My theoretical framework

[Faithkills]

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

A priori knowledge? Special truth available to only you perhaps?

Sorry to me it's a theory until you can demonstrate it's validity.

A rather silly theory in fact.

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.

You're really apt with the eye rolling, too bad you aren't nearly so swift with the making of sense.

Can you please tell me how you know "there are no external material objects around us"? Surely if the answer were so obvious to keep meriting eyerolls the explanation must be trivial to provide?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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?

Not at all! Noumena, Tao, "That" (a concept from Advaita), goubeda, all serve the same purpose, to state that it is simply outside our phenomenal world.

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

In the sense that it is not what our maps indicate.

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

Oops my bad! Then maybe I was not clear enough? I believe the HD analogy is a pretty good one.

 

[Faithkills]

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.

That's the crux. But BDZ does declare victory despite zero basis to do so. There is no way to know either way.

What we do know is this.

While saying "There is no spoon" is thought to be cute by some, saying "There is no oncoming train" tends to have results that are less pleasant

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Surely if the answer were so obvious to keep meriting eyerolls the explanation must be trivial to provide?

Obviously, it is not obvious to you. And the problem is that you, and I believe Piggy, would need me to draw it with crayons. I will not. Others, obviously, have no problem to understand it and thats enough.

Oh, and obviously I didn't put the oh well, I just did it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

That's the crux. But BDZ does declare victory despite zero basis to do so. There is no way to know either way.

Ok, I'm surprised now, I reckon. So you do admit that there is no way to know. Well, I do declare "victory" because I chose not to play the game in the first place. I stop right when others feel the need to claim an ontological commitment (for materialism in most cases), and attempt not to make an ontological commitment of any sort.

 

[Robin]

Not at all! Noumena, Tao, "That" (a concept from Advaita), goubeda, all serve the same purpose, to state that it is simply outside our phenomenal world.

Good. So if I used the label "matter" instead then it would not change your theoretical framework at all. So if I use the word "matter" in your OP where you have used "the noumena" it seems to read like naive d'Holbachian Materialism. What is the difference between your theoretical framework and Materialism apart from this label?

(Incidentally I don't think any Materialist apart from d'Holbach ever made claim that everything consisted of matter).

In the sense that it is not what our maps indicate.

It may not be what our maps indicate, but it is something. I don't think any Materialist ever suggested our map was perfect.

When you say there is nothing like "earth, stars or galaxies" you mean there is nothing like our mental representation of them. But there are things that provide the effects that we carefully measure and make mathematical models of.

 

[maatorc]

Can you please tell me how you know "there are no external material objects around us"? Surely if the answer were so obvious to keep meriting eye rolls the explanation must be trivial to provide?

Bohdi Dharma Zen seems to mean something along the lines that our material-physical consciousness is a perception of our physical senses, and that this perception is not in itself a material object but is our sensory interpretation of an actual condition or action in nature which corresponds in our consciousness to that which we call an external material object, but which condition or action in itself is not identical to our sensory interpretation.

 

[Piggy]

The "material" vs. "non-material" debate is nothing but a meaningless word game that either side can declare "victory" in.

No, it's not.

The neurological explanation of consciousness is clearly a materially based explanation.

Spiritual, supernatural, soul-based explanations such as those offered by many religious persons -- God makes our souls and they move to another realm after death -- are clearly non-material explanations.

That's a meaningful difference.

If you can generate verbiage which seems to erase that difference, you need to go back and check your language, because you're talking yourself into the air.

 

[Faithkills]

Ok, I'm surprised now, I reckon. So you do admit that there is no way to know. Well, I do declare "victory" because I chose not to play the game in the first place. I stop right when others feel the need to claim an ontological commitment (for materialism in most cases), and attempt not to make an ontological commitment of any sort.

No, you have committed to "There are no objects, there is no light, nothing like and earth or stars or galaxies."

There is no way you can know this, or if you have some way you have yet to demonstrate it.

All you can know is that you cannot know there are. And you cannot know there aren't. But you are not saying that. You are saying "There are no objects, there is no light, nothing like and earth or stars or galaxies."

You have made a claim. It is entirely unfounded. It provides nothing novel if it were.

You could say we can't know either way. This is arguable. Useless, but at least more tenable, as nonfalsifiable woo goes.

But you're not saying that. You say "There are no objects, there is no light, nothing like and earth or stars or galaxies." You have nothing whatsoever to back that up. Had you, you would have shown it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Good. So if I used the label "matter" instead then it would not change your theoretical framework at all.

Not that fast. The meaning between Tao, "That" (from Advaita), your neologism or Noumena AND materialism is not a trivial one. Materialism implies that we know "what the world is made of", the other terms avoid to make such a claim.

It may not be what our maps indicate, but it is something. I don't think any Materialist ever suggested our map was perfect.

Well, some of them (at least in this forum) clearly imply it. Something like "we know all that it is needed to know, the universe is made of matter, and while some particular points have not been yet explained it is only a matter of time in order for us to have a complete picture of what things are and how they work."

When you say there is nothing like "earth, stars or galaxies" you mean there is nothing like our mental representation of them. But there are things that provide the effects that we carefully measure and make mathematical models of.

Well of course! I have stated that myself, without, again, to make an ontological commitment with any kind of "substance" or whatever. All we need is our descriptions to be functional, no ontology required.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

... but which condition or action in itself may not be identical to our sensory interpretation.

Well, a little more; That it is not identical to it. But yes, thanks.

 

[volatile]

BDZ - you're basically asserting that existential phenomenology is the only valid system of philosophy, aren't you? And that's manifestly absurd.

Autophenomenology (or an individual's construction of the world subjectively) and heterophenomenology (the mutual, shared, non-subjective construction of the world) are not oppositional. In fact, the autophenomenological is a subset of the heterophenomenological. This is what Robin is getting at, I think.

You're assuming that autophenomenology is sufficient for understanding the totality of human experience, and you're wrong. Very wrong. You are balancing so precariously on the precipice of solipsism that it's a wonder you haven't fallen off yet.

The autophenomenological is a personal model of the world, but it is not the world. You have it entirely upside down. We know that consciousness mediates reality (no-one here denies that), but we also know that material reality is necessarily prior to consciousness. Your position, such that it is, takes the autophenomenological as totally distinct from material reality, which is bonkers, frankly.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

(forum too slooooowww double post)

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Had you, you would have shown it.

Again, sorry, but this only shows that you don't have a clue about how perception works. This is the last time I will say it. Go, inform yourself a bit, and then come to argue. Please.

 

[Piggy]

Your position, such that it is, takes the autophenomenological as totally distinct from material reality, which is bonkers, frankly.

Which brings us right back to post #2 now, doesn't it?

 

[Faithkills]

You're assuming that autophenomenology is sufficient for understanding the totality of human experience, and you're wrong. Very wrong. You are balancing so precariously on the precipice of solipsism that it's a wonder you haven't fallen off yet.

I think he has fallen off. He's asserting basically the most strong form of solipsism; that there is no external reality. He's not saying we can't validly make absolute claims about reality. He's making a strong claim that there is no external reality, which by his own ideas cannot be shown to be true.

This form of solipsism is self paradoxical.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

... You are balancing so precariously on the precipice of solipsism that it's a wonder you haven't fallen off yet...

... The autophenomenological is a personal model of the world, but it is not the world...

right in the OP I state:

"Still, consciousness is merely the tip of the iceberg (notice that I said that consciousness is YOUR world, not THE world)."

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I think he has fallen off. He's asserting basically the most strong form of solipsism; that there is no external reality.

I have not. Please read my last post.

 

[Piggy]

I think he has fallen off.

I have not.

But Bodhi, my dear... how would you know if you had?

 

[Faithkills]

"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."

Is this not your quote?

"There is no “external” material world outside your consciousness."