My theoretical framework

[Piggy]

If we begin with what we observe, rather than beginning with philosophy, and follow those observations and deductions from them, we never encounter anything but a "materialist" reality.

Sure, other theories have been floated, but they've all lost every battle they've ever fought.

And nothing in relativity or QM or even string theory challenges or contradicts that.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If we begin with what we observe, rather than beginning with philosophy, and follow those observations and deductions from them, we never encounter anything but a "materialist" reality.

I wonder, why don't state that "we never encounter anything but reality" What does "materialist reality" add to the mix?

Sure, other theories have been floated, but they've all lost every battle they've ever fought.

What is the theory of materialism? Is it ONE theory or has it changed its form several times since the word "materialism" was incepted? If this is the case, why continue labeling as "materialism" as its first claims or predictions have changed?

And nothing in relativity or QM or even string theory challenges or contradicts that.

Contradicts which statements? Which set of axioms? Isnt true that what you all (simply) call "materialism" is always evolving? Is materialism from the 20th century the same theory it was in the 19th century?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

There is no need to know the "final substance" in order to understand that "materialism", as you call it, is the only legitimate world view left standing among the contenders.

(Moderators, can you please change this two posts from Piggy and this two mine to the new thread for the topic? thanks)

Says who? Claims like "mind is made of matter" are bold ones. They state that "matter" is the "thing" that composes "the mind" and that it is also the same that composes the rest of the universe. That, in my book, is an ontological claim.

 

[Complexity]

Yawn.

 

[Piggy]

(Moderators, can you please change this two posts from Piggy and this two mine to the new thread for the topic? thanks)

No no no. Please do not.

Those posts of mine are on topic. They should not be diverted.

I have reposted them on the split thread already, but they are relevant here and I would rather not have them removed.

Says who? Claims like "mind is made of matter" are bold ones. They state that "matter" is the "thing" that composes "the mind" and that it is also the same that composes the rest of the universe. That, in my book, is an ontological claim.

I don't care about ontology.

You're trying to evade.

The claim that mind is entirely the result of the activity of material substance... this is not bold at all. It the most boring and mundane of claims.

All we know, all we have ever observed, is this material stuff and its energetic counterparts (E=mc^2).

You want to propose something other? Go ahead. You won't, though. You know it's a bogus argument that will get shot out of the air before it's hardly off the ground.

Here are the hard cold facts, my friend.

There is no other mechanism aside from neurological activity which can be reasonably proposed as the cause of mental activity including conscious awareness.

Direct stimulation to various areas of the brain has a direct effect on conscious experience.

Damage to various areas of the brain has a predictable and selective effect on the functions of the mind.

The brain is made of the same sort of stuff that everything else in the universe is made of.

End of story.

All else is unfounded bloviation at this point.

 

[Piggy]

I wonder, why don't state that "we never encounter anything but reality" What does "materialist reality" add to the mix?

That's your philospeak. Don't try to throw it in my face.

"We never encounter anything but reality" is an empty tautology. Who needs it? Not me.

"Materialism" is your term. I think you like isms because they allow you to dive off into tangential quibbles.

You never heard me talk about any "materialist reality".

What I've said is simple. We look around, we see a material universe. As deep as we dig, as far as we look, we've never found anything but that. Ever.

Ever.

You want to go making up some alternative, ok, but that's your fantasy, brother. Don't come selling it to me because I ain't buying.

What is the theory of materialism? Is it ONE theory or has it changed its form several times since the word "materialism" was incepted? If this is the case, why continue labeling as "materialism" as its first claims or predictions have changed?

Who gives a flying ****? YOU are the one dragging in all these ism labels. Don't go accusing me of it.

I give you a straightforward proposition and you try to dodge it by reaching back into your bag of philo history.

I don't care about that.

You still cannot point to one single case in which any non-material theory has ever won a single battle. Not one.

None.

Zero.

Zip.

Zilch.

Contradicts which statements? Which set of axioms? Isnt true that what you all (simply) call "materialism" is always evolving? Is materialism from the 20th century the same theory it was in the 19th century?

I do not care. More of the same dodge.

Forget the lingo of past philosophical schools. It's all irrelevant.

You're intentionally dodging my argument, which is a 100% refutation of all your nonsense.

 

[PixyMisa]

Why is it wrong?
I understand that you disagree, but why is it wrong?

Well, let's see:

1. The term "belief" is not appropriate; at least, not to materialists who understand their own ontological position.
2. His "theoretical framework" isn't.
3. He's confusing ontological and epistemological positions with actual explanatory systems (of which science is the only successful example).
4. He constantly attacks a strawman version of materialism, and yet, his "framework", if it makes any sense at all, is isomorphic to materialism.
5. His original statement of his "framework" was self-contradictory (in the same way as any dualistic position). There are two ways to resolve this, by assuming he meant one thing or the other in a deliberately obfuscated post. One way you end up with materialism; the other way, solipsism.
6. Consciousness is demonstrably not the basis for reality; it's not even the basis for our understanding of reality. He may not be claiming this; he may be claiming it some times and not others. Who knows?
7. A map is a map is a map. A map of a map is a map of the territory. Thus, our models of the Universe teach us about the Universe.

There's lots more minor points, but those are probably the main ones.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Forget the lingo of past philosophical schools. It's all irrelevant.

You're intentionally dodging my argument, which is a 100% refutation of all your nonsense.

Nonsense is, by definition, only refuted by itself.

Both of your arguments are becoming nonsensical.


BDZ: ZOMG! MATERIALIZEHM IS WRONG! YOU CAN'T FIND THE ULTIMATE SUBSTANCE OMG!


Piggy: BDZ, stop being retarded everything is MATERIAL!


BDZ: No -- YOU'RE wrong! Everything is Noumena! Materialism is invalid!


Piggy: Stop using that woo-woo-philosophy crap! Philosophy is teh stupidz -- it doesn't make any sense! Materialism is the only valid view!

............

Look, at this point its clear neither of you know what in the world you're even talking about. Both of you are fighting over what "everything" should be called. Tell me, both of you: What is MATTER? What is the nature of matter? Why should something be called "material" or "non-material"? You guys are just debating over terminology -- and misused terminology at that.

 

[Piggy]

AkuManiMani, please don't be so childish.

My beef with BDZ on this point does not boil down to an empty shouting match.

I'm making a concrete claim:

In every single case in which a material theory of any phenomenon whatsoever has gone head-to-head with a non-material explanation, the former has proven true and the latter false.

That's not some argument over names and terms.

 

[PixyMisa]

But his portrayal of BDZ was accurate, so half marks for that.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I'm making a concrete claim:

In every single case in which a material theory of any phenomenon whatsoever has gone head-to-head with a non-material explanation, the former has proven true and the latter false.

That's not some argument over names and terms.

By "non-material" do you mean something ontologically independent of matter -- i.e. dualism or some other form of pluralism? Because if that is what you mean then I don't think you and BDZ disagree on this point. As far as I've been able to discern from BDZ ramblings [sorry BDZ, but you do tend to become unintelligible at times >_<] he isn't disputing monism/"materialism" . He is -- for who knows what reason -- trying to rename it as something else and you're saying that he is factually wrong for doing so. If you could actually tell what the fudge hes talking about you'll see that your debate actually IS over terminology.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

First of all Piggy, what happened to the last post in which I answered a lot of your questions? You didn't read it?

No no no. Please do not.

Those posts of mine are on topic. They should not be diverted.

I have reposted them on the split thread already, but they are relevant here and I would rather not have them removed.

Ok for me.

I don't care about ontology.

Find, still you should realize that this is like saying that you don't care about law, if you still behave as if you care, you are using it. I know you don't like the word, but it is just that, a word.

Thing is (and sorry about this), you don't have to know a thing about philosophy to make an ontological commitment. Take, for instance, a religious individual. He believes in god. This is, he made an ontological commitment to the existence of god. Simply as that.

So, you believe in the ontological reality of matter. Even when you hate this way to express it

You're trying to evade.

The claim that mind is entirely the result of the activity of material substance... this is not bold at all. It the most boring and mundane of claims.

Why do you conclude that I'm trying to evade. Evade what? For you is not a bold claim, for me it is. We both have different perspectives. Whats wrong then?

All we know, all we have ever observed, is this material stuff and its energetic counterparts (E=mc^2).

Wrong. We know about relations, geometric distortions, informational states, space-time and other things that are related to matter and energy but are described in different ways. Descriptions should be functional, their utility depends on that.

You want to propose something other? Go ahead. You won't, though. You know it's a bogus argument that will get shot out of the air before it's hardly off the ground.

Piggy, Piggy. Please stop that game. I'm not proposing a "competitor" for matter.... I'm stating that it is not needed (as matter is not needed). We need to predict phenomena, not to talk about "what is made of".

You see. I do not want to add, but to subtract (something that I believe it is not difficult to understand yet you (and others) keep claiming that I should propose an alternative.

Here are the hard cold facts, my friend.

I happen to love facts. If you read the post in which I explain with more detail my views... I clearly state that it is only because of facts that our theoretical frameworks are better.

Direct stimulation to various areas of the brain has a direct effect on conscious experience.

Huh, I have said that.

Damage to various areas of the brain has a predictable and selective effect on the functions of the mind.

And that... Piggy, lets try to advance. Part of the problems of this kind of discussions is that they go in spiral, and things that shouldn't come again do indeed arise, and arise, over and over. Lets try to keep things forward, ok?

The brain is made of the same sort of stuff that everything else in the universe is made of.

Look Piggy, this is exactly my point, those are my words.

End of story.

Exactly. Whatever it is, is still the same stuff. Does it matter if I label it "matter" at all? if yes why? I have not seen a compelling reason to do it, other than comfort.

 

[AkuManiMani]

As you can see above BDZ and piggy are debeating over terminology. The fact that BDZ is often intelligible and Piggy is a philosophical philistine to begin with just makes matters worse.

"I don't care about ontology"

LOL! What do you think this debate is about, man?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

"We never encounter anything but reality" is an empty tautology.

You are right, the wording was not correct. How about this:

"We have never encounter anything but facts."

Is that better? If you state that you say "material reality", because it could have been a "spiritual reality" (to put an example) then you are really saying that reality is "made of matter"? Simply logic, don't claim it is philosophy.

"Materialism" is your term. I think you like isms because they allow you to dive off into tangential quibbles.

Come on, it is not. Materialism is the term of choice for many people here, I'm merely borrowing it. If I would make a claim on my ism it would be "no-ism".

What I've said is simple. We look around, we see a material universe. As deep as we dig, as far as we look, we've never found anything but that. Ever.

logical. Wrong. You don't have to enter the word "material" for the phrase to beLets see:

"We look around, we see a universe. And the deeper we dig, as far as wee look, we always encounter new, fascinating things"

Ok, I made it a little bit more colorful.

You want to go making up some alternative, ok, but that's your fantasy, brother. Don't come selling it to me because I ain't buying.

Piggy, it should be VERY CLEAR by now that I'm not stating that I do no like matter and then I chosee another "component". Ok? I stop right before. I used "noumena" but since that was causing a lot of trouble with Volatile (at least) I now have reformulated my instance to claim that we don't need to give the step and adopt an "ism". Ok?

You still cannot point to one single case in which any non-material theory has ever won a single battle. Not one.

None.

Zero.

Zip.

Zilch.

You really love that, don't you?

Now. This time try to keep it handy for your next post. I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO OFFER A THEORY TO RIVAL MATERIALISM. NEVER EVER. I have CLEARLY stated that I don't need it, thats all.

So you see? no ghosts, no supernatural powers, no idealism, no nothing. Sorry to disappoint you.

Happy?

You're intentionally dodging my argument, which is a 100% refutation of all your nonsense.

No Piggy, you are, for the most, just arguing against yourself, fighting strawmans.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Tell me, both of you: What is MATTER? What is the nature of matter? Why should something be called "material" or "non-material"? You guys are just debating over terminology -- and misused terminology at that.

I'm not the one (not sure about piggy) claiming that "everything is material". I find the notion void of content. Nothing more, nothing less.

Who does not debate over terminology (in this forums I mean)

 

[AkuManiMani]

Ah right - you mean in a trivial and rather meaningless way rather than anything of significance.

Darat, do u even have any clue what I was arguing or are you just being contrary for contrary's sake?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

1. The term "belief" is not appropriate; at least, not to materialists who understand their own ontological position.

So you reckon it is appropriate for some. I have never claimed otherwise. Lets move on.

2. His "theoretical framework" isn't.

Isn't... what?

3. He's confusing ontological and epistemological positions with actual explanatory systems (of which science is the only successful example).

I love science, I have not claimed any "supernatural" substances or powers or beings of any kind. My ontology is clear by now. I choose not to have one. My epistemological POV is rather simple: a form of instrumentalist.

Do you have a point here?

4. He constantly attacks a strawman version of materialism, and yet, his "framework", if it makes any sense at all, is isomorphic to materialism.

Really? So, if someone claims that "the universe is material" or that "the mind is made of matter" and then I state that we can have all the scientific knowledge regarding the universe without resorting to any form of ontological commitment with ANY substance... how come this is a strawman.

5. His original statement of his "framework" was self-contradictory (in the same way as any dualistic position). There are two ways to resolve this, by assuming he meant one thing or the other in a deliberately obfuscated post. One way you end up with materialism; the other way, solipsism.

You and others have failed to prove it. All we have done is arguing about words and meanings. You interpret a word as X and I interpret it as Y. We would never reach an agreement simply because we are discussing different things.

That said, I clearly state that one is YOUR world, your reality, this "phenomenal sphere" and another the real world, the one some say its "made of matter" and the one that I called (in the beginning of the thread) as "nomenal".

Whats wrong here? whats self contradictory?

6. Consciousness is demonstrably not the basis for reality; it's not even the basis for our understanding of reality. He may not be claiming this; he may be claiming it some times and not others. Who knows?

Thats right, I never said that. And anyone reading my words and not their own bias knows Consciousness is the basis of your phenomenal world, nothing more, nothing less.

7. A map is a map is a map. A map of a map is a map of the territory. Thus, our models of the Universe teach us about the Universe.

Now, this is where we disagree. I can live with that, and without claiming you are an idiot. Can you do the same? I believe a map is a map. And maps are about facts, not about territories. It is a subtle difference, but important IMO.

There's lots more minor points, but those are probably the main ones.

Lots! wow. You are really something

 

[Piggy]

By "non-material" do you mean something ontologically independent of matter -- i.e. dualism or some other form of pluralism? Because if that is what you mean then I don't think you and BDZ disagree on this point. As far as I've been able to discern from BDZ ramblings [sorry BDZ, but you do tend to become unintelligible at times >_<] he isn't disputing monism/"materialism" . He is -- for who knows what reason -- trying to rename it as something else and you're saying that he is factually wrong for doing so. If you could actually tell what the fudge hes talking about you'll see that your debate actually IS over terminology.

I don't care about any of this philo labeling, and I'm not going to get sucked into it.

The thing is, either there's something to talk about or there ain't.

If the "materialist" view is right, it makes no sense to rail against materialism, whether that's naive materialism or not.

And since that view is the only one that's ever been verified, and other contenders have been debunked, I don't see how it's possible to argue that it's wrong.

So far, for whatever reason, BDZ has attempted to dodge the question about whether any alternative to a "materialist" view has ever stood the test. And that's what I'm trying to engage him on.

ETA: See post 564 for why this point is relevant.

The issue that I've been trying to engage you on, on the other hand, is this bizarre idea you seem to pop up with from time to time that a material view of the universe and a spiritual view of the universe are somehow non-different or merely an issue of semantics, which is incorrect.

 

[Piggy]

First of all Piggy, what happened to the last post in which I answered a lot of your questions? You didn't read it?

I've read all your responses to my posts. If you have offered an adquate response to this point in particular, please point me to it or cite it.

Thanks.

 

[Piggy]

Why do you conclude that I'm trying to evade. Evade what? For you is not a bold claim, for me it is. We both have different perspectives. Whats wrong then?

What's wrong is your claim that this is somehow a "bold" proposition.

For a proposition to be "bold" it must be challenging something established, or breaking new ground, or some such.

A claim which has no legitimate alternative is not bold.

It serves your purposes to claim that it is, but you're wrong. And it's not a matter of "perspective".