Does Matter Really Exist?

[Belz...]

The fact that I believe other minds exist, albeit within the greater mind as a whole, invalidates what you're saying here.

That you believe is one thing. You are a far cry from proving it, however.

Proving what to whom? Unless of course you see no logic in the ability to assess something (anything at all, really) through sentience.

Again, have you read that article I provided about sentience and the brain ? It explains much, really.

If I were not sentient first, I would not be able to conclude by any means (logically or otherwise) the hand which existed in front of my face.

Why not ? What difference would it make if your sentience was a result of your physical processes ? You'd still be sentient.

Contrary to what you may wish to believe, I didn't show up at your doorstep to "get with the program." Hence, while I argue from the standpoint of conviction, you argue from the standpoint of being wholly ignorant of what that conviction entails. We are not in cahoots. We are adversaries.

Still, you're not doing much in the way of convincing us. Not because we are close-minded, but because your "arguments" are simply unconvincing.

It's simply a matter of which came first, mind or matter. If the mind arose from matter, as the materialists believe, then it precludes the explanation for anything else. The problem is, we only have the mind by which to tell us this. So, where is "the matter" in that?

Again, what difference would it make if the mind arose from matter ? How would it "preclude" anything else ? The only thing that seems to bug you about materialism is the origin of the universe, and there are very thorough articles on the subject that you can read and LEARN FROM.

Yes, and it is only circular because you have assumed the materialist's position here. In which case if it really is a matter of mind over matter, yours is a circular definition and, a dead-end.

That's not what circular means, Iacchus. It's like this:

"God exists because the Bible says he does and the Bible is the word of God, therefore the Bible cannot lie, and God exists."

That's circular. In order for the "Bible says God exists" part to be convincing, God must have inspired the Bible. Unfurtunately, the very thing the argument tries to prove is that God exists; therefore we can't assume that he does a priori; and therefore we cannot conclude that the Bible was inspired by him, making the whole argument collapse.

That's what you're doing. Assuming your conclusion. But there's no LOGICAL way that that can work. It doesn't matter what you believe in, logic is always the same.

And of course, as usual -- or, so it would seem -- you have mistaken me for the solipsist. I am merely proposing that there is a greater mind, of which all minds, and matter, exist.

So instead of saying the universe is a result of YOUR mind, you say it's a result of A mind. Same difference, methinks.

 

[Belz...]

I think that is a fair request. If you think of Iacchus as the White Queen then it is easier to understand the discussion (?) thus far.

From the Hellfire Club ?

 

[RandFan]

From the Hellfire Club ?

Through The Looking Glass --Lewis Carroll

If you want to understand Iacchus it is a must read...trust me.

The Queen: Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!

 

[hammegk]

So instead of saying the universe is a result of YOUR mind, you say it's a result of A mind. Same difference, methinks.

How do you justify that claim?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Through The Looking Glass --Lewis Carroll

The Queen: Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!

If you want to understand Iacchus it is a must read...trust me.

Actually RandFan, that's the Red Queen you just quoted there, not the White Queen.

 

[Iacchus]

That you believe is one thing. You are a far cry from proving it, however.

Yes, it is enough to believe that other minds exists, in context with what I was saying.

Again, have you read that article I provided about sentience and the brain ? It explains much, really.

If it's as good as you say it is (I actually don't remember you bringing this up), it probably explains a lot about the physical processes of the brain but, little or nothing about "the signal" that the brain is processing. Take for example the workings of the TV set, versus the actual show that you watch on TV. Would you have us believe that the two are one and the same? Or, how does this differ from the wrapper on the outside of a candy bar which, outside of the wrapper, regardless of how intricate its design may be, the two are entirely unrelated?

Why not ? What difference would it make if your sentience was a result of your physical processes ? You'd still be sentient.

Do you even have proof that this is actually so? Not outside of what you think is so.

Still, you're not doing much in the way of convincing us. Not because we are close-minded, but because your "arguments" are simply unconvincing.

I remain unconvinced by your arguments, and forever will.

That's not what circular means, Iacchus. It's like this:

"God exists because the Bible says he does and the Bible is the word of God, therefore the Bible cannot lie, and God exists."

The sky is blue. That is merely an observation. What is there to deduce?

That's what you're doing. Assuming your conclusion. But there's no LOGICAL way that that can work. It doesn't matter what you believe in, logic is always the same.

As if to say logic is not a part of one's belief process? What are you trying to say, besides twist things around with your logic? I understand that you and I believe separate things.

So instead of saying the universe is a result of YOUR mind, you say it's a result of A mind. Same difference, methinks.

How so? If everything is encoded with information that tells it how to behave (even prior to the Big Bang), where does that information come from?

 

[Mercutio]

If it's as good as you say it is (I actually don't remember you bringing this up), it probably explains a lot about the physical processes of the brain but, little or nothing about the contents of the signal that the brain is processing. Take for example the workings of the TV set, versus the actual show that watch on TV.

You are quite right--it would say little or nothing (ok, nothing) about the contents of the signal, because not only is there no evidence for such a signal, there is copious evidence that no such signal exists.

You have been shown this time and time again, in arguments and evidence that are independent of monism (and thus independent of your "do you have proof" strawman), and yet you still bring up this utter crap theory of consciousness signals. This is perhaps the biggest proof that you lie when you say you change your beliefs based on arguments or evidence.

I remain unconvinced by your arguments, and forever will.

This, of course, is an even bigger proof.

How so? If everything is encoded with information that tells it how to behave (even prior to the Big Bang), where does that information come from?

Who says that it is? Only you, if I am not mistaken.

 

[Iacchus]

You are quite right--it would say little or nothing (ok, nothing) about the contents of the signal, because not only is there no evidence for such a signal, there is copious evidence that no such signal exists.

Then what you're suggesting is that there's a big void between our ears ... in other words nothing.

You have been shown this time and time again, in arguments and evidence that are independent of monism (and thus independent of your "do you have proof" strawman), and yet you still bring up this utter crap theory of consciousness signals. This is perhaps the biggest proof that you lie when you say you change your beliefs based on arguments or evidence.

Which is to say there is no such thing as "conscious experience?" Please ... When I am conscious, the last thing I'm aware of is this so-called brain of yours that produces it. The two are not one and the same. In fact when "the signal" is cut off (via the inputs into the brain), the brain no longer produces anything. Neither does it belie any of the information, whatsoever, of what that signal entailed.

This, of course, is an even bigger proof.

I am merely suggesting that the sky is blue.

Who says that it is? Only you, if I am not mistaken.

And, unless you believe something can from nothing, how can you conclude otherwise?

 

[Mercutio]

Then what you're suggesting is that there's a big void between our ears ... in other words nothing.

No, Iacchus. What I am saying outright--I am not "suggesting" anything--is that you are utterly ignorant of the subject. You are continuing to make claims that are in opposition to all evidence (again, independent of monism), and have never once addressed your opposition to this evidence. Your notion of "consciousness signals" is baseless. If you had even the least bit of knowledge about the topic, you would be embarrassed to even suggest the things that you do. This is not a new and different perspective, it is ignorance, pure and simple. What is more, since you have been offered many opportunities to learn why your notion is so ludicrous, you position is willful ignorance. You are not merely standing still, you are running backwards as fast as you can to maintain your stone-age philosophy.

Which is to say there is no such thing as "conscious experience?" Please ... When I am conscious, the last thing I'm aware of is this so-called brain of yours that produces it. The two are not one and the same. In fact when "the signal" is cut off (via the inputs into the brain), the brain no longer produces anything. Neither does it belie any of the information, whatsoever, of what that signal entailed.

You are, in a sense, right here. Yes, when you are conscious you are not aware that it is your brain producing it. And yet, it is easy to demonstrate that it is (again, independent from monism). Your testimony here is precisely why introspective accounts, despite a fair trial, have been found worthless as a means of gathering information about the processes involved in consciousness. You are not new and different, you are proposing something that has been found, a century ago, not to work.

I am merely suggesting that the sky is blue.

That is an outright lie. You take "the sky is blue" and from it you conclude a god, and a heaven with streets paved with gold.

And it is disingenuous to say that when you say "I remain unconvinced by your arguments, and forever will", and say that you really meant that that you were "merely suggesting that the sky is blue."

And, unless you believe something can from nothing, how can you conclude otherwise?

Do not pretend that the rest of us are limited by the same lack of imagination that you possess. Your ignorant notions of "before the big bang" have never once been embraced by even one person here; the fact that you still trot out that lie as your version of our position merely shows how intellectually bankrupt your position is. You have been asked before not to attempt to rephrase our views on anything; you have never once demonstrated that you are able to do so.

 

[Melendwyr]

Mercutio, Mercutio, Mercutio. Don't you remember that little talk we had about using the Ignore List in our heads?

If you're going to feed the trolls, you have no grounds to complain when they bite your hand.

 

[arias]

And it is disingenuous to say that when you say "I remain unconvinced by your arguments, and forever will", and say that you really meant that that you were "merely suggesting that the sky is blue."

Do not pretend that the rest of us are limited by the same lack of imagination that you possess. Your ignorant notions of "before the big bang" have never once been embraced by even one person here; the fact that you still trot out that lie as your version of our position merely shows how intellectually bankrupt your position is. You have been asked before not to attempt to rephrase our views on anything; you have never once demonstrated that you are able to do so.

As an outsider, these assessments seem about right. Not sure why the aforementioned person cannot concede anything in the slightest. I suggest tolerance and moving onto more productive discussions. The Ignore List is not a good idea; wisdom is gleamed from all, even the most dubious sources.

 

[RandFan]

Actually RandFan, that's the Red Queen you just quoted there, not the White Queen.

I just can't seem to come up with a good retort. I believe your right.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Don't give me too much credit there RandFan, that line is used in Dawkin's work to illustrate the never ending competition within and amoung species. It sticks out, but then, so does all of his writting.

 

[Iacchus]

That is an outright lie. You take "the sky is blue" and from it you conclude a god, and a heaven with streets paved with gold.

And it is disingenuous to say that when you say "I remain unconvinced by your arguments, and forever will", and say that you really meant that that you were "merely suggesting that the sky is blue."

The sky is blue. I will forever remain convinced that this is so. Unless of course someone can convince me that "I" (the part that witnesses the sky is blue) don't exist. But then again it is none other than "I," who would have to accept that too (no less convincingly) now wouldn't I? Hmm ... A ghost in the machine anyone?

So, how do I remain convinced that God exists? It's simple, the sky is blue.

 

[Iacchus]

Do not pretend that the rest of us are limited by the same lack of imagination that you possess. Your ignorant notions of "before the big bang" have never once been embraced by even one person here; the fact that you still trot out that lie as your version of our position merely shows how intellectually bankrupt your position is. You have been asked before not to attempt to rephrase our views on anything; you have never once demonstrated that you are able to do so.

What is information, and where does it come from? Isn't this what defines everything and tells it what to do? So, doesn't it make sense that, at the very least, information existed prior to the Big Bang?

 

[Tricky]

The sky is blue. I will forever remain convinced that this is so. Unless of course someone can convince me that "I" (the part that witnesses the sky is blue) don't exist. But then again it is none other than "I," who would have to accept that too (no less convincingly) now wouldn't I? Hmm ... A ghost in the machine anyone?

So, how do I remain convinced that God exists? It's simple, the sky is blue.

What color is the sky at night? It is black.
What color is the sky at sunset? It is reddish.
What color is the sky during an Aurora Borealis? It is multicolored.
What color is the sky from space? It is transparent (or clouded).

So you see, the things you place your faith in are not substantial. They are based on your own flawed perception. Abandon your dedication to ignorance and learn how things work, Iacchus, and maybe someday you will become a person worth listening to instead of a boring woo-woo.

 

[Mercutio]

The sky is blue. I will forever remain convinced that this is so. Unless of course someone can convince me that "I" (the part that witnesses the sky is blue) don't exist. But then again it is none other than "I," who would have to accept that too (no less convincingly) now wouldn't I? Hmm ... A ghost in the machine anyone?

So, how do I remain convinced that God exists? It's simple, the sky is blue.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

Melendwyr, Iacchus has not bothered me for quite some time. I am not writing to him, but to lurkers like arias. As examples of logical fallacies go, responding to Iacchus's posts is a bit like batting practice. But thanks for your concern.

 

[bruto]

Iacchus, I suppose any attempt at arguing sense is an isometric exercise here, but a television set is a very poor analogy for the brain, mind, soul or just about anything else except a television set. A television set is, of course, a purpose-manufactured machine, made for receiving signals that are known to exist, and emitted for the purpose of being received by television sets. A television without the presence of a signal is a useless device, and the signal without receivers is a useless signal. The receiver emits no signal of its own, except for accidental noise. Saying your brain is like a television is uninformative, to say the least, because of course it presupposes the purpose and the signal from without without evidence of either, and says nothing about why one should do so. It also presupposes that your brain does nothing to the signal apart from processing it, and produces no signal of its own. Now, Iacchus, I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility that your brain works in this way, or perhaps as Aristotle thought, as a radiator to cool the blood, but it will take a little more convincing before I accept that mine works in that way.

 

[Mercutio]

Iacchus, I suppose any attempt at arguing sense is an isometric exercise here, but a television set is a very poor analogy for the brain, mind, soul or just about anything else except a television set. A television set is, of course, a purpose-manufactured machine, made for receiving signals that are known to exist, and emitted for the purpose of being received by television sets. A television without the presence of a signal is a useless device, and the signal without receivers is a useless signal. The receiver emits no signal of its own, except for accidental noise. Saying your brain is like a television is uninformative, to say the least, because of course it presupposes the purpose and the signal from without without evidence of either, and says nothing about why one should do so. It also presupposes that your brain does nothing to the signal apart from processing it, and produces no signal of its own. Now, Iacchus, I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility that your brain works in this way, or perhaps as Aristotle thought, as a radiator to cool the blood, but it will take a little more convincing before I accept that mine works in that way.

FWIW, this has all been explained to Iacchus before. It is good to have a refresher course, though, for those late to the game.

 

[Tricky]

Iacchus, I suppose any attempt at arguing sense is an isometric exercise here...

LOL. Excellent metaphor! I wonder if Iacchus will understand it.

...but a television set is a very poor analogy for the brain, mind, soul or just about anything else except a television set. A television set is, of course, a purpose-manufactured machine, made for receiving signals that are known to exist, and emitted for the purpose of being received by television sets. A television without the presence of a signal is a useless device, and the signal without receivers is a useless signal. The receiver emits no signal of its own, except for accidental noise. Saying your brain is like a television is uninformative, to say the least, because of course it presupposes the purpose and the signal from without without evidence of either, and says nothing about why one should do so. It also presupposes that your brain does nothing to the signal apart from processing it, and produces no signal of its own.

Plus, each television receives the same signal(s). We know the source of the signals. We know the kind of energy used by the signals. Yes, the list of reasons why the Brain/TV analogy is worthless is quite lengthy and easily countered, yet still the dualists tend to use the "signal" business with great frequency. But at least you got your excercise today.

I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility that your brain works in this way, or perhaps as Aristotle thought, as a radiator to cool the blood, but it will take a little more convincing before I accept that mine works in that way.

I propose that Iacchus' brain is more like a telephone answering machine. It speaks to you and you speak to it, but it is obvious that the Iacchus machine sends a canned message which addresses your incoming message not at all. Neither is there any indication from the one recording the outgoing message that they have heard or understood you. Sure, the messages get changed slightly from time to time, but there are only the barest few variations.