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[/color]. 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).
. Then you understand.