Why the bias against materialism?

[Iacchus32]

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]

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 "acknowledgment" can actually exist in a subconscious being. Acknowledgement is a conscious process.

 

[Mentat]

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]

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]

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]

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 "acknowledgment" 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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Mentat
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]

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]

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]

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 development 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]

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.[/color] 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 development 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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+]

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]

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 separate them.

These "platonic universals" are just a fixation of the mind.

 

[BoulderHead]

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
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 development 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]

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]

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 separate 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]

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]

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.

 

[Zero]

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]

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.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption
Now I'm speechless. A pot just called a kettle a pot.

You speechless? We couldn't get that lucky...

 

[Fliption]

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 consensus 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]

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]

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...

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]

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...

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]

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. Imagine that, I look at the world and take it at face3 value...why should anyone be opposed to that?

 

[Royce]

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]

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...

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]

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. 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 that's 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]

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 that's 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 separate 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]

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]

Zero, mentally with the minds eye, mental nonsensory perception. Thinking about it and picturing it in your mind

 

[Fliption]

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]

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!

 

[Zero]

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]

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.