition that mental functionings are not properly part of nature.” The assertion that they are part of nature is self-refuting, because it robs all thoughts and statements of any possible rational validity or truth."

oppinions?.

Zero

Oct11-03, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Esoteric
“Scientific reasoning,” Alfred North Whitehead wrote, is itself — and must be — “completely dominated by the presupposition that mental functionings are not properly part of nature.” The assertion that they are part of nature is self-refuting, because it robs all thoughts and statements of any possible rational validity or truth."

oppinions?. It sounds like wishful thinking to me...

sascha

Oct11-03, 05:52 AM

I guess what Whitehead means is that if thinking were fully determined by nature, thinking about nature would be self-limited, because the mental instance could only experience being fully determined. In other words, being determined (in this case by nature) excludes being 'above' that thing, i.e. non-determined. What do you mean, Zero, by "wishful thinking" in this respect?

I guess there can only be much misunderstanding in these questions as long as the will (required for the act of thinking to be reasonable) as a subjectively necessary element is mixed up (con-fused) with the contents of thinking, which have to relate to each other in an objective way. The brain is an inevitably necessary condition too, but this does not mean that it is 100.00% causal -- unless one remains in the mentioned conceptual mixup, as is widely the case in the current mainstream of philosophy of mind too (which can't account for the will, it simply disregards it). So that's precisely where the interpretations of empirical facts are clashing, also in this debate.

For whoever believes the will is irrelevant: try empirically to think clearly about something without directing your will so the result will be reasonable.

What Whitehead says, on the other hand, accounts for the self-limitedness of many positions in the current debate, who can't see their own 'blind spot', precisely because they let themselves be determined by aspects of what they would like to talk about.

Zero

Oct12-03, 09:17 PM

Here we go with the blah blah blah about 'will' not being accounted for. Again, the entire point of the arguments agaist reality is hoping for a special exemption for people.

Loren Booda

Oct12-03, 09:25 PM

Be a Material Conservative. You can't take it with you, and most don't have it to begin with.

Zero

Oct12-03, 10:04 PM

I'll say again; 'will' is like 'propulsion'...we don't claim that a rocket's movement is apart from the workings of the rocket, so why do we treat the actions of the brain as apart from the brain itself?

Mentat

Oct13-03, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
I do not understand why you keep bringing up this homunculun problem. I am trying to accomodate your materialistic assumptions by claiming that the mind, consciousness etc is nothing special and is nothing more than physical processes. These physical processes are no different then the physical process of an automobile working. The process of an automobile working is of course dependent on the less complex processes involving fuel consumption, lubrication, frictionless revolution and shock absorbtion of wheels, etc etc. What is wrong with this comparison? Why does this homunculun problem only a problem when I'm talking about the brain and no other physical process? It seems you are the one glorifying consciousness.

Oh boy. Forgive me if I get a little impatient, it's been a long day...somebody actually misused the Exercise in "nothing" semantics - that's never happened before - and then somebody else reiterated the same misunderstanding of another topic on at least three different threads...anyway, I'll try to remain good-spirited in my response [:)].

Alright, you can't see why I keep bringing up the homunculun problem. Here's why: every time you mention a process that occurs in the brain, as a result of the processing functions of the brain, and call it (this new process, which is an effect of the brain's electrochemical processes) "consciousness", you introduce the idea of a "mind's eye". It's inevitable, because what good would it do me to have an inner display of "qualia" of there was no viewer on the inside to "see" them? And if there is such a viewer (no matter what form he takes) then you have infinite regress.

Perhaps this is getting close to a response of what I've written above but I don't understand exactly what you mean.

I mean that I still like my definitions of Materialism and Idealism, since either of them could fall into the dualistic problem (which the problem that your definition focuses on) but only one can fall into the non-physical/physical problem.

So you're saying that everything in the universe is just one big process and cannot be reductively separated? This just doesn't make sense to me.

I wasn't making a statement about everything in the Universe, just the things in the brain.

You said this...

Then you said this....

Tell me why these don't contradict one another. I'm not trying to be difficult, I really just don't understand your point. These 2 quotes seem like contradictions so I cannot grasp what your trying to say.

Alright, I see what the problem is, and apologize. No, they are not contradictory, but I may have slightly mis-stated the second one. You see, a particular thought or a particular "picture in the mind" (or anything of this nature, which I refer to as phenomenological events, hypnagogue prefers the term "qualia", it doesn't really matter, as long as you understand what I'm saying) does not exist, either physically or non-physically; there's just no such thing. Now, consciousness itself (being aware and self-conscious, and all that) is a physical process of the brain, but when one refers to an individual thought they fall into logical error, which means that we should eliminate the idea of an individual thought and replace it with Dennett's model (or another that does the same job better, I suppose).

Thus, what I'm saying is that phenomenological events don't exist. In fact, when I refer to "phenomenological events" I'm using words to describe...absolutely nothing - except, of course, a misconception that is commonly engrained in the human mind, of the actual processes of the mind.

Here I don't think you've understood what I'm saying. I'm not claiming the existence of any effects and trying to called them physical. It seems you think I am because you're asking me "why don't they take up space?". I'm just restating what you've told me. I'm saying let's assume consciousness is nothing but a physical process. Do you not agree with this?

Oh. I agree that we should just assume that consciousness is nothing but a physical process, but I don't think that we have quite the same vision. In my (currently Materialistic) concept, there are no thoughts at all, merely the question/answer "game" of the different neurons and sets thereof in the brain.

So, basically, my concept of "consciousness as nothing but a physical process" is: Look at the brain, see the neurons and synapses, there is nothing else.

To claim there is nothing else but what is in my mind is making statements about reality, Mentat.

Yes, statements about reality, but reality would only be that which went on in your mind, and thus every statement about reality (to the Solipsist) is merely (only, and nothing but) a statement about their own mind (since nothing else exists).

But I'm not using that terminology anymore. I've moved from that terminology several posts ago. My position isn't changing but I'me having to jump through semantic hoops to get you to see that you're definition doesn't work. So I'm not using things like "inside the mind" anymore.

It doesn't matter if you've changed the terminology in these particular posts. The matter still stands that your definitions from before require a distinction between that which occurs "inside the mind" and that which occurs outside the mind, which is the wrong distinction (a logically non-existent one). My definitions, OTOH, have been rooted in the distinction between belief in only the physical or something else. The only reason we are still discussing philosophies of the mind, instead of tackling the big picture (the whole paradigms of Materialism and Idealism) is because of your definitions (and all those like it which come from a (IMO) misconception about the issue at hand).

I just do not understand this point. It seems like a semantic nightmare.

In many senses, it is. However, I can attempt to simplify it for you: Materialist belief on philosophies of the mind = there are electrochemical activities involving synapses and neurons, and, in order for this to become conscious it also requires...nothing. It doesn't require anything, because those synaptic activities are consciousness.

You tell me Mentat. You're the one that initially brought it up. Why would you do that if it communicates nothing?

To illustrate the confusion that is brought up from assuming that there is such a thing as a phenomenological event.

Ahh but see you reversed it. This definition is not what you said an idealist believes. Of course, if a person believes they are the only mind to exists then you could conclude that they also believe there is nothing physical.But the definition is flipped in that example.

You said that an idealists believes there is nothing physical. So you have to begin with this belief!

What!?!? I never said an Idealist believe there is nothing physical. I said a Solipsist believes there is nothing physical. An Idealist believes that there is something non-physical (the amount of things that are non-physical is greater than or equal to 1).

Not the belief that "I am the only mind". If you start with that belief then you're using my definition of ldealism.

I'm trying to get you to make the connection from the belief that nothing is physical(first!) to one that says "I am the only mind". You'll notice that if you reverse your statement above, it is no longer true. It would read

"Because, if there are no physical realities then only some singular mind exists. This is not necessarily true.

Actually, it is. If there are no physical realities, and yet I'm still conscious of something, then my mind must exist, while nothing else does.

Esoteric

Oct13-03, 06:00 PM

http://magazines.enews.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=717

90% OF THE UNIVERSE ISN'T REALLY MISSING, JUST MISPLACED: Today is the first day of a University of Chicago conference at which cosmologists are mapping out plans to attempt to locate "dark matter" and "dark energy." I don't wish to alarm you, but at least 90 percent of the universe is missing. Astronomers hope to find it.

When cosmologists measure the gravitational attraction on heavenly bodies, at least two-thirds of the matter in the cosmos appears to be missing; that is, stars move as if acted upon by much more gravity than can be accounted for by observed amounts of normal matter. For years this has led to speculation that there is "dark matter" or "missing mass" throughout the firmament--perhaps as strange forms of subatomic particles not present in this solar system, perhaps as huge numbers of black holes, perhaps as huge numbers of almost-stars hard to see because they don't shine. There are other theories. Searching for the missing mass has for several decades been an obsession of astrophysics.

Then, a few years ago, astronomers made the unexpected discovery that not only are the galaxies rushing away from each other, they are speeding up. It had been assumed that the Big Bang provided the impetus for the movement of the galaxies, and across the eons, momentum from the Big Bang would wear off, causing the galaxies to slow down. Instead they're speeding up: the evidence looks solid. Cosmic acceleration cannot be happening unless something is pushing on the galaxies, that is, adding energy to them. Hence, dark energy.

The new betting line among scientists is that the luminous, observable forms of energy in the universe--shining stars, natural radio waves and X-rays and so on--actually constitutes only a small share of total energy. Something much more potent, dark energy, carries most of the power in creation; dark energy has so much power that it's speeding up unfathomable numbers of galaxies across unfathomable distances. The existence of dark energy would answer the riddle of why gravity does not cause everything in creation to crush together: Dark energy is repelling the components of the universe at the same time that gravity attracts them. And it's looking like dark energy is stronger than gravity--stronger, perhaps, by orders of magnitude.

Here's the rub. While there are theories about what dark matter might be, no one has the slightest clue what dark energy is. No instrument can detect it. No one knows where it comes from or how it works. Dark energy appears strong enough to push the entire universe, and yet science can't locate it.

Bear this in mind when you're tempted to think Homo sapiens already understands the physical world, or even has the slightest idea what's going on. Combining missing dark matter and missing dark energy, science can't so much as locate 90 percent of the universe! Bear this in mind, as well, when you're tempted to think we "know" there is no nonmaterial world. An energy strong enough to push the entire universe is pulsing through your body right now; you can't feel it, and science has no idea how it works or where it originates. How many other nonmaterial forces might there be?

As for the University of Chicago conference, you won't want to miss the session: "APEX-SZ, a Millimeter-wavelength galaxy cluster survey using the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect."

Fliption

Oct14-03, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
[B]Here's why: every time you mention a process that occurs in the brain, as a result of the processing functions of the brain, and call it (this new process, which is an effect of the brain's electrochemical processes) "consciousness", you introduce the idea of a "mind's eye".

OK, I think I see the problem we're having. The problem we seem to be having is with the phrase "processes of the brain". You define them as all being on the same level and I do not. The processes that you are referring to are the processes dealing with neurons etc etc. I'm claiming that the processes of neurons are themselves made up of less complex physical processes. So if I agree that consciousness is exactly the same thing as the process of neurons working in the brain, then I can claim that consciousness is caused by those simpler processes. Perhaps you wouldn't even call these simpler processes "processes of the brain" but it would be a small matter to clear up if you don't.

Going back to the automobile analogy, you claim that an "automobile" is not the result of the "process of the engine on wheels". It "IS" the "process of the engine on wheels". I am not claiming that the "process of the engine on wheels" produces this non-physical thing called the automobile. I am agreeing that they are one and the same thing. But I then am going further to say that the "process of the engine on wheels" or the "automobile" is the result of less complex physical processes (fuel consumption, shock absorption etc.)

Do you follow this? I'm going in a different direction from you. I'm not projecting anything new as a result of processes. I am simpler stepping back in the heiarchy of processes and assigning labels. This is all so semantic it's almost funny.

Oh. I agree that we should just assume that consciousness is nothing but a physical process, but I don't think that we have quite the same vision. In my (currently Materialistic) concept, there are no thoughts at all, merely the question/answer "game" of the different neurons and sets thereof in the brain.

OK and I'm agreeing with this and now asking the question "Isn't the process of thought, the question/answer game, made up of even simpler physical processes? I realize this is dependent on how you define process but, again, this is merely semantics and surely we can overcome that.

So, basically, my concept of "consciousness as nothing but a physical process" is: Look at the brain, see the neurons and synapses, there is nothing else.

I ask again for emphasis, what is the science behind the workings of neurons and synapses? There should be some more fundamental process within this process.

In many senses, it is. However, I can attempt to simplify it for you: Materialist belief on philosophies of the mind = there are electrochemical activities involving synapses and neurons, and, in order for this to become conscious it also requires...nothing. It doesn't require anything, because those synaptic activities are consciousness.

It requires nothing but the processes that make up the synaptic process.

What!?!? I never said an Idealist believe there is nothing physical. I said a Solipsist believes there is nothing physical. An Idealist believes that there is something non-physical (the amount of things that are non-physical is greater than or equal to 1).

How is this distinction relevant? The point I'm trying to make is that the choices for an idealists are not just 1) the physical and non-physical exist together or 2)I am the only mind.

Actually, it is. If there are no physical realities, and yet I'm still conscious of something, then my mind must exist, while nothing else does.

So you're saying that if nothing physical exists, then 2 or more non-physical minds cannot exists? Please connect the dots for me.

Mentat

Oct14-03, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
OK, I think I see the problem we're having. The problem we seem to be having is with the phrase "processes of the brain". You define them as all being on the same level and I do not. The processes that you are referring to are the processes dealing with neurons etc etc. I'm claiming that the processes of neurons are themselves made up of less complex physical processes. So if I agree that consciousness is exactly the same thing as the process of neurons working in the brain, then I can claim that consciousness is caused by those simpler processes. Perhaps you wouldn't even call these simpler processes "processes of the brain" but it would be a small matter to clear up if you don't.

Whoah, whoah, wait a minute. What simpler processes? You mean the typical cell division, or the currents of electricity in the axons, or the releasing of chemicals across the synaptic space? What exactly are you talking about?

Going back to the automobile analogy, you claim that an "automobile" is not the result of the "process of the engine on wheels". It "IS" the "process of the engine on wheels". I am not claiming that the "process of the engine on wheels" produces this non-physical thing called the automobile. I am agreeing that they are one and the same thing. But I then am going further to say that the "process of the engine on wheels" or the "automobile" is the result of less complex physical processes (fuel consumption, shock absorption etc.)

Do you follow this? I'm going in a different direction from you. I'm not projecting anything new as a result of processes. I am simpler stepping back in the heiarchy of processes and assigning labels. This is all so semantic it's almost funny.

What about it though? You can use reductionism on a car if you want, that has no bearing whatsoever on brain functions. The functions of the brain are those of any other cell, except that which occurs in the axons and dendrits or across the synaptic space. How are the "simpler processes" relevant at all?

OK and I'm agreeing with this and now asking the question "Isn't the process of thought, the question/answer game, made up of even simpler physical processes? I realize this is dependent on how you define process but, again, this is merely semantics and surely we can overcome that.

I ask again for emphasis, what is the science behind the workings of neurons and synapses? There should be some more fundamental process within this process.

I've already listed the "more fundamental" processes, but they are not, on their own, even brain functions, since brain functions require all of them to work together (electricity has to be conducted along axons, which have to stimulate packets of sodium ions to travel across the small synaptic space...these processes on their own are irrelevant, but the sum product is a very adaptable being).

It requires nothing but the processes that make up the synaptic process.

What processes?!?

I re-iterate that which you must already know, but have stored somewhere in the far reaches of your memory (no offense), an atom is the simplest form of matter which still retains the properties of the element. Therefore, if you try to get any simpler than the sodium ions propogated across the synaptic space, you have left the realm of philosophies of the mind.

How is this distinction relevant? The point I'm trying to make is that the choices for an idealists are not just 1) the physical and non-physical exist together or 2)I am the only mind.

Their only choices are 1) the physical and the non-physical exist together; or 2) there is only the non-physical.

So you're saying that if nothing physical exists, then 2 or more non-physical minds cannot exists? Please connect the dots for me.

Spacetime is physical, Fliption. If I am a Solipsist, then I believe that there is nothing physical, and that includes space...which means, of course, that there can be no "other people" since those would be seperated from me by space. And you can't get around that by saying that "they could be seperated by 'something else'" or some other such rebuttal, since Relativity dictates that there is really no such thing as "space or time" independent of reference points; thus, if there are two beings, there are two reference points, and there is thus space.

Fliption

Oct15-03, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by Mentat
[B]Whoah, whoah, wait a minute. What simpler processes? You mean the typical cell division, or the currents of electricity in the axons, or the releasing of chemicals across the synaptic space? What exactly are you talking about?

I'm saying that the brain is no different from an automobile in that the process that you call consciousness is made up of less complex processes. It is not so relevant to my point exactly what these processes are, only that they exists. Those that you mentioned may qualify.

If I can get you to agree to this very simple idea then I will explain why it is relevant. I don't want to do that now because I feel I need to move slowly due to the amount of resistance I'm getting on every single step.

Their only choices are 1) the physical and the non-physical exist together; or 2) there is only the non-physical.

Agreed. But neither of these necessarily mean solipsism.

Spacetime is physical, Fliption. If I am a Solipsist, then I believe that there is nothing physical, and that includes space...which means, of course, that there can be no "other people" since those would be seperated from me by space. And you can't get around that by saying that "they could be seperated by 'something else'" or some other such rebuttal, since Relativity dictates that there is really no such thing as "space or time" independent of reference points; thus, if there are two beings, there are two reference points, and there is thus space.

I can't believe you're claiming that an idealist can't believe in the existence of 2 non-physical minds in a non-physical world. The 2 minds don't need to be separated by space to be separate minds. Space is meaningless to immaterial entities. They just need to have 2 different senses of being. We're not talking about "people", as you put it, with bodies and heads. We're talking about "minds" as an idealist might define it.