My theoretical framework

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You should make an exception for me for the same reason the people on the math threads "make exceptions" by explaining their concepts to laypersons.

I refuse to believe that you are not intelligent enough. And you can take this as a compliment.

Yes, I've seen some intelligent replies to your posts, and they seem to all come to the consensus that you're stating the obvious in a bunch of high-falutin' language where you're any making sense at all.

Are they? That was Pixy, maybe someone else, but thats it. Now, which part of the statements do you don't understand? If it is the words there are dictionaries, if it is the concepts, well, you can always reason and give me counter arguments. You favor reason if I remember correctly.

But on the one point where you've actually answered me plainly you're demonstrably wrong. There have been no victories for the non-material theories. None.

I see. It is a contest, where do I inscribe my theroretical framework? Are there any prices?

Come on. No "victories" for which theories? Objective idealism, naturalism, even the (better than the old materialism) physicalism works. Soft dualisms are not that bad, neutral monisms work, and other "isms" are also compatible with the results we get from scientific experiments.

And yes, my own ism is perfectly compatible with them. In this sense, I claim victory with the same rights.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Or, a manifestation of your lazinesses.

Seriously, ask me questions, concrete questions, I will be delighted to answer. Heck, I have been answering all your nonsensical questions.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It works, and nothing else does, and until something else even comes close, the non-materialists are stuck with rhetorical slight of hand and little else.

Wrong. Read the examples I just wrote for Piggy

Why else do you think that every single one of the woos refuses to use plain English? Making sure their position is vague and impossible to pin down is part of the game.

Ad hominem. As I said, others have been able to understand. Also, if I used words in another language... show me where

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Why would science need Naturalistic assumptions?

Why is Materialism a faith (and how are you defining Materialism)?

Two rational questions, no ad hominem. Thanks.

Naturalism:

1. Philosophy. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

No need to define the underlying constituents.

Materialism:

Philosophy. 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

You need to believe that there is such thing as matter around us. But it is an unneeded step, that won't affect the results of any scientific experiment.

Facts are facts, no matter if they are caused by "matter" or anything else (the "unnamed" or "noumena" in my theoretical framework)

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

BDZ- that would be Piggy's post 292. Please answer.

It was not a question, yet, I just answered it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Materialism is not a "faith" its a frame of reference -- meaning that one looks at the universe from the perspective of matter and builds one's knowledge base from their. Being that matter is the easiest of entities to observe and quantify its only natural that science should have begun there.

By Occam's razor, it is simpler to stop taking an ontological commitment with any kind of substance. For me, materialism, is the surviving of the "four elements" kind of theories.

We simply don't need any "final" constituents. If is enough to have a theoretical framework capable of dealing with facts and with good predictive abilities. Again. It is irrelevant if the "final ontology used" is "A" or "B".

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

What is the universe made of? is the question that materialism attempts to answer.

I can state that we don't know, I can argue that we can't know and, what is more important, I state that we do not need an answer.

Ok, plain English:

For me, there are no tables and no spoons. Both are constructs, conceptually and perceptually. Both are THINGS FOR US, not "in themselfs" (if such a concept was meaningful this is). Naively, we assume that the universe is made of matter, this is, those tiny solid atoms and so on (ignoring the nature of physics from the beginning of last century).

But in reality our perceptual system works both filtering and creating the result. Its like abstract data in a computer. Depending on how we choose to depict the information, it will have certain characteristics, but such are not in the input signal.

Take, for instance, the info in a hard drive. You can convert it to a certain arrangement of photons in a screen, with certain shape and determinate design, and what you are seeing is related to the original info, but nothing like it. In other words, it is simply FOOLISH to think that you are seeing (or can see) the data of the hard drive as IT IS.

On the same token, it is foolish to assume the "ultimate nature" of what is being experienced (phenomena). It is, simply, a no needed ontological commitment. Comfortable, but useless.

 

[Piggy]

Read the examples I just wrote for Piggy

Uh... knock knock....

Those weren't examples. You just spouted a string of isms.

Show me one example where material and non-material explanations of the world went head to head and the material explanation lost.

One.

 

[AkuManiMani]

By Occam's razor, it is simpler to stop taking an ontological commitment with any kind of substance. For me, materialism, is the surviving of the "four elements" kind of theories.

We simply don't need any "final" constituents. If is enough to have a theoretical framework capable of dealing with facts and with good predictive abilities. Again. It is irrelevant if the "final ontology used" is "A" or "B".

Erm... the "stuff" being observed is independently verified by the experience of other people. This "stuff" is what we call "matter" and its varying properties are empirically verified. Comparing the existence of matter with the "four elements" concept is ludicrous.

Uh... knock knock....

Those weren't examples. You just spouted a string of isms.

Show me one example where material and non-material explanations of the world went head to head and the material explanation lost.

One.

What is "material" and how can it be "non-material"?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Erm... the "stuff" being observed is independently verified by the experience of other people. This "stuff" is what we call "matter" and its varying properties are empirically verified. Comparing the existence of matter with the "four elements" concept is ludicrous.

Why ludicrous?

And you said it yourself, this "stuff" its called "matter". The problem is not the word, but the implications behind, we do not need to ascribe to them. It is an unnecessary step.

Do you know what an ontological commitment is?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Erm... the "stuff" being observed is independently verified by the experience of other people.

Oh yes, but this is trivial, we all share the same perceptual&conceptual systems.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Erm... the "stuff" being observed is independently verified by the experience of other people. This "stuff" is what we call "matter" and its varying properties are empirically verified. Comparing the existence of matter with the "four elements" concept is ludicrous.

Why ludicrous?

And you said it yourself, this "stuff" its called "matter". The problem is not the word, but the implications behind, we do not need to ascribe to them. It is an unnecessary step.

Oh ho! And what are the "implications behind"?

[And FYI the "four elements" paradigm was based upon falsifiable statements about the constituents of matter. It has long ago been falsified.]

Do you know what an ontological commitment is?

Yes, and I'm starting to think you may have made a flawed one.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

And FYI the "four elements" paradigm was based upon falsifiable statements about the constituents of matter. It has long ago been falsified.

Wrong, they were the constitutes of the universe. Now (for most people, at least in this forum) is matter.

Still, you fail to grasp my point. It is an unneeded answer, comfortable, but useless.

Yes, and I'm starting to think you may have made a flawed one.

Prove it.

 

[Piggy]

What is "material" and how can it be "non-material"?

Example: "Consciousness is the activity of the brain" v. "Consciousness is the activity of the supernatural soul".

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Example: "Consciousness is the activity of the brain" v. "Consciousness is the activity of the supernatural soul".

huh, yeah. First you failed to understand the question (but well, a brain is presumed to be made of matter)

Still, it is trivial, and not related whatsoever to the stated theoretical framework.

 

[AkuManiMani]

And FYI the "four elements" paradigm was based upon falsifiable statements about the constituents of matter. It has long ago been falsified.

Wrong, they were the constitutes of the universe. Now (for most people, at least in this forum) is matter.

So the universe is made of "fire" "water" "air" and "earth"? If anyone believes this literally then they are factually wrong. Materialism is a frame of reference within monist ontology. "Matter" is a real "observable" from which one can extrapolate from. For instance, in Relativity energy is considered another form of matter.

Still, you fail to grasp my point. It is an unneeded answer, comfortable, but useless.

What is an "unneeded answer"?

Yes, and I'm starting to think you may have made a flawed one.

Prove it.

The fact that I'm saying that I suspect you of having a flawed one is proof enough that suspect you

Example: "Consciousness is the activity of the brain" v. "Consciousness is the activity of the supernatural soul".

I didn't ask you about "supernatural souls" or what consciousness is . I asked you what matter is and what it is not.

 

[volatile]

It seems to me that you're dangerously close to solipsism there, BDZ...

Phenomenology is not antithetical to materialism. Heterophenomenology isn't incompatible with existential phenomenology.

 

[volatile]

Double Post

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So the universe is made of "fire" "water" "air" and "earth"? If anyone believes this literally then they are factually wrong. Materialism is a frame of reference within monist ontology. "Matter" is a real "observable" from which one can extrapolate from. For instance, in Relativity energy is considered another form of matter.

Yep, the "ultimate constituents of reality" these have changed throughout times. Materialism is a convenient assumption yes, it is easier to conceptualize the world as "made of matter".

But, again, it is an assumption. Objective idealism is also congruent with any kind of scientific endeavor, yet it proposes that "the ultimate constituent" is not matter at all.

As for myself it is an:

What is an "unneeded answer"?

Exactly this. I state that we do not have to take that last step, we don't need to believe that the world is made of anything we can think of, or conceptualize.

Quoting myself:

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.

In other words, I believe that we do not need to ascribe ourselves to an ontological commitment, no matter if it is materialism, objective idealism or any other ism.

The fact that I'm saying that I suspect you of having a flawed one is proof enough that suspect you

You got me there!

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It seems to me that you're dangerously close to solipsism there, BDZ...

Well, no. Just maybe in the sense that our phenomenal world is closed, but this happens to everyone of us. And there is a common cause to every phenomenal world.