• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The relationship between science and materialism

JustGeoff said:
Its inside your mind, BDZ. The physical chair you see is internal to your mind. Your mind is your subjective frame of reference. "Things in themselves" are neither mind nor matter. "Things in themselves" are extenal to your mind.
Click to expand...

No.

There is not (and cant be, even in principle) "inside" or "outside".

A hint: Atman=Brahman... remember?

And so, Im very curious about what will you do to escape that mess.
 
BDZ

Think of it like this. If thing-in-themselves are really monistic then we will need monistic language to talk about them. But we don't have any monistic language. All our language is physical or mental - subjective or objective. Materialism tries to describe monistic reality in terms of the physical - and fails because physical-talk is dualist-talk. When I talk about "neutral entities" I did not start from any dualist talk. No minds. No matter. I talked about zero/being and about mathematics. These are the only truly monistic things we have. That is why my systems succeeds in being monistic but all non-eliminative forms of materialism end up being dualistic.

Geoff
 
JustGeoff said:
Read the thread instead of asking questions that have been answered ten times already. You are both ignorant and lazy.
Click to expand...

I resent the accusation that I am either ignorant or lazy. I have been civil thus far.

I have read the 'answers'. I have found them lacking, full of Ghost-in-the-Machine style logical assumptions, dualism and immaterialism. Feel free to point out a post you particularly think answers my question, as I have yet to find one. Now do you care to answer my question, or are you going to call me ignorant again?
 
To:

Cyborg, Dr Kitten, Taffer and anybody else who hasn't been following the course of this thread and is still making the same comments that people like Paul and Wasp were making during the first three or four pages.

I am not going to answer any more questions which are repeats of.

"You haven't shown us any problems"

or

"But minds are just brain processes"

or

"So what is this mind-stuff then?"

This is because it has taken me 10 pages of typing to explain the answers to one lot of people. I am not going to start again from the beginning with a bunch of people who couldn't be bothered to read my posts the first time.

Sorry.

Geoff
 
Hang on. All we have is Being and Neutral.

What is "noumenal reality"? What is its basis? Is it Neutral? How does Neutral give rise to noumenal?

What is a physical thing? Is it the way a noumenal thing appears in my phenomenal view of things?

How is my piece of Being differentiated from overall Being?

Are you now claiming that whatever is experiencing the world must be a thing?
Click to expand...
I'm not making that claim, although I have absolutely no idea what it means for "nothing" to experience something, nor do I understand how that nothing could be in the same ontological category as Neutral.

~~ Paul
 
JustGeoff said:
To:

Cyborg, Dr Kitten, Taffer and anybody else who hasn't been following the course of this thread and is still making the same comments that people like Paul and Wasp were making during the first three or four pages.

I am not going to answer any more questions which are repeats of.

"You haven't shown us any problems"

or

"But minds are just brain processes"

or

"So what is this mind-stuff then?"

This is because it has taken me 10 pages of typing to explain the answers to one lot of people. I am not going to start again from the beginning with a bunch of people who couldn't be bothered to read my posts the first time.

Sorry.

Geoff
Click to expand...

And yet, wait, the same people you 'explained' it to are still asking the same questions, along with newcomers to the thread. What does that say about your 'explanation'? You wouldn't happen to be running away, would you?
 
Taffer said:
I resent the accusation that I am either ignorant or lazy. I have been civil thus far.

I have read the 'answers'. I have found them lacking, full of Ghost-in-the-Machine style logical assumptions, dualism and immaterialism. Feel free to point out a post you particularly think answers my question, as I have yet to find one. Now do you care to answer my question, or are you going to call me ignorant again?
Click to expand...

I am going to call you lazy again. I am not starting again from the beginning, only to arrive back at this point in several days time after you've finally stopped trying to defend materialism and started trying to understand the problem.
 
Taffer said:
And yet, wait, the same people you 'explained' it to are still asking the same questions
Click to expand...

No, Taffer, they aren't. That is why you need to read the thread. You need to find out why they have stopped asking those questions and are now asking new questions. BETTER questions.

You wouldn't happen to be running away, would you?
Click to expand...

No. I am trying save myself from getting RSI repeating myself.
 
JustGeoff said:
I am going to call you lazy again. I am not starting again from the beginning, only to arrive back at this point in several days time after you've finally stopped trying to defend materialism and started trying to understand the problem.
Click to expand...

Once again, it is not my problem that you are unable to express your problem. I have read most of the thread (yes, not all, but most). I have read your "lets go back two weeks..." post. I have seen your arguments, your claims, and your strawmen. I am not convinced. Now, answer the question, one more time, just for me. Perhaps if your answer is satisfactory, then we can move on. But until that time, your argument is not getting any better by ignoring it and hoping it will go away.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Hang on. All we have is Being and Neutral.

What is "noumenal reality"?
Click to expand...

The neutral entity.

What is its basis?
Click to expand...

Being/Nothing

Is it Neutral?
Click to expand...

Most definately.

How does Neutral give rise to noumenal?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. They are the same thing.

What is a physical thing?
Click to expand...

Objects in the lifeworld. Parts of human experience. The things that are right in front of you now. You are typing on a physical keyboard. Somewhere in the noumenon there is a noumenal Paul noumenally typing on a noumenal keyboard, but those things aren't physical. They are noumenal.

Is it the way a noumenal thing appears in my phenomenal view of things?
Click to expand...

You could think of it like that, if it helps.

How is my piece of Being differentiated from overall Being?
Click to expand...

It isn't. There is only one Being. It has no individuated identity, if you remember. Your identity as Paul is beestowed upon you by the fact that Paul's mind is a reflection of Paul's noumenal brain. Those things have an identity.

I'm not making that claim, although I have absolutely no idea what it means for "nothing" to experience something, nor do I understand how that nothing could be in the same ontological category as Neutral.
Click to expand...

Nothingness is the most neutral concept in existence.

:)
 
JustGeoff said:
No, Taffer, they aren't. That is why you need to read the thread. You need to find out why they have stopped asking those questions and are now asking new questions. BETTER questions.
Click to expand...

Are you really that blind? They are asking the same questions, Geoff. We are still stuck on the same points, except the language has been reduced to a uselessly long-winded waffle in an attempt to get around your silly semantic arguments.

No. I am trying save myself from getting RSI repeating myself.
Click to expand...

Sure seems that way to me, but suit yourself.
 
Geoff said:
Objects in the lifeworld. Parts of human experience. The things that are right in front of you now. You are typing on a physical keyboard. Somewhere in the noumenon there is a noumenal Paul noumenally typing on a noumenal keyboard, but those things aren't physical. They are noumenal.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't get it. I can sort of picture noumenal things as neutral things, but I don't understand where physical things come from.

Objects in the lifeworld. Parts of human experience. The things that are right in front of you now. You are typing on a physical keyboard. Somewhere in the noumenon there is a noumenal Paul noumenally typing on a noumenal keyboard, but those things aren't physical. They are noumenal.
Click to expand...
Doesn't help. What is the distinction and why is there a distinction?

It isn't. There is only one Being. It has no individuated identity, if you remember. Your identity as Paul is beestowed upon you by the fact that Paul's mind is a reflection of Paul's noumenal brain. Those things have an identity.
Click to expand...
Yes, but as experienced by Being, which is undifferentiated. Why aren't all our experiences one big Borg-like superconsciousness?

Nothingness is the most neutral concept in existence.
Click to expand...
Then the Neutral should also experience, allowing the noumenal to have mind.

~~ Paul
 
JustGeoff said:
So to go back to two weeks ago...

Why is Husserl's mathematisation of nature important?

Because Husserl is trying to get people to understand the ontological error which is made when you get the noumenal world mixed up with the physical world. In terms of the lifeworld, physical objects are things which appear before us. But because of the mathematisation project of the Greeks, Galileo and Newton we ended up with two conceptions of "physical". Instead of just being what "Physical" is supposed to be - objects in the lifeworld - it also came to refer to "things as they really are". But as I hope some people can now see, it doesn't actually make logical (or linguistic) sense to think of "things as they really are" as being physical.
Click to expand...
Yikes, so there's:

1) "things-as-they-really-are",
2) the lifeworld
3) the abstract, mathematised world of science.
4) the noumenal world (or is that another word for one of the first three).

And I thought I was kind of following this.
 
Maybe it's supposed to be a pyramid? Everyone knows pyramids control the all-present essence of the lifeworld.
 
Uh oh. I have Being at the bottom and Neutral off to the side. I have a noumenal brain and chair coming out of the Neutral. I have a physical brain and chair floating above the Being. I don't know how to connect anything. Even when I squint, it doesn't look like a pyramid.

~~ Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom