My theoretical framework

[volatile]

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)."

Well then.

What is "THE world"? And how do you account for heterophenomenological homogeneity (as in the size of the table and the shape of the spoon) if there is no constancy or consistency to the world prior to consciousness?

Now, you probably do have a plausible case if you want to claim that we as perceiving subjects can never truly appreciate the fundamental details of the fabric of reality due to some biological (hey, material!) limit, but that's not what you're arguing. You're arguing that the fabric of reality itself is an illusion. You're confusing the model with the thing it's modelling.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Is this not your quote?

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

What about reading it in context!

 

[Piggy]

"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."

Faithkills, it's very rude to discuss what people actually say. Instead, you should deal with what they mean. That would only be polite after all.

I recommend calling the Psychic Hotline*. They should be able to help you in this regard.

Know what I mean?

*For entertainment purposes only. No warranties expressed or implied. 99-cent/minute rate applies to first half-minute. All further time billed at a rate of $9.99/minute, plus tax, tag, title, and dealer origination fee. Callers consent to having their credit cards billed for future purchases which they may or may not have made. Offer void where prohibited.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well then.

Thanks.

What is "THE world"? And how do you account for heterophenomenological homogeneity (as in the size of the table and the shape of the spoon) if there is no constancy or consistency to the world prior to consciousness?

Have no problems with it, its right there.

Now, you probably do have a plausible case if you want to claim that we as perceiving subjects can never truly appreciate the fundamental details of the fabric of reality due to some biological (hey, material!) limit, but that's not what you're arguing. You're arguing that the fabric of reality itself is an illusion.

Nope, what I'm arguing is what you said first. I state that the fabric of reality lies OUTSIDE our phenomenal world, whats wrong with that (now you see that it has NOTHING to do with solipsism!)

 

[Faithkills]

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

Thanks That literally made me LOL

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Know what I mean?

It means that you like to play games when you can't win, that's your nature I guess.

 

[Piggy]

You like to play games when you can't win, that's your nature I guess.

Well, my friend, when the defined field of argument is a funhouse of warped mirrors, what is there left to do?

There are others on this board who get down to brass tacks, who don't try to have it all ways at once. And I've learned from them.

But no, one can't win an argument predicated on nonsense, as the discussions with you have so far been.

You of all people should know the old Buddhist debate tactic... there is no point going tip for tap with your opponent if you can instead demonstrate that his proposals, if followed to their inevitable conclusions, lead to contradiction... or if you can show they are ridiculous on their face.

Others have taken the former path -- with great success. I'm here merely to remind you from time to time that post #2 summed up the OP rather nicely.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Others have taken the former path -- with great success.

Great huh? Interesting. Now tell me who?, name one.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
... 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.

Done.

 

[volatile]

Have no problems with it, its right there.

So there is a spoon, there is a table, and there is a material reality? If you agreed with us all along, you sure had a funny way of showing it.

Nope, what I'm arguing is what you said first. I state that the fabric of reality lies OUTSIDE our phenomenal world, whats wrong with that (now you see that it has NOTHING to do with solipsism!)

No, no, no!!! It's not that reality lies outside the phenomenal world, it's that (you may be able to argue, though you haven't) that there is a material limit to our heterophenomenological understanding of reality because there is a material limit to our biology. That's not the same thing as reality being outside our phenomenal world at all. The material world directly effects and affects hetero- and autophenomenologies; how can it be "outside" them or even non-existent if this is the case?

There is a spoon (material reality), I perceive and can interact with the spoon (autophenomenology), you can too, and as such we can all agree what the spoon is, looks like and does (heterophenomenology), though the possible degree of accuracy is perhaps limited by our biology (biology). That's not what you've been arguing for ten pages, though.

 

[Robin]

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.

In ancient Greece maybe, but we are surely not talking about ancient classical Materialism.

Modern Materialism is normally dated from d'Holbach and he explicitly states that we don't know what the world is made of:

We know nothing of the elements of bodies, but we know some of their properties or qualities; and we distinguish their various matter by the effect or change produced on our senses; that is to say, by the variety of motion their presence excites in us. In consequence, we discover in them, extent, mobility, divisibility, solidity, gravity, and inert force. From these general and primitive properties flow a number of others, such as density, figure, colour, ponderosity, &c. Thus, relatively to us, matter is all that affects our senses in any manner whatever; the various properties we attribute to matter, by which we discriminate its diversity, are founded on the different impressions we receive on the changes they produce in us.

Baron d'Holbach "The System of Nature" 1770

At the outset d'Holbach advises us to "cheerfully consent to be ignorant of causes hid from (us)".

The kernel of the Materialist claim is that everything works according to the same underlying order. d'Holbach made this claim and if you examine reductionist materialist positions and eliminative materialist positions they all boil down to the idea that every language and scientific theory is reducible to a single physical theory.

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.

And how does that differ from d'Holbach? From Reductionist or Eliminative Materialism all of which emphasise the functional?

 

[Piggy]

Great huh? Interesting. Now tell me who?, name one.

Robin, volatile, Faithkills, Tricky, Ichneumonwasp, Phaedrus74....

Now it's time for you to answer my question.

You say materialism is a faith. Yet you can't point to one case -- spouting isms doesn't count -- when any alternative has gone head-to-head and won.

Still, you say I'm wrong.

Can't get away with that, I'm afraid.

Listen, you don't need to bother with me. I'm just a horsefly landing stings on you while the wolves eat you alive.

But if you can answer me that one question, I'll leave you alone.

 

[AkuManiMani]

No, it's not.

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

[1]Spiritual, [2]supernatural, [3]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.

You cannot define a "meaningful difference" until you establish what that difference is. For one thing the words that I numbered above are descriptive rather than explanatory and do not necessarily conflict with the "neurological explanation of consciousness".

[1]Spiritual

There are many definitions to this word and many of them do not conflict with the "material" description of the processes that generate the mind. My favorite definitions are numbers 3 and 9.

[2]Supernatural

Also a broad word. There have been whole threads dedicated to rigorously
defining "supernatural"/"paranormal" and I don't feel like going thru that again.

I do prefer this definition, tho:

Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

In this sense it would merely be a phenomenon that is not fully understood and seems in violation of our known laws. Intelligence isn't something that appears very common in our universe and it seems to cause matter to behave in ways that matter does not ordinarily behave in. On top of that, we do not understand consciousness enough yet to reproduce it [or even rigorously define it for that matter] so I feel its safe to say that it is "supernatural" in the above sense of the word.

Which definition of "supernatural" are you referring to?

[3]Soul

Definition 5 seems to be the best one for the purposes of our discussion. The definition of soul as "person" seems a pretty apt description. Seeing as how the cells that make up the brain and the rest of the body continually cycle matter and energy in and out of themselves during a person's lifetime [and are even continually replaced themselves] I think its safe to say that a "person" is not the matter that they are composed of at any given time. Again, its just a word that labels an actual process that we continually observe on a day to day basis. It [i.e. "person"/"soul"] is a phenomenon generated by particular configurations of matter that can, in turn, affect matter itself. By this definition a "soul" is just as real as matter but I do not think that anyone could seriously argue that a soul is material. Now, where or not this "soul" persists in some way after the material pattern it arose from disperses is an open question.

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.

No, I'm clarifying ambiguities of language that you have glossed over. I'm not "talking myself into thin air" because I'm going out of my way to make the wording as logically consistent and precise as I can for the purpose of having a clear discussion.

 

[Piggy]

No, I'm clarifying ambiguities of language that you have glossed over. I'm not "talking myself into thin air" because I'm going out of my way to make the wording as logically consistent and precise as I can for the purpose of having a clear discussion.

If you can argue yourself into the position that the difference between those 2 positions is meaningless, then you're failing to do the requisite reality checks.

 

[Piggy]

AkuManiMani, none of that needs clarification.

Everyone here knows exactly what those positions are.

We've heard them countless times.

This is exactly my beef with philosophy.

One problem with your approach is that it assumes there's some "there there" when it comes to the soul theory. In fact, it doesn't cohere when you examine it, so any effort to clarify it is going to end up dissolving right in front of you.

Another problem, though, is that such an examination is not necessary to address the question.

Soul theory has been around a long, long time. Now we know it to be false. It doesn't hold together.

The neurological theory is the only game left in town.

If you want to go chasing geese by examining the soul theory to find what it really means, you're wasting your (and my) time on 2 counts -- first because there is no coherent definition to be found, and second because it's not necessary to the point that's being made: Namely, that there is no non "materialist" (to use y'all's term) explanation of the world that ever has held up.

As I said before, this type of philosophizing amounts to little more than slapping labels on things, then arguing about the labels y'all make up.

 

[AkuManiMani]

If you can argue yourself into the position that the difference between those 2 positions is meaningless, then you're failing to do the requisite reality checks.

I'm not saying the differences are meaningless. I'm saying that the "either-or" debate concerning them is meaningless and arises from poor semantics and muddled thinking. Its not much different from the silly "nature vs. nurture" debate -- they are both two sides of the same conceptual coin and one isn't more "real" or important than the other.

 

[Piggy]

I'm not saying the differences are meaningless. I'm saying that the "either-or" debate concerning them is meaningless and arises from poor semantics and muddled thinking. Its not much different from the silly "nature vs. nurture" debate -- they are both two sides of the same conceptual coin and one isn't more "real" or important than the other.

It's entirely different.

An either/or debate over nature v. nurture is silly -- if anyone is still having it, or ever really did -- for the same reason that it would be silly to argue in either/or fashion over whether an egg is round or white.

The debate about material explanations v. spiritual explanations (or any other non-material ones) is more like a debate about whether the money under Johnnie's pillow was left by his parents or the tooth fairy.

 

[AkuManiMani]

It's entirely different.

[...]

The debate about material explanations v. spiritual explanations (or any other non-material ones) is more like a debate about whether the money under Johnnie's pillow was left by his parents or the tooth fairy.

My point is "spiritual" is not antithetical to "physical".

The definition of spiritual we are using is "of or relating to the mind or intellect". This has nothing to do w/ tooth faeries, the Easter Bunny, Santa, leprechauns or any other holiday mascot you wanna throw into the mix. The definition you're using for "spiritual" is way too broad for the subject matter and its got you talking about imaginary characters when we are discussing ontology and the mind. Precision of words is precision of thought.

 

[Piggy]

My point is "spiritual" is not antithetical to "physical".

And my point is that it is.

And please, don't get caught up in an analogy. I wasn't presenting the tooth fairy as an example of a spiritual anything, any more than I was presenting the egg as an example of nature or nurture.

 

[Faithkills]

And how does that differ from d'Holbach? From Reductionist or Eliminative Materialism all of which emphasise the functional?

Here's how it's different. d'Holbach accepts ignorance, he doesn't make claims about the nature of real reality.

BDZ says there is no external reality whatsoever, which is where he gets into trouble.

If he could do that at least his 'framework' would have the possibility to be self consistent. Uninteresting, but consistent at least.