My theoretical framework

[volatile]

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

Why do you deny a material cause for noumena? The material fabric of reality is prior to noumena. It has to be for different people to perceive the same object qua the same object!

That's what I don't understand, and what your "framework" is missing. It's groundless, it's baseless, and it doesn't account for shared experience.

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

Next time.. READ.

If you do me the same courtesy.

You're correctly pointing out that perception is fallible, but you're extrapolating that into some weird quasi-solipsistic assertion that this means that reality is immaterial. You're making a weird leap without any evidence, and without any need.

I'll ask again - if two people both describe perceiving the same spoon, how does your idea account for this? Materialism says that the spoon is a real object-in-the-world, and it affects both of our bodies and brains (and thus our consciousnesses) in similar ways. What's going on in this scenario in your opinion? You haven't yet made your case, as far as I can tell.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If numerous people experience the object-in-the-world in the same way, this implies a prior materiality, does it not?

No, that is a naive assumption.

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

For starters, they do not. A spoon from the side is not like a spoon from the front. But this is trivial. To be able to state that both (perceptually different) views belong to the "same object" requires several steps.

I'm doing a PhD that draws heavily on Merelau-Ponty, Heidigger and Todes

Wow, impressive. But you do realize that that's OLD stuff. Right? Such authors didn't have access to all the facts about perception that are being understood now thanks to scientific studies.

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.

"obviously necessary"

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.

"because"...

Finally I understand your view. When you finish your PhD, I strongly advice you to go to the cognitive sciences department of your school.

 

[volatile]

No, that is a naive assumption.

You have let to explain why you think that's the case.

For starters, they do not. A spoon from the side is not like a spoon from the front. But this is trivial. To be able to state that both (perceptually different) views belong to the "same object" requires several steps.

The first of which is the understand that the spoon is a spoon prior to any perception. Where do your steps begin, if not with a material spoon? You have yet to explain this.

The world is already luminous. It does not need consciousness to illuminate it.

Wow, impressive. But you do realize that that's OLD stuff. Right? Such authors didn't have access to all the facts about perception that are being understood now thanks to scientific studies.

Of course. Which is why I've also brought up Dennett in this thread. His particular take on phenomenology is particularly relevant to this discussion, but you're ignoring it. You're the one that seems rooted in autophenomenology and the bounds of sense.

What you're missing, BDZ, is that whilst I (and Piggy and everyone else here) understand that perception is fallible, this in no way implies that reality is immaterial. This is your leap, and it remains unsupported.

Finally I understand your view. When you finish your PhD, I strongly advice you to go to the cognitive sciences department of your school.

Do you think any neuroscientist in the world would tell me that there was no world external to my own perception of it? Seriously?

Have you read any neuroscience? Try starting with Neuroscience and Philosophy by Bennett, Dennett, Hacker and Searle and then get back to me.

Put simply, here's my objection - you have yet to explain how multiple subjects can perceive the same object qua the same object if that object does not, in some objective sense, exist as an object in the world. I already asked you this upthread, but you ignored it. I'm not surprised, frankly, because it seems that were you to try and answer it your "framework" would come apart at the seams.

Materialism posits that the spoon is a material object, thus answering this question. How does your "framework" answer it?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The first of which is the understand that the spoon is a spoon prior to any perception. Where do your steps begin, if not with a material spoon? You have yet to explain this.

Explain what. YOUR ASSUMPTION? The assumption of phenomenologists hold before we had neuroscience? Please.

Next time you will ask me about how can I think that two objects with the same shape but different weights will not fall at different speeds. And yet, you claim you have read something about how perception works!

Ok, lets go, slowly. You say that I have to understand that a spoon is a spoon prior to any perception. How do you KNOW that. Well, you don't, you assume it, it is obvious you say. You have to imply, then, that our perception works like a video camera. The world is already there, no matter if we record it (perceive it) or not. Simply Common sense, like assuming that heavy objects fall faster than less heavier ones.

Here, in case you have noticed, I have draw a picture in which you can doubt about common sense ASSUMPTIONS.

Lets continue. How can we know if our assumptions are correct? Well, we have science for that, I don't need to resort to your opinions, I can do an experiment. In the case of objects, well, I just let them fall and measure their speed.

What can we do, which kind of experiments, to answer the question about if what we are seeing is "already there"? I'm sure you have an enlightened answer for this.

The world is already luminous. It does not need consciousness to illuminate it.

I already know those words impress you, but they are still babbling.

Of course. Which is why I've also brought up Dennett in this thread. His particular take on phenomenology is particularly relevant to this discussion, but you're ignoring it. You're the one that seems rooted in autophenomenology and the bounds of sense.

I'm not in to Daniel Dennett at all. Pixy loves it, but his main work is old now, and obsolete.

What you're missing, BDZ, is that whilst I (and Piggy and everyone else here) understand that perception is fallible, this in no way implies that reality is immaterial. This is your leap, and it remains unsupported.

"every one else" like Piggy (what a surprise) you believe everyone is against me. Sorry to bust your bubble, but some of the most hard core materialists of the forum have been here, and have understood perfectly that what I said (from certain point of view) is identical to some forms of materialism (the ones that are naturalistic and not based on your naive argumentations regarding that "what is out there" is the same than what we see).

Now, you state that I claim that "reality is immaterial", once again, you commit a strawman... and yet you DEMAND me to answer questions about what I HAVE NOT SAID! Well. I can't.

What I have said, is that reality is OUTSIDE OUR CONCEPTS. That our concepts are ways to grab it, to describe it, and nothing more.

Do you think any neuroscientist in the world would tell me that there was no world external to my own perception of it? Seriously?

Ask them. Of course your mileage will vary, but I would suggest you to read the opinions of those working with our visual system.

Put simply, here's my objection - you have yet to explain how multiple subjects can perceive the same object qua the same object if that object does not, in some objective sense, exist as an object in the world. I already asked you this upthread, but you ignored it. I'm not surprised, frankly, because it seems that were you to try and answer it your "framework" would come apart at the seams.

Yeah, right. It should be clear by now, but I have to resort to crayons from time to time. Where have I expressed that there is not an objective reality?

I have stated, again and again, that the cause of our perceptions is not in our phenomenological world. It lies outside of it, yet is its cause. Got it?

Materialism posits that the spoon is a material object, thus answering this question. How does your "framework" answer it?

Volatile, tell you what. Stop claiming that I have not explained something when you have been unable to understand the answer. Your admirer, Piggy, its like you, in the sense that he has not yet understood a thing, yet, at least you try to argue (and I respect that).

Now, the first days after I started the thread I was answering, point by point the counterarguments some members made. I believe you say you have read the whole thread, but I doubt it.

I have proved you wrong in your assumptions several times by now, you started by accusing me of solipsism . You had the nerve then to claim that I was wrong when you were using a strawman! Please.

Since then, you have changed your view about what I'm stating several times, each of them accusing me of this and that and I have been showing you your errors.

But that doesn't work, you appeal to authority all the way, citing ideas that are not yours and trying to stand behind them, not a particularly impressive job.

In any case, I believe I have answered now. Take your time, and don't play strawmans if you want to argue.

 

[volatile]

Explain what. YOUR ASSUMPTION? The assumption of phenomenologists hold before we had neuroscience? Please.

What? No. Neuroscience does not agree with you.

Next time you will ask me about how can I think that two objects with the same shape but different weights will not fall at different speeds. And yet, you claim you have read something about how perception works!

The speed at which objects fall at has nothing to do with perception. What are you babbling about?

If, as you say in your OP, "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", how can multiple subjects perceive the same object as the same object?

It is an object before it is noumenal.

Ok, lets go, slowly. You say that I have to understand that a spoon is a spoon prior to any perception. How do you KNOW that. Well, you don't, you assume it, it is obvious you say. You have to imply, then, that our perception works like a video camera. The world is already there, no matter if we record it (perceive it) or not.

Not like a video camera, because I accept our perception is fallible. But the fact that you and I, with our distinct subjectivities and phenomenological perspectives, can both agree that a spoon is a spoon suggests that your assertion that "there are no objects" is false, and laughably false at that.

Lets continue. How can we know if our assumptions are correct? Well, we have science for that, I don't need to resort to your opinions, I can do an experiment. In the case of objects, well, I just let them fall and measure their speed.

What can we do, which kind of experiments, to answer the question about if what we are seeing is "already there"? I'm sure you have an enlightened answer for this.

Two people perceive the same spoon. Ergo, the spoon exists beyond their individual consciousnesses.

I already know those words impress you, but they are still babbling.

But you have made no attempt to address the point they are making. If, as your OP claims, "there is no “external” material world outside your consciousness", how can multiple conscious subjects interact with the same object?

I'm not in to Daniel Dennett at all. Pixy loves it, but his main work is old now, and obsolete.

L and indeed OL.

"every one else" like Piggy (what a surprise) you believe everyone is against me. Sorry to bust your bubble, but some of the most hard core materialists of the forum have been here, and have understood perfectly that what I said (from certain point of view) is identical to some forms of materialism (the ones that are naturalistic and not based on your naive argumentations regarding that "what is out there" is the same than what we see).

What is out there is not the same as what we see (because perception is biologically fallible). But it is there. What was that about strawmen?

Now, you state that I claim that "reality is immaterial", once again, you commit a strawman...

Did you forget writing this: "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 I have said, is that reality is OUTSIDE OUR CONCEPTS. That our concepts are ways to grab it, to describe it, and nothing more.

You're inserting an arbitrary gap between reality and consciousness that just isn't there. If more than one person perceives the same spoon, you have two conclusions: solipsism (the other subject is just a figment of my own imagination), or materialism (the spoon exists as an object-in-the-world).

Ask them. Of course your mileage will vary, but I would suggest you to read the opinions of those working with our visual system.

The visual system is not infallible. Of course. And yes, our perception of reality is not perfect, like a video camera. But you seem to think it's MORE fallible than it actually is. Both you and I can look at a spoon and agree that it is a spoon. This is a linguistic convention, of course, but pointing that out doesn't mean that the collection of atoms that make up what we consensually term "a spoon" doesn't exist!

We can both see the spoon. How does your assertion that "there are no objects" make sense in that case?

Yeah, right. It should be clear by now, but I have to resort to crayons from time to time. Where have I expressed that there is not an objective reality?

It's right there in your OP, fercrissakes. Again:

"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."

I have stated, again and again, that the cause of our perceptions is not in our phenomenological world. It lies outside of it, yet is its cause. Got it?

That cannot then lead you to the conclusion that "There is no “external” material world outside your consciousness", then, can it? Make up your mind what your position actually is.

Volatile, tell you what. Stop claiming that I have not explained something when you have been unable to understand the answer. Your admirer, Piggy, its like you, in the sense that he has not yet understood a thing, yet, at least you try to argue (and I respect that).

You haven't "explained" anything. I asked you a direct question, and several times. You can stop blustering and actually answer it any time you want.

Again: If two people both describe perceiving the same spoon, how does your idea account for this? Materialism says that the spoon is a real object-in-the-world, and it affects both of our bodies and brains (and thus our consciousnesses) in similar ways. What's going on in this scenario in your opinion? You haven't yet made your case, as far as I can tell.

I have proved you wrong in your assumptions several times by now, you started by accusing me of solipsism . You had the nerve then to claim that I was wrong when you were using a strawman! Please.

Your words: " "there is no “external” material world outside your consciousness". I don't need to construct a strawman, BDZ.

I said your ideas were precariously close to solipsism, and I suspect that if you were actually bold enough to fully state your case (how can multiple subjects perceive the same object if the object is immaterial?), it would drop over the edge. As it is, your apprehension in fully expanding on your position keeps you just this side of solipsism. Let's see how you go from here.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Your words: " "there is no “external” material world outside your consciousness". I don't need to construct a strawman, BDZ.

Yet, you do it. You focus exclusively in those first words blatantly ignoring everything else I have said. Well, I will not to play your game anymore.

One last post for you.

In order for you to assert an external world full of spoons, planets and galaxies all you have to do is appeal to common sense. No philosophy involved, no science involved, just what you assume in your everyday life without even thinking about it.

Let's suppose that, suddenly, you have a serious accident, and your brain is damaged. You have no longer the ability to see the world as you were accustomed to. Peculiar things happens to you, like being unable to point to the word "spoon" and denying you just grabbed it with your other hand.

What happens here is that your brain is unable to integrate its different associative inputs in one coherent perception (thats right, perceptions are constructions).

Let me state that again. We know for a fact that our perception is a construct, you are not just "seeing" naively "what is already there", your brain is constructing it from different elements.

Now, you will say, it doesn't matter that I can't see a spoon as a spoon, it is a spoon even when my brain can't perceive it as a spoon.

Why? Well because others see it as a spoon.

Fine, then your perceptual abilities are impaired (the lenses of your camera are broken) but other cameras still perceive the real object that is really in front of them.

(heck this is like writing a 101 curse, point by point and with colorful crayons)

What is this "real object" made of? matter of course.

And what is matter? Anything made of atoms. What are atoms? well, atoms are made of other particles actually, ok, and what are they? well, quarks, muons, and so on.

But, wait, are such particles solid then? are they real? Well, it depends, sometimes they behave as solid particles, but sometimes they behave as waves that interact with other particles.

Ok, so, when you open your eyes.. what is out there, the solid object "spoon" or a big amount of this particle/waves things, built of quarks and other strange "stuff"?

And so on.. you see. I would have to extend this text for about 200 pages in order for you to be able to understand that what you see is a product of your brain and those particle/waves. The phenomenal world depends on those and it is an illusion. Read it again, what you perceive is an illusion, a construction.

It is, in this sense, that there is no external material world outside your phenomenal world. Because, this phenomenal world of yours, your illusion, does not depict what is "really real" (to use the kind of expressions you use all the time), thats right, those "things" that we call particles/waves, quarks, muons, stong/weak forces, gravity, superstrings... and whatever else is found later.

 

[volatile]

So many words, so few answers to the question I posed. This is unsurprising, because to answer it you need to accept, as far as I can see, solipsism or materialism.

Please: If two people both describe perceiving the same spoon, how does your idea account for this? Materialism says that the spoon is a real object-in-the-world, and it affects both of our bodies and brains (and thus our consciousnesses) in similar ways. What's going on in this scenario in your opinion?

Yet, you do it. You focus exclusively in those first words blatantly ignoring everything else I have said. Well, I will not to play your game anymore.

You cannot post "there are no objects" and then object when I point out that you said "there are no objects". If you said it, it is not a strawman.

In order for you to assert an external world full of spoons, planets and galaxies all you have to do is appeal to common sense. No philosophy involved, no science involved, just what you assume in your everyday life without even thinking about it.

Agreed.

Let's suppose that, suddenly, you have a serious accident, and your brain is damaged. You have no longer the ability to see the world as you were accustomed to. Peculiar things happens to you, like being unable to point to the word "spoon" and denying you just grabbed it with your other hand.

Agreed. These types of conditions are common the the medical (and philosophical) literature.

What happens here is that your brain is unable to integrate its different associative inputs in one coherent perception (thats right, perceptions are constructions).

Agreed.

Let me state that again. We know for a fact that our perception is a construct, you are not just "seeing" naively "what is already there", your brain is constructing it from different elements.

Agreed. I have accepted this throughout.

Now, you will say, it doesn't matter that I can't see a spoon as a spoon, it is a spoon even when my brain can't perceive it as a spoon.

Why? Well because others see it as a spoon.

Indeed. This is important. If other people can see the spoon, then the spoon is not simply a perceptual construct.

Fine, then your perceptual abilities are impaired (the lenses of your camera are broken) but other cameras still perceive the real object that is really in front of them.

(heck this is like writing a 101 curse, point by point and with colorful crayons)

You're not saying anything I haven't already said myself in this very thread. If it helps you to restate my argument in terms your unsophisticated brain can grasp, feel free.

What is this "real object" made of? matter of course.

And what is matter? Anything made of atoms. What are atoms? well, atoms are made of other particles actually, ok, and what are they? well, quarks, muons, and so on.

No disagreement so far.

But, wait, are such particles solid then? are they real? Well, it depends, sometimes they behave as solid particles, but sometimes they behave as waves that interact with other particles.

Quantum physics, the last refuge of a defeated woo.

Ok, so, when you open your eyes.. what is out there, the solid object "spoon" or a big amount of this particle/waves things, built of quarks and other strange "stuff"?

Quarks are matter.

And so on.. you see. I would have to extend this text for about 200 pages in order for you to be able to understand that what you see is a product of your brain and those particle/waves.

This is exactly what I've been saying. The particles and the waves (aka "matter") are inherent to the equation. Without the material world existing, there is nothing for the brain to process. The world is luminous!

The phenomenal world depends on those and it is an illusion. Read it again, what you perceive is an illusion, a construction.

I agree 100%. But it does not follow from this that there is "no external material world". That is an unsubstantiated leap, and is in fact absurd based your clear understanding that the phenomenal world "is a product of your brain and those particle/waves".

The particles are needed before the phenomenal world can be constructed. As I said, how else can multiple subjects perceive the same object?!

It is, in this sense, that there is no external material world outside your phenomenal world.

Nope. That is an utter non-sequitor, and exactly the point where your "framework" breaks down. See above.

Because, this phenomenal world of yours, your illusion, does not depict what is "really real" (to use the kind of expressions you use all the time), thats right, those "things" that we call particles/waves, quarks, muons, stong/weak forces, gravity, superstrings... and whatever else is found later.

It is not a perfect representation of the fabric of reality. I have already conceded that. But it is a representation of reality nonetheless. And it is close enough that multiple subjects can share similar understandings of the same external object. If the external object did not exist outside of an individual consciousness, this would not be possible!

 

[volatile]

It seems that your argument boils down to:

- Perception is fallible
- Therefore, material reality doesn't exit.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise at all.

 

[Faithkills]

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.

That may be your position, or understanding of his position, but that's not what he said.

In any case even that position fails because it's based on his internal perception of my internal perception which by his definition he cannot know. He doesn't know I do not directly experience an external reality.

He can say "We cannot know there is an external world". But this implies that "We cannot know there isn't an external world"

He could even say "I have no external world"

He makes the strong universal claim "there is no external world"

If he's backed off from that I missed it.

 

[Faithkills]

It seems that your argument boils down to:

- Perception is fallible
- Therefore, material reality doesn't exit.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise at all.

Nice synopsis. That's basically it in a nutshell. He's gonna call you on the fact you used the phrase 'material reality' instead of 'external world' though

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It seems that your argument boils down to:

- Perception is fallible
- Therefore, material reality doesn't exit.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise at all.

As always, strawman. Why I'm not surpised?

I do not state that perception is fallible. But I find your wording interesting. YOU are assuming that there is a world and that our senses merely reflect it, without actively participating in how things are depicted. A very naive account of the act of perception.

And your "therefore" is, again, a strawman. Where do I state it? You keep introducing your beloved "material" word here, why not simply state that reality doesn't exist? AH because that is your strawman, I state that reality exists and that our phenomenological world is behind it (as its cause). And that it is not its reflection, but a creation (the resulting process is more complex than the input signals). Light, sounds (to put it in terms of the philosophers you are studying) lie on perception, not on the world.

Learn to argue against what the other is saying, stop arguing with your misinterpretations. Otherwise, you are merely arguing AGAINST YOURSELF.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

He can say "We cannot know there is an external world". But this implies that "We cannot know there isn't an external world"

So, you admit then that it is a faith? You believe there is an external world (we all do it, don't feel ashamed) but, how can you prove it is there? All we know (learning about how perception works) is that what we see is a construction. From this, we can deduce that what we see, and whatever is there causing it, are different things.

It is a deduction, no more no less, and I have never claimed anything else. Some of you keep fighting a ghost with your continuous strawmans. How sad is that.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Nice synopsis.

Nice synopsis!

Well, sure, if you don't understand and he doesn't understand... why not?

 

[volatile]

If two people both describe perceiving the same spoon, how does your idea account for this? Materialism says that the spoon is a real object-in-the-world, and it affects both of our bodies and brains (and thus our consciousnesses) in similar ways. What's going on in this scenario in your opinion?

Are you ever going to attempt to answer this?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

May I translate again?

I think what BDZ is saying is that light out there in the world outside us is not necessarily what we think it is.

Instead, the whole process of perception depends critically on an interaction of what is out there and our brains (really our whole bodies if we want to be precise about it). We 'create' perceptions in the interaction between the 'real world' and our nervous tissue. That is the basic consensus of the neurosciences.

The actual 'reality of light' is not properly accessible to us. What we can access is our construction of the world in our perception of it. So, for instance, there are things out there in the real world and we can see them. But what we see is based on the categories that our minds create, the filtering systems inherent in our perceptual apparatus, etc. We don't experience the actual blooming, buzzing mess of what it is really like out there. We construct a 3-D model of reality that allows us to navigate whatever is really out there -- at least enough to provide for our survival.

Take the spoon as an example. In reality there is no such thing as a spoon, only some object out there that we can perceive as a spoon because of the way our minds work. There is clearly a thing out there that properly functioning human brains who have been exposed to spoons all perceive as a spoon, but what if a brain is somehow broken? Take Balint's syndrome, for instance, where those afflicted by superior parietal-occipital damage cannot integrate information properly. A person so afflicted cannot see a 'spoon', cannot understand how the parts (handle, bowl) fit into the whole 'spoon'. What is 'actual reality'? The person who sees 'spoon' -- meaning the object tied to its human function -- or some putative being who sees a blooming buzzing mess of interacting subatomic particles in every potential wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum (and Ed knows what else) in the shape of what a human would call a spoon?

 

[volatile]

I do not state that perception is fallible.

Your argument relies on this assumption. "perceptions are constructions". Indeed, you berate me for thinking perception is like a video camera (which I don't), implying that you agree perception is fallible.

I agree wholeheartedly that our perception of reality is not 100& accurate.

But I find your wording interesting. YOU are assuming that there is a world and that our senses merely reflect it, without actively participating in how things are depicted. A very naive account of the act of perception.

Again, an accusation with no back up. Why is that naive? You keep repeating it, but it doesn't make it true.

And your "therefore" is, again, a strawman. Where do I state it?

"The phenomenal world depends on those and it is an illusion. Read it again, what you perceive is an illusion, a construction. It is, in this sense, that there is no external material world outside your phenomenal world."

You keep introducing your beloved "material" word here, why not simply state that reality doesn't exist?

Because it does?

I state that reality exists and that our phenomenological world is behind it (as its cause). And that it is not its reflection, but a creation (the resulting process is more complex than the input signals). Light, sounds (to put it in terms of the philosophers you are studying) lie on perception, not on the world.

Now you're completely reversing your position, but you still manage to be wrong.

As I keep trying to explain, the material world is necessarily prior to consciousness. It has to be in order for multiple subjects to be able to share perceptions, a point which you still haven't addressed.

 

[volatile]

May I translate again?

I think what BDZ is saying is that light out there in the world outside us is not necessarily what we think it is.

Instead, the whole process of perception depends critically on an interaction of what is out there and our brains (really our whole bodies if we want to be precise about it). We 'create' perceptions in the interaction between the 'real world' and our nervous tissue. That is the basic consensus of the neurosciences.

And I agree wholeheartedly.

The actual 'reality of light' is not properly accessible to us. What we can access is our construction of the world in our perception of it. So, for instance, there are things out there in the real world and we can see them.

This is not BDZ's claim. I agree with this. His is stronger: he extrapolates this truism towards a claim, as in the OP, that "there is no external reality". Which is absurd, because the reality of light, inaccessible as it is, is prior to our perception of light (which is what I've been arguing all along).

But what we see is based on the categories that our minds create, the filtering systems inherent in our perceptual apparatus, etc. We don't experience the actual blooming, buzzing mess of what it is really like out there. We construct a 3-D model of reality that allows us to navigate whatever is really out there -- at least enough to provide for our survival.

I agree 100%. But that doesn't imply, as BDZ claims, "there is no external material world outside your phenomenal world". That's what I've been trying to explain to him.

Take the spoon as an example. In reality there is no such thing as a spoon, only some object out there that we can perceive as a spoon because of the way our minds work.

Agreed. I have said as much in the thread.

There is clearly a thing out there that properly functioning human brains who have been exposed to spoons all perceive as a spoon,

BDZ disagrees, and that is where my disagreement with him lies. "There is no external material world outside your phenomenal world", or, in the OP, "There are no objects". He takes your position (and mine) and runs with it to an illogical and unsupportable endpoint.

but what if a brain is somehow broken? Take Balint's syndrome, for instance, where those afflicted by superior parietal-occipital damage cannot integrate information properly. A person so afflicted cannot see a 'spoon', cannot understand how the parts (handle, bowl) fit into the whole 'spoon'. What is 'actual reality'? The person who sees 'spoon' -- meaning the object tied to its human function -- or some putative being who sees a blooming buzzing mess of interacting subatomic particles in every potential wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum (and Ed knows what else) in the shape of what a human would call a spoon?

Agreed. But when someone has Balint's syndrome, or autospagnosia, or any other neurological condition that alters percerption, that does not mean the "real" spoon changes. The real, material spoon, as inaccessible to our senses as it might be, is still real.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

This is not BDZ's claim. I agree with this. His is stronger: he extrapolates this truism towards a claim, as in the OP, that "there is no external reality". Which is absurd, because the reality of light, inaccessible as it is, is prior to our perception of light (which is what I've been arguing all along).

Best ask him, but I'm not so sure that he does think that in the way that you mean it. I tried to warn him that he was going to have problems with that first paragraph but he didn't want to change it. I don't really like the wording either, but I think I understand what he is saying. I could be very wrong, though.

Agreed. But when someone has Balint's syndrome, or autospagnosia, or any other neurological condition that alters percerption, that does not mean the "real" spoon changes. The real, material spoon, as inaccessible to our senses as it might be, is still real.

Yes. It is only the perception of it that changes. There is clearly still something out there that initiates the whole perceptual process. I think BDZ agrees with this.

There is a sense in which these perceptions are our reality, but interactions with others and shared experience keep us honest. But there is a further sense in which we create a shared reality that is just a super-perception because of our language labels, so there is a limit to that honesty. What the heck is money but a shared delusion?

 

[Robin]

Don't get your point, you have acknowledged that my view is (more or less) the same as d'Holbach's.

I am asking if you acknowledge the same

And it is very arguable that materialism states what you say to everybody.

Materialism is an abstract noun and is incapable of stating anything. I was characterising the actual words of actual Materialist philosophers

Allow me to give a more traditional definition of materialism:
...
Now, lets see a common definition of the world matter:

Bottom line, can you name even one actual Materialist philosopher, major or minor, living or dead, who would actually hold that position?

No? Well in that case it is not really a useful definition is it?

Here is one I found in the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Materialism: in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.

Now that is more like what actual Materialists say.

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.

And again I ask, whoever suggested that we do?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

... If it helps you to restate my argument in terms your unsophisticated brain can grasp, feel free...

... Quantum physics, the last refuge of a defeated woo.

FIRST OF ALL. STOP RIGHT THERE.

If you are unable to expose your thinking without resorting to this I'm done with you. So far we have been arguing ideas, yes, heat is up but nothing happens, we might reach different conclusions and we are here to expose the how and why about them. Nothing more. I will not allow this personal insults.

Quarks are matter.

This is where you are mistaken. Quarks are QUARKS, descriptions (of whatever it is, reality) I chose to call that reality "noumena". You choose to call it matter. How come you are right and I'm a woo?????

Now, I also state that descriptions are valid or invalid only in the sense they can accurately predict phenomena, but they can't be “truer” or “more accurate” or “better” outside its predictive capabilities.

Whats exactly woo about that? where are the souls, immaterial beings, gods, mental powers and so on???