The "ultimate substance"

[PixyMisa]

It is stating, among other things, that there is no ghost in the machine. It informs us that the workings of the mind are purely physical, and so to best understand and treat the mind one should investigate the underlying physical mechanisms by which it operates.

Exactly. It's a statement of direction of causation, and it's an observably correct statement. The relative effectiveness of your conscious will and my baseball bat upon each other is a striking demonstration of this.

These sound like the words of a strawman.

You win a prize!

 

[Mobyseven]

- Your material senses are limited in their range of perception, and there are conditions in nature other than what you can materially perceive.

How do you know there are conditions in nature that beyond perception if by definition you can't perceive them?

 

[JoeEllison]

How do you know there are conditions in nature that beyond perception if by definition you can't perceive them?

You'll never, ever, EVER get a satisfying answer to that one!

 

[The Kilted Yaksman]

And although I consider myself a "hardcore materialist" I have never overly concerned myself with the search for the "ultimate substance". I'm going to have to start reading the flyers more carefully.

Well, if you'd come to the damned seminars more often...

 

[Tricky]

Well, if you'd come to the damned seminars more often...

If you'd stop holding them on Wednesday, maybe I would, but that's bowling night.

 

[JoeEllison]

If you'd stop holding them on Wednesday, maybe I would, but that's bowling night.

Yeah, but "Lost" is on Thursdays, and I have class that night.

 

[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.

IMO, we have never encounter anything but facts. If you state that you say "materialist reality", because it could have been a "spiritual reality" (to put an example) then are you really saying that reality is "made of matter"? Simply logic, don't claim it is philosophy.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Perhaps I've misunderstood; I inferred from your prior postings that you find fault with these statements. Do you, or do you not agree with these statements? If you disagree, why?

A reasonable question. Thanks. I do not disagree in the sens that I believe they are wrong. I disagree in that I believe they are not necessary.

It is stating, among other things, that there is no ghost in the machine. It informs us that the workings of the mind are purely physical, and so to best understand and treat the mind one should investigate the underlying physical mechanisms by which it operates.

And it can't be stated without resorting to a "final substance"? I understand that if someone state that "everything is spiritual and made by god" some other "substance" is needed in order to oppose it to this "spiritual stuff"

So the substance of choice are either "immaterial" or "material".

I believe the claim is not necessary. There are no observable data, no facts regarding the approach about "things that we can't see that cause things we can see" On the other hand, there are lots of evidence in that "things we can see or measure can and do affect other things".

What do anyone needs to introduce another element?

I think the implication of stating "X is Y", in a discussion such as this, is that Y stands for some set of properties and behaviors that are usefully grouped together, and that all are exhibited by X. In essence, the two statements are equivalent for the purpose of discussion.

Good. And we don't need to resort to any claims about the nature of substances, all we need are a labels for set of properties. Thanks, this is more or less all I claim.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

And that's what it all comes down to, ladies and gentlemen.

On the parent thread, BDZ dodged every mention of this simple fact.

Check again.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Possibly a reflection of pure geometry at some level.

Good imagination. If people in general took matter as a description, and not a substance, I would have less issues with it. Problem is.. it has been HISTORICALLY used as a subtance.. ergo, either a better term should be coined, or (at least skeptics) should stop making ontological claims about it.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
- Your material senses are limited in their range of perception, and there are conditions in nature other than what you can materially perceive.

1...Such as?

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
- That is an unverifiable presumption of reductionist scientism.

2...all attempts to demonstrate a non-material component of the mind have failed,...
3...while our understanding of the material nature of the mind continues to grow.

1... The whole range of vibratory actions in nature outside those our material senses perceive and interpret: Those aspects of the thing in itself in its entirety - the vibratory action in nature - beyond or outside the perceptive capacity of our material senses.
2... This is but an article of belief of reductionist scientism: There is no evidence that mind is a strictly material brain function, and the endless claims to the effect it has been established as true are a fiction.
3... Yes, true science will continue to enlarge our knowledge and understanding of phenomena, but it has no access to or means of measuring those noumenal aspects of nature it cannot respond to.

 

[JoeEllison]

1... The whole range of vibratory actions in nature outside those our material senses perceive and interpret: Those aspects of the thing in itself in its entirety - the vibratory action in nature - beyond or outside the perceptive capacity of our material senses.
2... This is but an article of belief of reductionist scientism: There is no evidence that mind is a strictly material brain function, and the endless claims to the effect it has been established as true are a fiction.
3... Yes, true science will continue to enlarge our knowledge and understanding of phenomena, but it has no access to or means of measuring those noumenal aspects of nature it cannot respond to.

You're still utterly wrong.


Guys, don't attempt to engage him. He's insisting on being wrong and derailing yet another thread with his crackpot ideas.

 

[PixyMisa]

This thread started off derailed, so no harm done, really.

 

[JoeEllison]

This thread started off derailed, so no harm done, really.

No good done either. The best we can hope for is to make sure that no one takes this sort of thing seriously?

 

[lionking]

Check again.

Rather than going back and checking (life is too short to go through too many of your posts) how would you like to address piggy's comments at post 37?

 

[maatorc]

How do you know there are conditions in nature that are beyond perception if by definition you can't perceive them?

Our standard physical senses are limited in the well understood manner to perceiving a certain limited range of vibratory energy in the universal spectrum.

 

[JoeEllison]

Our standard physical senses are limited in the well understood manner.

...which is why all of your claims are nonsense. You disprove yourself, over and over again. Kind of sad, really, living with that sort of deep contradiction every day.

 

[IMST]

According to google images,

Ultimate:



Substance:




I think we've all learned something today.


ETA: Unfortunately, according to google images it looks you can't get the ultimate substance anymore:

 

[Piggy]

IMO, we have never encounter anything but facts. If you state that you say "materialist reality", because it could have been a "spiritual reality" (to put an example) then are you really saying that reality is "made of matter"? Simply logic, don't claim it is philosophy.

Actually, "facts" are not things we encounter. "Facts" are abstractions.

Note that I refer to a "'materialist' reality" in order to accommodate your language. That's not anything I would say or claim, myself.

But when I say that all we encounter is the material world, so to speak, this does not imply that it could actually have been a spiritual one. That's like saying if we see horses, they could have been unicorns. The spiritual stuff was just dreamed up by people, but it has been debunked.

And yes, clearly the universe is made up of non-spiritual stuff -- that is, what we can call (in layman's terms) material stuff... matter and energy... spacetime. And no, that's not philosophy. It's all this other junk creeping into your posts that's philosophy.

Once you strip that away, you're left with something very mundane... this plain old world of stars and gas clouds and whatever the "dark" stuff turns out to be, and so forth. But nothing spiritual... unless you use the term "spiritual" so loosely that it means something like "consciousness" even tho consciousness is the activity of the physical brain.

You rail against the materialists, but whenever we get down to brass tacks, turns out the materialists are right.

 

[Piggy]

How do you know there are conditions in nature that beyond perception if by definition you can't perceive them?

By simple inference, the same way we know there must be something out there we can label "dark matter/energy" even if we have no clue yet what it is, or the way we know there must be certain massive objects in some parts of space even though we can't yet detect them.