My theoretical framework

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Here is one I found in the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Now that is more like what actual Materialists say.

And again I ask, whoever suggested that we do?

For instance, Volatile openly says it. And I have found others in JREF. My arguing is against that naive materialism.

 

[Faithkills]

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.

I'm not the one making an assertion about the existence or lack of existence of an external world. That's what you are doing. Show me where I said there was an external world? Show me where I said there was not? You can't.

More you are making claims about other peoples' internal universe, which is similarly innately preposterous and humorously contradictory. If there is no external world then there are no other people and certainly no way for you to know anything about other peoples' internal world.. mainly because they do not exist.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with understanding what you are saying. I think we understand far better than you, we even know how to fix it. Not that a fixed version would be original or noteworthy. Actually the only reason you have an audience is because your logic is so flawed and you are so adamantly ignorant that it's entertaining.

Again, you may say

1) "There is no external world for me." Useless but hard to argue with

2) "We cannot know there is an external world." Possible to argue but similarly useless

What you can't argue is that "There is no external world for anyone" You are making a boolean claim about something which by your own 'framework' you cannot know anything about at all.. again do to the inconvenient fact that the thing you are making an assertion about doesn't exist

It's like god of the gaps woo.

"There is something unknowable, and that is god!"
"How do you know?"
"..."

Suggestion: Fix your stuff.

Admit that your OP was flawed and that all you really can do is say "We cannot know there is an external world". Reformulate based on what you have gleaned.

Do that and we'll all go away from boredom

 

[Robin]

For instance, Volatile openly says it. And I have found others in JREF. My arguing is against that naive materialism.

Even if you have correctly characterised their position, do you think it reasonable to base a broad brush criticism of Materialism in general upon the position of a couple of JREF posters?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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 didn't because it is there as it is for a purpose. Being a skeptical forum what better way to call naive materialists than stating openly something that appears to be pure woo?

Yes, you do understand, as some others. Heck even Pixy, one of the more enthusiasts defenders of materialism could understand it. Yes, the wording is "somehow" difficult, but the complete ideas are right there.

I could be very wrong, though.

How come? I have yet to read something you have posted that I do not agree. I would expect the same from you.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

How come? I have yet to read something you have posted that I do not agree. I would expect the same from you.

Being a fallibilist, I am always open to the idea that I am completely mistaken, even if I hold some fairly hardline views on certain things.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Being a fallibilist, I am always open to the idea that I am completely mistaken, even if I hold some fairly hardline views on certain things.

Now, that explains it!

 

[schlitt]

BDZ, are you able to clarify your OP in relation to your staunch anti-materialism?

Break it down into logical steps if you will.

 

[Piggy]

The last few posts have clarified much in BDZ's position for me.

And I think it does indeed come down to a fundamental misunderstanding of the significance of QM.

Yes, the spoon is there, we know this for all the reasons stated.

Yes, our experience is a construct. I don't think anyone here thinks any different.

Particle-wave duality really has no bearing on any of this. What happens at that level of granularity is essentially transparent to macro-scale interactions.

We have every reason to believe -- or, more accurately, to understand -- that human perception maps pretty well to the phenomenal world (and I'm using that term in the sense of "the stuff that would continue to exist if we all disappeared tomorrow") at our level of granularity.

Of course, if we all vanished, there'd be no more "spoons" in the sense that there would not exist anywhere the mental construct of "a thing I can eat soup with", or for that matter the color silver, for example. All that would be gone from the universe.

But the notion that somehow, absent conscious perception, the only reality is the world of "wavicles"... that doesn't hold water.

And the reason is this: If we all vanished, and a storm blew through the house and blew the spoon off the table, the interaction between these two macro-scale entities would transpire just as it did when we were here.

The properties which make these objects available to our senses do not vanish.

In that sense, even though our mental associations with these objects have ceased to exist in this universe, the spoon and the table, as objects which interact in predictable ways, do not cease to exist.

And QM is irrelevant to that point.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The last few posts have clarified much in BDZ's position for me...

... The properties which make these objects available to our senses do not vanish.

Wow. Piggy. I'm happily impressed. Good post and yes I wholeheartedly agree with the last sentence. I have never stated anything-but-that (in a way that I could attract naive materialists and "woo fighters".

As for the QM thing. It is often forgotten that whatever we can think about quarks, muons, suprestrings, particle/wave dualities and so on, are simply ways to understand the facts that are presented to us when dealing with reality.

"Material world" is also a concept, useful for everyday living (and as Robin have stated valid as a world-view). Heck, I have stated that myself in several occasions.

Still, when you learn about how perception is an active process (how come NOBODY HAS commented anything about my HDD model??) you understand that our phenomenal world (the one on which our ideas are based) is an illusion. Reality is different to what we see. How different? we can't know (something I have stated right from the OP).

Yes, I can state that "there are no material objects" without you. And it is as reasonable as to ascribe a material (not in the naive sense, this is objects in space-time but as in physical stuff) reality even when you are not there.

Both views are perfectly compatible with science. Yet, some people insist to read what I have not stated.

 

[AkuManiMani]

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.

You missed my point entirely:

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.]

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.

THATS JUST EXACTLY MY POINT! The debate about "material" vs. "soul" is just about labels! Which is why the contention that one is right while the other is wrong its simply pointless.

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.

The emergent phenomenon we call the mind is the "spiritual". Your irrational aversion to the word does not change this fact.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
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.

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

1...I think he does realize that different people share an approximately similar but not identical perception as a phenomenal realization.

2...This comment goes to the heart of the question whether mind is a brain-function as put by reductionist scientism or is a universal energy giving rise to personal phenomenal consciousness through its interaction with suitably complex material structures.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

BDZ, are you able to clarify your OP in relation to your staunch anti-materialism?

Break it down into logical steps if you will.

I didn't understood what you want. I hope this is useful:

1) All we have are beliefs, in the sense of "knowledge open to improvements" instead of "real" knowledge (the whole and only truth, the last word, absolute knowledge, whatever you like to call it).

2) Beliefs are based on theoretical frameworks (world views, cosmo-visions, cognitive stances). You can't have a clear belief unless its based on one. Lets draw a mini picture of two theoretical frameworks (note that they are just an oversimplified models); a) materialists believe that everything in the universe is material, nothing immaterial exists. b) spiritualists believe that what animates a body is a immaterial soul, that lives independently of the organism (a material body).

3) Our theoretical frameworks are always unfinished. they are like vast nets with holes on it (we might be unaware of some). When confronted by something that can't be explained by it we first try to repair it, as it is difficult to change it (its changing ourself, in a way).

4) Beliefs can (and should) be contrasted with facts. What constitutes "a fact" depends on the theoretical frame of reference, but still it can be defined as "that what is beyond opinions" (oversimplification again, I have noted that some of the posters like to take sentences by the letter, unable to understand contexts).

5) Contrasting, correlating beliefs with facts its how we get confidence in our theoretical framework (or makes us doubt it and think in changing it). And its a difficult, often slow process.

________________________

Now, lets see this in more detail.

a) All we have are beliefs (both skeptics or woos)

b) Still... Not every belief weights the same

c) We can differentiate among them because of their relative fidelity to facts, or by their being better correlated with facts (Newton's vs Einsteins for example) (another example would be souls as the center of personality or brains serving the same purpose)

d) Skeptics and woo are equivalent IN THE SENSE THAT we all share beliefs, NOT IN THE SENSE THAT what they believe have the same relative weight (or correctness)

e) Now the tricky part (one that was implied in my previous posts but not openly said) Some beliefs are based on world-views that explain a lot more stuff than others, their validity resides on that. Let's think on world-views as concentric circles. A small one can explain just a few of the facts around, a bigger circle catches more facts, and so on.

Currently, the wider circle we have is based on the knowledge (beliefs) that we can get using scientific methods. We can explain a lot of stuff if we assume certain world-view. To my knowledge, some forms of physicalism (not to be confused with naive materialism*) have accommodated a great amount of facts under the same explicative rules, still, there are still lots of stuff outside its explicative power, so, the best we can do is remain skeptics and not embrace any world-view as final and definitive.

* For me, "matter" is a way to describe things, not a "thing in itself". Not a thing that its there, as we see it, when we are not seeing it.

 

[Piggy]

Wow. Piggy. I'm happily impressed. Good post and yes I wholeheartedly agree with the last sentence.

Thank you. I'm glad that perhaps we've found that "sweet spot" of overlap where our different approaches and vocabularies may allow us to understand one another more clearly.

Still, when you learn about how perception is an active process (how come NOBODY HAS commented anything about my HDD model??) you understand that our phenomenal world (the one on which our ideas are based) is an illusion. Reality is different to what we see. How different? we can't know (something I have stated right from the OP).

Ok, this is where we move outside the sweet spot, for me.

For me, this statement does not make sense: "our phenomenal world (the one on which our ideas are based) is an illusion."

The way I'm using these terms, this is an impossibility (because if I used that language it would mean "the external world which triggers our mental experience is an illusion" which would be impossibly circular b/c illusions are mental experiences).

Now, let me rephrase and you tell me if I'm misunderstanding you or not.

First, I'm going to remove the term "our phenomenal world" b/c I use the term "phenomenal" in a traditional sense, to refer to "what's out there even if there were no people or animals or other such critters in the world".

I think you're saying: Our higher-level (abstracted) concepts are based on an experiential "world" which is a product of our brains, albeit brains interacting with "the stuff that's out there", and this experiential world is inherently illusory, even if it does map pretty well -- with some notable and glaring exceptions -- to all that other stuff.

If that's what you mean by that phrase, then certainly I agree, and I think most -- if not all -- the posters here would concur.

If that's accurate, then here's where we disagree: "How different? we can't know".

Seems to me, the history of modern science reflects an ever-increasing body of knowledge which does allow us to get at that gap, and peek into it at greater and greater depths.

Perhaps this topic is one worth focusing on?

Yes, I can state that "there are no material objects" without you. And it is as reasonable as to ascribe a material (not in the naive sense, this is objects in space-time but as in physical stuff) reality even when you are not there.

This position, to me, is untenable. So far, I don't understand you here.

If the spoon and the table interact at this level of granularity the same way when the spoon is blown off the table, whether there is life on earth or not, then I don't see at all how you draw that conclusion.

Perhaps you could clarify and we could go forward from there?

 

[Piggy]

THATS JUST EXACTLY MY POINT! The debate about "material" vs. "soul" is just about labels! Which is why the contention that one is right while the other is wrong its simply pointless.



The emergent phenomenon we call the mind is the "spiritual". Your irrational aversion to the word does not change this fact.

I find this to be a clear case of Humpty-Dumptyism.

I do not have any irrational aversion to the words "soul", "spirit", or "spiritual".

These words have long track records, and are still in general use.

"Spirit" and "soul" refer to supernatural entities which are not merely the activity of neurons.

Most frequently, they are seen as divinely created, pre-existing the body, and enduring after death.

That's what I mean by "soul" and "spirit".

I do not know of any legitimate definitions of the terms which accommodate equivalency with material explanations of consciousness.

If you wish to say that "spirit" is whatever consciousness is, regardless of what that turns out to be, I feel you are doing violence to the term.

 

[schlitt]

I didn't understood what you want. I hope this is useful:

1) All we have are beliefs, in the sense of "knowledge open to improvements" instead of "real" knowledge (the whole and only truth, the last word, absolute knowledge, whatever you like to call it).

2) Beliefs are based on theoretical frameworks (world views, cosmo-visions, cognitive stances). You can't have a clear belief unless its based on one. Lets draw a mini picture of two theoretical frameworks (note that they are just an oversimplified models); a) materialists believe that everything in the universe is material, nothing immaterial exists. b) spiritualists believe that what animates a body is a immaterial soul, that lives independently of the organism (a material body).

3) Our theoretical frameworks are always unfinished. they are like vast nets with holes on it (we might be unaware of some). When confronted by something that can't be explained by it we first try to repair it, as it is difficult to change it (its changing ourself, in a way).

4) Beliefs can (and should) be contrasted with facts. What constitutes "a fact" depends on the theoretical frame of reference, but still it can be defined as "that what is beyond opinions" (oversimplification again, I have noted that some of the posters like to take sentences by the letter, unable to understand contexts).

5) Contrasting, correlating beliefs with facts its how we get confidence in our theoretical framework (or makes us doubt it and think in changing it). And its a difficult, often slow process.

________________________

Now, lets see this in more detail.

a) All we have are beliefs (both skeptics or woos)

b) Still... Not every belief weights the same

c) We can differentiate among them because of their relative fidelity to facts, or by their being better correlated with facts (Newton's vs Einsteins for example) (another example would be souls as the center of personality or brains serving the same purpose)

d) Skeptics and woo are equivalent IN THE SENSE THAT we all share beliefs, NOT IN THE SENSE THAT what they believe have the same relative weight (or correctness)

e) Now the tricky part (one that was implied in my previous posts but not openly said) Some beliefs are based on world-views that explain a lot more stuff than others, their validity resides on that. Let's think on world-views as concentric circles. A small one can explain just a few of the facts around, a bigger circle catches more facts, and so on.

Currently, the wider circle we have is based on the knowledge (beliefs) that we can get using scientific methods. We can explain a lot of stuff if we assume certain world-view. To my knowledge, some forms of physicalism (not to be confused with materialism) have accommodated a great amount of facts under the same explicative rules, still, there are still lots of stuff outside its explicative power, so, the best we can do is remain skeptics and not embrace any world-view as final and definitive. There, I hope its clearer now.

OK, I see what you are getting at. But i do not see how this goes any way toward disproving materialism?

Do you believe that conciousness is not merely the result of a physical system?

How do you reconcile what we know about the human brain, and how physiological changes to the brain have profound effects on conciousness?

Check out this video for a good example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DCSJdhy3-0&feature=related

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Thank you. I'm glad that perhaps we've found that "sweet spot" of overlap where our different approaches and vocabularies may allow us to understand one another more clearly.

Agreed. How refreshing to note that we can discuss at a rational level

For me, this statement does not make sense: "our phenomenal world (the one on which our ideas are based) is an illusion." The way I'm using these terms, this is an impossibility (because if I used that language it would mean "the external world which triggers our mental experience is an illusion" which would be impossibly circular b/c illusions are mental experiences).

I can see your point. Yes, that is not my intention. I'm talking about "the redness of red", "the shape of a table", "the color of the horizon", "the weight of the spoon". All that is what I call phenomenal world (not physics involved), your everyday world. It is an illusion as it is "just" a mental experience.... NOT WHAT CAUSES THEM which lie outside this world.. outside perceptions.

Now, let me rephrase and you tell me if I'm misunderstanding you or not. First, I'm going to remove the term "our phenomenal world" b/c I use the term "phenomenal" in a traditional sense, to refer to "what's out there even if there were no people or animals or other such critters in the world".

Ok, thats not how I use the world. I use the Kantian sense: Philosophy. In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived by the senses,

I think you're saying: Our higher-level (abstracted) concepts are based on an experiential "world" which is a product of our brains, albeit brains interacting with "the stuff that's out there", and this experiential world is inherently illusory, even if it does map pretty well -- with some notable and glaring exceptions -- to all that other stuff.

Yes! I only have some issues with "map pretty well". I believe it maps it in a way that it facilitates our survival, but no "pretty well" in the sense of being (somehow) accurate. But again, I agree.

If that's what you mean by that phrase, then certainly I agree, and I think most -- if not all -- the posters here would concur.

If that's accurate, then here's where we disagree: "How different? we can't know".

Agreed, again.

Seems to me, the history of modern science reflects an ever-increasing body of knowledge which does allow us to get at that gap, and peek into it at greater and greater depths.

Agreed again, please read my last post, in which I resume where I come from. We have opinions, yet, some are more valuable than others because they reflect a greater amount of facts.

Perhaps this topic is one worth focusing on?

Read it and if you see something interesting I will be delighted to talk about it.

 

[dudalb]

Of course it matters. It makes all the difference in the world.

Only someone lost in their own mental musings could make a statement like that.

Or a 17 Year old trying to prove how "intellectual", "philosphical",and "deep" he or she is.

 

[Robin]

But in reality our perceptual system works both filtering and creating the result. Its like abstract data in a computer. Depending on how we choose to depict the information, it will have certain characteristics, but such are not in the input signal.

Take, for instance, the info in a hard drive. You can convert it to a certain arrangement of photons in a screen, with certain shape and determinate design, and what you are seeing is related to the original info, but nothing like it. In other words, it is simply FOOLISH to think that you are seeing (or can see) the data of the hard drive as IT IS.

It would be equally foolish to think that there was no data on the hard drive, external to the screen representation.

Suppose I were to write "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediment" and then save it to disk. No-one would be so naive as to suppose that the hard disk now contains the sentence in some letters and typeface such as I see on the screen. We will assume that it takes the form of a binary representation existing as differentially magnetised portions of the disk, quite possibly in non-contiguous locations, or perhaps as a set of charges in some solid state device.

And yet my claim that the sentence "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediment" was stored on the disk would be both meaningful and true.

Similarly my claim that the spoon on the table exists independent to the conscious mental representation I have of it is both meaningful and true.

Now you are suggesting that my mental representation of the spoon is nothing like the noumenon. So let me suggest that in turn I could (if I was a little cleverer) invent a robot that could make the same observations on the spoon as I do on my mental representation, length, width, height, curvature of bowl etc.

The robot has no phenomenal world and yet it would return exactly the same results to it's measurements as I would to my mental representation of the spoon. Should every sentient being in the universe suddenly disappear the robot would still return the same measurements.

So to my claim that there is a spoon on the table independent of my mental representation of it I can add that the spoon is somewhat like my mental representation of it.

So if I do some deep scientific study of my mental representation and derive a mathematical model that describes it in terms of particles, wavicles, strings or whatever, I could also claim that these are what the real spoon is "like", only adding that the "likeness" is still somewhat flawed.

Suppose someone comes up with a grand unified physical theory that unites the various models and fills in the gaps.

I could now claim that there is a spoon on the table quite independent of my mental representation of it and that I know, so far as the phrase has any meaning, what it is like.

 

[volatile]

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.

I'm not so sure. Look back at his arguments with my contentions. I have pointed out more or less exactly what you have, and he has disputed it.

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.

As I said, I have made this point in every post I've made. He has contested it each time, so I certainly don't think he agrees at all.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

OK, I see what you are getting at. But i do not see how this goes any way toward disproving materialism?

Do you believe that conciousness is not merely the result of a physical system?

How do you reconcile what we know about the human brain, and how physiological changes to the brain have profound effects on conciousness?

Check out this video for a good example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DCSJdhy3-0&feature=related

Thanks for the video, yes, Im pretty familiar with the work of Ramachandran That said, No, I do not believe that consciousness is anything else but the result of what are called physical interactions.

As for materialism, it is not my intent to disprove it. I merely want some "naive materialists" to recognize first, that it is nothing but an assumption, and secondly, that it is a fairly good view but not "final" nor "perfect" nor "the ultimate truth". Materialism have changed A LOT in the last couple of centuries, yet some posters in this very forum are still holding what materialists from hundreds of years claimed.

Naive materialism states that the world is made of objects, spoons, tables, etc. Modern philosophical views of materialism hold that quarks are "real"*, and appearances are a byproduct of the brain (which is my stance BTW).

I used the " " for real because, it is forgotten that REAL is a word that have some utility inside certain contexts, but outside them it is irrelevant. Facts are beyond opinions, as it is the noumena.