Why the bias against materialism?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
I suggest that you are just making stuff up as you go...more mushrooms?

Perhaps, but it's like I said in the other thread, Evidence of God?, 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]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Perhaps, but it's like I said in the other thread, Evidence of God?, 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.

Your premise is flawed.

 

[Iacchus32]

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?

 

[Zero]

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?

Well, again, you assume your conclusion in your premise. How do you KNOW it is a can of soup, before you open it?

 

[Iacchus32]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Perhaps, but it's like I said in the other thread, Evidence of God?, 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]

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]

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.

 

[BoulderHead]

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]

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.

The highlighted portion shows the only true argument you have...and emotional one. The rest is simply window-dressing.

 

[Royce]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Iacchus32]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Woohoo...more nothing!There is no wisdom without knowledge. You cannot create your own knowledge, and call it wisdom.

 

[Zero]

Did you join the Roy Masters cult? That's what that is, you know...

 

[Iacchus32]

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 on the radio who kept "sermonizing" about how 1 + 1 = 2.

Of course I listened to him religiously for about ten years, until 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]

Roy Masters is borderline psychotic...

 

[Zero]

And, I think you are dragging us off-topic again.

 

[Iacchus32]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?