• 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.

My theoretical framework

You will never know, as long as you continue to fetishize your own ideas.

So, you don't know. Interesting. Its like talking to Eliza (AI). Are you capable of argumentations, or you can only complain. You continue to do philosophy for someone who hates it.
 
Late reply to #160
Less naive? Maybe, but still not materialism, which is the least naive that I know of.
 
Last edited:
I have to tell you, BDZ's self-obsessed bloviations have nothing to do with Tao.

I was a Taoist for 10 years, from age 16 to 26 (when I converted to Buddhism) as I've described in other threads on this forum.

If BDZ is describing the Tao, then P.T. Barnum was describing natural history.

Despite the fact that words and phrases in BDZ's post may be translated into plain-English common-sense notions, I think it's apt to apply the remarks of the brilliant Hugh Kenner after a particularly tortuous post-modern thesis defense: "Well, that was a whole lotta nothing."

LOL!!!

Doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with you at this point -- that was just too damn funny to dispute xD
 
I have to tell you, BDZ's self-obsessed bloviations have nothing to do with Tao. I was a Taoist for 10 years, from age 16 to 26 (when I converted to Buddhism) as I've described in other threads on this forum.

:) I see, now you are also a great authority on Taoism. Guess nothing more interesting in your life than posting nonsense? Come on pig, throw an argument, even a weak one.
 
Less naive? Maybe, but still not materialism, which is the least naive that I know of.

Arrived late to the discussion? Materialism is used naively by millions, some even take it as complete, definitive and true, and you say thats the less naive thinking that you know?
 
So, you don't know. Interesting. Its like talking to Eliza (AI). Are you capable of argumentations, or you can only complain. You continue to do philosophy for someone who hates it.

As everyone on this thread knows, I'm an ignorant redneck with no understanding of the English language and no clue how to formulate a rational argument.

Perhaps if I studied at your lotus feet, I could learn how to piece together a coherent, cogent thesis supported by irrefutable evidence and expressed in language as clear and invigorating as the waters of a mountain spring.
 
Arrived late to the discussion? Materialism is used naively by millions, some even take it as complete, definitive and true, and you say thats the less naive thinking that you know?
Argumentum anti populum. (Lot's of people believe it, but lots of people are idiots, therefore it's false.)

Go back three spaces and miss a turn.
 
Come on pig, throw an argument, even a weak one.

An argument about what? There are no arguments against nonsense. And despite your efforts to demonstrate otherwise, no arguments in its favor, either.

"Thursday is taller than C sharp major." Care to refute that?

There's a little tale about pearls and swine, my friend.

Tell you what... you pony up with a coherent idea, and I'll talk your ear off about it.
 
As everyone on this thread knows, I'm an ignorant redneck with no understanding of the English language and no clue how to formulate a rational argument.

Then it is confirmed. Now, if you see nothing of value here.. what makes you comeback? Its a rather interesting behavior.
 
Argumentum anti populum. (Lot's of people believe it, but lots of people are idiots, therefore it's false.)

Go back three spaces and miss a turn.

Hmm. Lets see:

"Materialism: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter".

Blatantly false.

"Physicalism: The view that all that exists is ultimately physical"

Better, definitely.

"Naturalism: The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws."

Mostly agreed.

But you forgot to tell me what matters, this is, your opinion of mine:

BDZism (to put a name): a system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules
 
Last edited:
Hmm. Lets see:

"Materialism: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter".

Blatantly false.
In what way? (And materialism doesn't assert that anything can be explained; you're thinking of scientific naturalism. Materialism is just a statement of composition, exactly the same as physicalism.)

"Physicalism: The view that all that exists is ultimately physical"

Better, definitely.
How is it better?

"Naturalism: The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws."

Mostly agreed.
Note that this is just your incorrect statement of materialism reduced to behaviourist terms.

But you forgot to tell me what matters, this is, your opinion of mine:

BDZism (to put a name): a system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules
What? Was there supposed to be a question or a statement in there?
 
Last edited:
Pixy,

Sometimes I realy think you are playing a game here. There are some physical things that are not material; forces, distortions, geometries, space-time, even the value of a coin.

I used standard, dictionary definitions so if you happen to believe that "physical" and material" are synonyms thats your wish. If you also happen to believe some assumptions, like the nature and ontological status of matter, to put an example, then that is your choice again.

But don't come to tell me that you can't understand what it is implied in my statement.

"A system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules."

Here the implications are that matter, geometries and the value of a coin are relational concepts that follow a set of rules. If such (semantic) rules can predict phenomena then they work as descriptions, but nothing can be said about their ontological status beyond this. They are, and will always be, just functional descriptions, out of this, the unknown.
 
Last edited:
In what way? (And materialism doesn't assert that anything can be explained; you're thinking of scientific naturalism. Materialism is just a statement of composition, exactly the same as physicalism.)

Materialism

The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and considered a form of physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance. As a theory, materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism.


Monism

Monism is the metaphysical and theological view that all is one, that there are no fundamental divisions, and a unified set of laws underlie nature.

Basically the only thing that separates "materialism" from general monism is that it chooses matter as a starting frame of reference [for instance, in the Theory of Relativity energy is considered another form of "matter"]. I think we can all agree that western science is based off of this assumption -- without that assumption there would be no search for a "theory of everything".

Now, can you guys stop debating pass each other?
 
Last edited:
Some quite unexpected facts (to the common people):

There is no “external” material world outside your consciousness. There are no objects, there is no light, nothing like and earth or stars or galaxies. Consciousness is your world, the only one you know and will know, the only one that exists and will ever exists.

There is also nothing “internal” to consciousness. Feeling, thoughts, sensations, perceptions, language, etc. are also your world. Still, consciousness is merely the tip of the iceberg (notice that I said that consciousness is YOUR world, not THE world).

Consciousness is made of phenomena, yet it is caused by the noumena. As we have seen, phenomena comprehends both the world and the ego, the external and the internal, the objective and the subjective.

The noumena is, whatever it is, outside the reach of consciousness. For convenience we can say that the noumena is physical, made of quarks, quantum states, strong and weak forces, and so on. But we must never forget that such concepts are oversimplifications that serve a purpose (they are like anchors that let us to make predictions) but are not “real entities in themselves”. Particles and waves are ways of describing the noumena, nothing else, and nothing more.

The ultimate nature of what we call the universe is then the noumena, and every attempt to describe it will begin and finish in language. Different languages, different concepts and you might end with a different description. Valid or invalid only in the sense it can accurately predict phenomena, but not “truer” or “more accurate” or “better” outside its predictive capabilities. It is a map and the map is not and can’t be the territory.
Hiya BDZ!
:)

All thoughts are equally true and false.

Some are just more valid than others.

I will have to read this thread backwards.

To quote Bugs Bunny:

"Whats all the hubub Bub?"

(I can't believe that this thread is five pages long.)
 
Pixy,

Sometimes I realy think you are playing a game here. There are some physical things that are not material; forces, distortions, geometries, space-time, even the value of a coin.

I used standard, dictionary definitions so if you happen to believe that "physical" and material" are synonyms thats your wish. If you also happen to believe some assumptions, like the nature and ontological status of matter, to put an example, then that is your choice again.

But don't come to tell me that you can't understand what it is implied in my statement.

"A system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules."

Here the implications are that matter, geometries and the value of a coin are relational concepts that follow a set of rules. If such (semantic) rules can predict phenomena then they work as descriptions, but nothing can be said about their ontological status beyond this. They are, and will always be, just functional descriptions, out of this, the unknown.


Sounds fair , yet i suppose we can discuss what then is knowledge.

It doesn't matter , either way. It could be spirits, it could be energy, it could be little monekys on scooters (well that would show up in partcile accelerators).

It doesn't matter what the ontology of the universe is.

Functional analysis is All We Have.

I am the zombie, they are the eggmen, ...
 

Back
Top Bottom