My theoretical framework

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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.

No. Their origin is not inside our phenomenal world, and it is only in the last one that "THAT" looks as the spoon, and a table. Outside us, we can't speak about "they" "are" "exists" and such concepts (deeply tied to our perceptual capabilities).

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?

It is not "the material world" . Still, the cause lies outside our conceptual and perceptual habilities but it is deeply related to our phenomenological world and in a sense they are just one and the same thing (our phenomenological world being like a bubble immerse in the unnamed THAT).

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.

No. All I argue is that spoons are interpretations, not real in themselves, and that it is useless to state that they are "made of" matter. You don't need to know what is their "ultimate constituents" all you need is to perceive it and use it.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

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?

The old cliché about the ‘map not being the territory’ seems so much clearer in a purely notional framework. However, the distinction seems so much more blurred in reality; the map seems to be intermingled with the territory, mostly separated in a notional way. …or in the way I like to put it: ‘the menu is not the meal’, unless you eat the menu.

Bodhi, I also think you’re arguing from an odd position. You claim there’s a separation between the phenomenal and the outside, without knowing what’s actually outside or inside, people have asked you to clarify why you think there’s a separation, and in what way; no convincing answer has been provided. How do you know there’s a separation?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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.

Wrong. Its funny to see how you dont get it and yet make bold claims. WHERE do I state that there is no external reality? I clearly say: "There is no “external” material world outside your consciousness." Read again, "external" material world (which, btw I do not take as reality).

Now, read it again. And one more time. Now one more, until you got it.

A clever man would have also noted that what I do is, precisely, state my ignorance as to the nature of the "noumena". That's right. I choose to call, whatever it is that is behind our phenomenal world, "noumena" and I refuse to take the next step (this is to take an ontological commitment).

That's right, I state our ignorance right from the OP, naive materialists, on the contrary, easily say "its called matter its called matter".

So there, you have it totally wrong, and yet you dare to argue!

Whats so difficult to understand. Lets see, I state that there are no objects around you, which is not the same as stating that nothing causes the appearance (of objects around you). Got it? (my guess, you do not, and as always will have to resort to some form of ad hominem).

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Bodhi, I also think you’re arguing from an odd position. You claim there’s a separation between the phenomenal and the outside, without knowing what’s actually outside or inside, people have asked you to clarify why you think there’s a separation, and in what way; no convincing answer has been provided. How do you know there’s a separation?

What separation? it is a conceptual one. There is no dualism, "outside" and "inside" are a problem for dualists. The noumena takes shape in the phenomena, but "both" are one and the same thing.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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

Don't get your point, you have acknowledged that my view is (more or less) the same as d'Holbach's. And it is very arguable that materialism states what you say to everybody.

Allow me to give a more traditional definition of 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.

Now, lets see a common definition of the world matter:

1. 1. Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole.
   2. Physics. Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.
2. A specific type of substance

In other words, materialism is a big word and lots of different interpretations exist. Note that I gave you dictionary definitions, I didn't made them myself.

All I have argued, and it is clear for anyone reading the thread, is that we do not need to ascribe to any particular "ultimate constitutent" of reality. We do not need to ascribe to materialism. Again, is a comfortable position but it is also useless.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

What separation? it is a conceptual one. There is no dualism, "outside" and "inside" are a problem for dualists. The noumena takes shape in the phenomena, but "both" are one and the same thing.

Well, when you say that ”the fabric of reality lies OUTSIDE our phenomenal world,” it seems to indicate a separation of some sort.

 

[Faithkills]

Whats so difficult to understand. Lets see, I state that there are no objects around you, which is not the same as stating that nothing causes the appearance (of objects around you). Got it? (my guess, you do not, and as always will have to resort to some form of ad hominem).

Did you or did you not say "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."?

What is ambiguous about that? You are making a strong claim about the nonexistance of an 'external world'. You are not claiming you don't know you are claiming you do know, for a fact, that there is no external world. If I'm so muddled why can you not tell us how you know this if, as you say, there is no external world?

This is the internal contradiction that makes an otherwise perfectly 'sound' nonfalsifiable and useless exercise in mental masturbation completely collapse under it's own weight. Even the 'god of the gap' people can construct a consistent silliness.

 

[maatorc]

......What is ambiguous about that? You are making a strong claim about the nonexistance of an 'external world'. You are not claiming you don't know you are claiming you do know, for a fact, that there is no external world. If I'm so muddled why can you not tell us how you know this if, as you say, there is no external world?......

He is saying that the world you know is a form of perception as distinct from how it is in itself and that without this form of consciousness to you there cannot be a world even though it exists whether you perceive it or not.

 

[Darat]

...snip..

Autophenomenology...snip... heterophenomenology

...snip...

Just to make sure I have understood this - you are using these terms as Dennett uses them?

 

[volatile]

Just to make sure I have understood this - you are using these terms as Dennett uses them?

More or less, though I'm not sure Dennett would agree with my persistence that autophenomenology retains some usefulness, particularly in trying to understand the specificities of an individual's experience.

BDZ seems to be ignoring hereophenomenology in his argument, as whilst it is sensible to suggest that our fallible biology and our consciousness mediate reality to a certain degree, he doesn't seem to want to accept that the individual experiences of the world are similar for most people.

If there's a continuity and congruence between the perceived realities of a number of people, that implies, at least to me, that there is a fundamental material basis to reality itself. That's why we can all agree that a spoon is a spoon.

 

[volatile]

He is saying that the world you know is a form of perception as distinct from how it is in itself and that without this form of consciousness to you there cannot be a world even though it exists whether you perceive it or not.

But what he's missing is that different people share the same perception, indicating some a priori reality giving shape to the perceptions of numerous subjects.

He's wrong.

 

[volatile]

No. Their origin is not inside our phenomenal world, and it is only in the last one that "THAT" looks as the spoon, and a table. Outside us, we can't speak about "they" "are" "exists" and such concepts (deeply tied to our perceptual capabilities).

Yes, we can. If two people both share perceptions of the spoon, then there is something about the spoon that is prior to the perception. Our perception is fallible, yes, but it's less fallible than your argument requires to make any sense at all.

The fact that two people see the same spoon is because there is a material spoon outside perception. How else do you explain heterophenomenological experience?

It is not "the material world" . Still, the cause lies outside our conceptual and perceptual habilities but it is deeply related to our phenomenological world and in a sense they are just one and the same thing (our phenomenological world being like a bubble immerse in the unnamed THAT).

See above. The material world gives rise to our perceptual world. If the perceptual world was a entirely distinct reality-space, there could be no shared experiences. The fact that both you and I both see the same spoon proves that.

No. All I argue is that spoons are interpretations, not real in themselves, and that it is useless to state that they are "made of" matter.

If two people interpret the same spoon in the same way, then that suggests that the spoon is an object in the world, ie material.

I was wrong when I said you were a solipsist. You're trying to say that everyone is a solipsist, which is an (oxy)moronic position.

You don't need to know what is their "ultimate constituents" all you need is to perceive it and use it.

Nonsense.

 

[Piggy]

And the question goes unanswered.

Shall we start a clock?

 

[AkuManiMani]

And my point is that it is.

And how is the "material" description of the brain in conflict with the "spiritual" description of the mind?

 

[Piggy]

And how is the "material" description of the brain in conflict with the "spiritual" description of the mind?

You've got to be kidding me!

If consciousness if the product of neurological activity, and our various mental functions can be mapped to that, then there is no room for "spiritual", unless the term is defined so weakly as to be meaningless.

It's like asking how the modern understanding of spacetime is in conflict with the celestial ether, or how oxygen is in conflict with phlogiston.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well, when you say that ”the fabric of reality lies OUTSIDE our phenomenal world,” it seems to indicate a separation of some sort.

Well, it doesn't, as it is clear if you read it in context.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

TO ALL:

I'm beginning to understand, thanks to this thread, that some people has serious problems understanding blocks of ideas. They tend to isolate the meaning of every sentence as single units.

Sure, sentences have to be logical units, but one cannot express difficult concepts in sentences alone. A context, reading what is written as a whole, gives you a better idea of what the other person was trying to communicate.

I also have seen that it is useless to discuss with some people, they are simply unable to discuss at a rational level and have to resort all the time to open or subtle ad hominems. Worst than that, as they seem unable to grasp fairly complex topics they don't have any real arguments, and yet they spit emotional babble at all times.

Entertaining, for a couple of days, but at the end all the work in trying them to read and understand is lost.

I purposefully wrote the OP in a way that it appears that I'm going to state that a form of duality exists, souls or whatever. Of course, several of the more absurd criticisms simply assume that this is what I'm trying to do and immediately fire their "skeptic guns", either by trying to undermine what is written emotionally, appealing to ad hominems or stating nonsense.

This was fun for a few days, but then, as I persisted in explaining the subtleties to the ones who could understand, I have been able to tackle, one by one, the counter arguments that are intelligently constructed. I want to thank you all of you who could understand. Pixy specially, she understood with just one reading what I was trying to say, she didn't like the wording, but had no problems whatsoever in understanding them as a whole (and she is one of the most brilliant materialist around this forum).

As for the clowns in the thread, well, I did my best in taking them seriously, but after a couple of times of answering exactly the same questions it appears that I'm talking to obtuse individuals, why should anyone lost time in trying to explain anything to them?

Anyway, I might answer a couple of more posts, but in general, I have learned a lot in discussing with most of you. Thank you for that.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

BDZ seems to be ignoring hereophenomenology in his argument, as whilst it is sensible to suggest that our fallible biology and our consciousness mediate reality to a certain degree, he doesn't seem to want to accept that the individual experiences of the world are similar for most people.

How come? Where have I stated that our experiences are not extremely similar? By all means, this is one of the most absurd things I have read in the thread, how could we have different experiences if we all share the same perceptual/conceptual/cultural characteristics??

Heck, it might be ok if someone simply don't get it, but accusing me of something as lame as this it is, frankly, an insult.

If there's a continuity and congruence between the perceived realities of a number of people, that implies, at least to me, that there is a fundamental material basis to reality itself. That's why we can all agree that a spoon is a spoon.

There is a common basis, this is obvious (Where what I have stated the contrary? ) but it is astonishingly naive to simply assume it is material. We agree in that a spoon is a spoon because of lots of particular variables. Sharing the same perceptual abilities, being exposed to the same noumenal "things". This suffices. The jump to declare the noumenal as "matter" is a matter of choice, but a no needed step.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

But what he's missing is that different people share the same perception, indicating some a priori reality giving shape to the perceptions of numerous subjects.

From the OP (what is so difficult to understand??)

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.

The noumena is, using your words, a priori reality giving shape to blah blah

Next time.. READ.

 

[volatile]

How come? Where have I stated that our experiences are not extremely similar? By all means, this is one of the most absurd things I have read in the thread, how could we have different experiences if we all share the same perceptual/conceptual/cultural characteristics??

Heck, it might be ok if someone simply don't get it, but accusing me of something as lame as this it is, frankly, an insult.

If numerous people experience the object-in-the-world in the same way, this implies a prior materiality, does it not? That's what your argument is summarily failing to address.

If there is no external reality, why do different subjects perceive the same object in the same way?

BDZ, you'll probably find me more sympathetic than most to some aspects of your ideas. I'm doing a PhD that draws heavily on Merelau-Ponty, Heidigger and Todes, and am one of the few people on this forum to find utility even in post-modernism. But when you continue to ignore that shared experiences must obviously have a common cause (the object-in-the-world), you lose even my sympathies.

There is a common basis, this is obvious (Where what I have stated the contrary? ) but it is astonishingly naive to simply assume it is material. We agree in that a spoon is a spoon because of lots of particular variables. Sharing the same perceptual abilities, being exposed to the same noumenal "things". This suffices. The jump to declare the noumenal as "matter" is a matter of choice, but a no needed step.

Dear boy. We are not describing the noumenal as "matter". The matter is prior to the noumenal, and it is obviously necessary if you are to account for shared perceptions.

We agree a spoon is a spoon because there is a material spoon that is present in the world that we are all able to perceive in a broadly similar manner. The object of perception is prior to perception. As Deleuze said - consciousness does not enlighten the world, for the world is already luminous in and of itself.