My theoretical framework

[volatile]

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.

Indeed. And that's why there's no necessary gap between existential phenomenology and heterophenomenology, and why you're barking up the wrong tree.

You're equating the models with the thing's they're modelling. No-one here is denying that our individual perception of the world is infallible or exactly the same as the ultimate material fabric of reality as you seem to be implying. Of course consciousness filters reality. But you're interpreting that to mean that the material world is entirely fabricated, which is not the case.

In other words: the common cause is materiality.

 

[Moochie]

Well, blessed are the cheesemakers.

Yes, we all have a friend in cheeses.


M.

 

[Faithkills]

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.

Just like your theoretical framework.

From your OP

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.

What does your framework predict that would validate itself?

What does it predict that would disprove materialism?

Why would not parsimony apply here? You assert "There are no objects, there is no light, nothing like and earth or stars or galaxies." and perhaps there are not.. but why jump to a conclusion which offers nothing whatsoever over various forms of materialism.

You made a philosophical commitment with no basis whatsoever. There may be no material world, but there may be. The commitment to there not being one gets you exactly no where and further undermines itself. What is to say you aren't a material brain in a material vat (or a program on a material computer) being fed experiences to make you suspect there is no real reality? We could even do this really well by introducing subtle inconsistencies that would encourage you to think you're not real. You could be an AI with a simulated life designed just for the purpose of spouting nonesense on forums

It may be that "There are no objects, there is no light, nothing like and earth or stars or galaxies." but it makes as little sense, and there is as little basis, to assume this as it does to assume the opposite. And your assumption offers nothing at all useful.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You're equating the models with the thing's they're modelling.

Check again! I do exactly the opposite! (naive) materialists are the ones that take for granted that their model is about reality, in other words, that their model IS the real thing. And I cannot stress enough this "IS". On the other hand, it is particularly clear to me that a map is not, and can't be the territory.

Of course consciousness filters reality. But you're interpreting that to mean that the material world is entirely fabricated, which is not the case.

Read again. Consciousness not only filters, but create a great deal of what we experience. Take, for instance, how our eyes work. And yes, I state that the experience is completely fabricated, and that all your world is that experience.

Yet, the cause of such experiences lie outside the phenomenal world.

In other words: the common cause is materiality.

There you go, you are the one equating ideas with whatever is behind them.

Nope, materiality is proposed as the "ultimate nature" of that cause. In my model, even the question about what constitutes that "ultimate nature" is rendered absurd.

 

[Faithkills]

Can you please tell us how your description is more valid and what it predicts?

Again from the OP:

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.

What gives you to conclude that your theoretical framework is valid, even in the minimal sense of what phenomena it can predict?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You assert "There are no objects, there is no light, nothing like and earth or stars or galaxies." and perhaps there are not.. but why jump to a conclusion which offers nothing whatsoever over various forms of materialism.

Au contraire, I purposefully chose not to jump to a conclusion. I have no ontological commitment at all. I stop at the results of the experiments, without ascribing an imaginary ontology behind them.

Again: Particles and waves are ways of describing the noumena, nothing else, and nothing more.

 

[Robin]

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).

So let me ask you a question. For you is there a "Robin"? Am I also a construct for you, or would you allow that I am an independent consciousness in my own right?

(And are the other posters also constructs for you and is, for example, J.S. Bach a construct for you?)

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Can you please tell us how your description is more valid and what it predicts?

First of all (and I have stated this in the thread in the past) it is not a theory and I don't presume it predicts anything.

Second, I stop at the facts, without ascribing an ontology. It is a no needed step and therefore, by occam's razor, is "better".

Note that I didn't said "more valid". If anything, it is just a system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules without falling in to unnecessary ontological commitments.

Now please answer, what is the purpose (or utility) of stating that the world is "made of matter"?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So let me ask you a question. For you is there a "Robin"? Am I also a construct for you, or would you allow that I am an independent consciousness in my own right?

(And are the other posters also constructs for you and is, for example, J.S. Bach a construct for you?)

Yes, my phenomenal world is closed. I have no access to your consciousness, so I have to deduce it from available facts (common ones, we learn to do this when we are about 4 years old).

 

[Faithkills]

Au contraire, I purposefully chose not to jump to a conclusion. I have no ontological commitment at all. I stop at the results of the experiments, without ascribing an imaginary ontology behind them.

Again: Particles and waves are ways of describing the noumena, nothing else, and nothing more.

Wrong, you are committed to your own idea that '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.'

Yet you have no basis to believe this. Your own "theoretical framework" merely says we can make no claims.. yet you make a claim.

You cannot know '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.' by your own 'theoretical framework'

Your "theoretical framework" is entirely incoherent.

You could more validly make the weaker assertion that we cannot know either way, but then again.. what would this buy us?

 

[Piggy]

First you failed to understand the question

Since it was my question, I seriously doubt that.

 

[Piggy]

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

And I gave you an example of it, relevant to the point I was making. My assertion is that non-material explanations of the world, when butting heads with material explanations, lose every time.

That's an example of the kind of question I was talking about.

 

[Robin]

Yes, my phenomenal world is closed. I have no access to your consciousness, so I have to deduce it from available facts (common ones, we learn to do this when we are about 4 years old).

But we do, in fact, deduce that there are phenomenal worlds apart from our own, don't we?

If I were ever to entertain the idea for St Matthew's Passion was merely a construct for me I should be priding myself with musical genius that I could not back up with demonstration.

So Occam might lead me to conclude that Bach was an independent consciousness with a phenomenal world of his own.

Now having established that the other consciousness's I observe are not simply figments of my imagination, let's get back to that table and spoon.

Suppose I and another observer can agree on the size, shape and mass of the objects using an agreed system of measurement. Suppose we can perform various actions on them and observe the same results.

Can we not now conclude that the table and spoon are in fact things in themselves and that the constructs in each of our own phenomenal worlds is merely a representation of that thing?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Wrong, you are committed to your own idea that '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.'

Read again. There are no external material objects outside your phenomenal world. What you see, those objects, are a creation of your perceptual/conceptual system, not "things".

Tell you what, read the whole thread, understand the implications, and come back latter with good questions. Ok?

Yet you have no basis to believe this (That there are no external material objects around us).

Sure about that? Yes I have, neurophysiology, for instance.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So Occam might lead me to conclude that Bach was an independent consciousness with a phenomenal world of his own.

Never said the contrary, it is implied right in the OP.

Can we not now conclude that the table and spoon are in fact things in themselves and that the constructs in each of our own phenomenal worlds is merely a representation of that thing?

No. We can conclude what I state in the OP, this is that they are descriptions of "that" whatever it is, that is outside our phenomenal worlds. Noumena seems a good word for it.

Care to read, in case you missed it, my post 307?

 

[Faithkills]

Read again. There are no external material objects outside your phenomenal world. What you see, those objects, are a creation of your perceptual/conceptual system, not "things".

How do you know that? What in your framework allows you to make that assertion?

Tell you what, read the whole thread, understand the implications, and come back latter with good questions. Ok?

I have read the whole thread. Your theory is one big ball of nonfalisifiable fluff. If the questions are so bad why do you have such difficulty giving a coherent answer?

Sure about that? Yes I have, neurophysiology, for instance.

How does this support your assertion that "there are no external material objects around us"?

You have asserted "there are no external material objects around us" constantly but have not given one shred of reason or evidence that this must be so. Something that if this were so we could point to and say, "well yes, there is no other explanation for this except that there are no external material objects"

In fact your explanation goes counter to very parsimony you keep invoking. Your framework is entirely incoherent.

 

[AkuManiMani]

And I gave you an example of it, relevant to the point I was making. My assertion is that non-material explanations of the world, when butting heads with material explanations, lose every time.

That's an example of the kind of question I was talking about.

I was making a rhetorical point that you seemed to have missed.

Matter is the persistent pattern of activity of its components ["elementary" particles]. These particles, in turn, are the persistent patterns that their components generate as well. In this sense all entities, including atomic matter, are "phenomenon" with varying degrees and patterns of persistence. One can, in principle, continue downward or upward on scales of organization indefinitely without coming upon an ultimate "something". One can assume that all things from matter to energy to"thoughts are manifestations of the same "thing" but, for the sake of categorization, we do not consider all these entities as the same. The mind is the pattern generated by the activity of neurons [which themselves are shaped by the processes of the mind] which are made of atoms but the phenomenon itself -- the mind -- is not "matter" in the same sense. If one wanted to they could call everything "matter" but that merely confuses the issue. The "material" vs. "non-material" debate is nothing but a meaningless word game that either side can declare "victory" in.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Your theory...

What part of it is NOT a theory you do do not understand?

You have asserted "there are no external material objects around us" constantly but have not given one shred of reason or evidence that this must be so.

Are you familiar, at all, with how perception works? Do you believe that we are something like, say, video cameras, merely capturing what is already there? Clearly you don't seem to be aware on how naive is that POV.

 

[Robin]

No. We can conclude what I state in the OP, this is that they are descriptions of "that" whatever it is, that is outside our phenomenal worlds. Noumena seems a good word for it.

But if I were to use another label instead of "noumena", say "goubeda", would that alter the underlying theoretical framework? What if I just called it x? Would that alter your theoretical framework?

(and how can you say that something outside your phenomenal world is not a "thing in itself"?)

Care to read, in case you missed it, my post 307?

Er.... That was the post I was responding to and the one I quoted.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I was making a rhetorical point that you seemed to have missed.

Matter is the persistent pattern of activity of its components ["elementary" particles]. These particles, in turn, are the persistent patterns that their components generate as well. In this sense all entities, including atomic matter, are "phenomenon" with varying degrees and patterns of persistence. One can, in principle, continue downward or upward on scales of organization indefinitely without coming upon an ultimate "something". One can assume that all things from matter to energy to "thoughts" are manifestations of the same "thing" but, for the sake of categorization, we do not consider all these entities as the same "thing". The mind is the pattern generated by the activity of neurons [which themselves are shaped by the processes of the mind] which are made of atoms but the phenomenon itself -- the mind -- is not "matter" in the same sense. If one wanted to they could call everything "matter" but that merely confuses the issue. The "material" vs. "non-material" debate is nothing but a meaningless word game that either side can declare "victory" in.

(emphasis mine)

Ok piggy, yes, I may have a problem or two expressing myself as clearly as this. I lack the proper wording, so to speak. But AkuManiMani has done an excellent work here.