My theoretical framework

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

None of that in any way suggests anything spiritual or otherwise non-material about our world.

All of that is part and parcel of the material model.

PIGGY, lets go slowly here.. I talk about geometries, space-time, forces, informational states, particle/wave complementary principles... and you conclude that its because I'm suggesting something spiritual?? That's a little bit apprehensive from your side.

You couldn't be more wrong. We've learned a helluva lot from asking the question: "What's this made of"?

Perhaps you're back to your strawman of the final substance.

This thing you say you're trying to "subtract" -- no one's actually claiming it's there.

Illustrate me. What is the claim behind "the world is material", or "consciousness is material". Why is it a strawman if those are LITERAL WORDS USED BY MATERIALISTS IN THE FORUM?

Besides, you appear to be proud of this questions "what's this made of"... well, what is the universe made of?? Simple, straight question. OH, and anyone reading can answer it.

If I understand BDZ aright, he's trying to "subtract" this notion that there's some ultimate substance, some final substance, out there.

Bingo! Easy as pie.

In doing so, he mischaracterizes the material model -- y'know, the one that actually works.

How come? and.. AGAIN, whats the "material model"?

When we say the universe is made up of matter, we're not talking about any final substance.

So, what are you saying, exactly.

So I think all this sound and fury comes down, not to a debate over terms, but to an attempt to debunk a claim that's never been made, except by the one who wants to debunk it.

Again, what does "consciousness is made of matter" means? and correct me if I'm wrong but the "is made of" part... is not a claim????

And this is what it gets down to in the end, isn't it?

You're trying to get out of materialism free.


When we say that we live in an entirely material universe, that's not an empty statement.

What is a "material universe"? How come I want materialism for free? what is materialism?

That's why my repeated question about whether anything has ever successfully rivaled it is important, and why you can't simply ignore it.

Rivaled what? what are the axioms of materialism, which are its claims? what is materialism?

I HAVE CITED DICTIONARY AND ENCYCLOPEDIA DEFINITIONS OF IT, and yet... some of you keep saying that that's not what YOU say...

Straight question: What is materialism?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Hi BDZ,

I mean, through discussing these ideas do you experience that they become less intensely "yours?" Does identification diminish? I'm interested.

Personally, I figure any philosophy that proceeds from the notion that there exists a limited observer - a personal identity, a personal "I" - is fatally flawed. Thus, what Kant considered "absurd" is the simple reality of non-dualism.

I must admit I'm a little surprised that you seemed so fascinated by this noumena-phenomena thing. Doesn't "Advaitin" mean "follower of not two?"

Nick

Diminish in which way? I have stated that I know "not two" from the inside. Kant is not a dualist and what does discussing ideas has to do with the reality (or simple idea) of non dualism?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I made this exact point earlier in the thread. BDZ needs to answer the question I keep posting:

What is the nature of these objects, and how can you account for the fact that multiple people can see the same object in broadly the same way?

One possible answer is materialistic; the other is solipsistic. Which is it to be? I don't want to have to ask this again.

Volatile, it is right on the last page... here, let me state it again (the world is not black and white btw):

Believe me, I have answered it, in multiple occasions, but somehow it escapes you. Rephrasing it; Multiple "phenomenal bubbles" will see (approximately) the same objects because, mainly, two things. 1) Their cognitive apparatus is very similar and 2) because (whatever is there), has objective qualities.

Trivial, but done.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yep. I made that same point earlier, and BDZ completely ignored me.

Sorry to give you the eyes (remember when I said that I would not be nasty with you?), but sometimes, well, it is a good answer.

How come I can ignore something that is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT for what I'm stating?

Ok, since you cite Piggy I will post here my answer to him (I changed Piggy to Pixy for your convenience ):

Pixy, lets go slowly here.. I talk about geometries, space-time, forces, informational states, particle/wave complementary principles... and you conclude that its because I'm suggesting something spiritual?? That's a little bit apprehensive from your side.

AGAIN!! where have I tried to introduce anything woo in the topic?? cant you guys understand what the discussion is about? And that not everyone who questions some of the materialists INTERPRETATIONS is trying to introduce his wooism??? (supernatural stuff, whatever).

I really hope this is clear and you stop playing your strawmans!!!

 

[Nick227]

Diminish in which way? I have stated that I know "not two" from the inside. Kant is not a dualist and what does discussing ideas has to do with the reality (or simple idea) of non dualism?

Hi BDZ,

I just wondered if you experienced reduced identification, that's all. The ideas become less "yours." I'm not saying they should or anything. I was just interested.

Kant might not be a dualist but I still don't understand why he should consider it an "absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears," as Volatile quoted. Seems to me to be the reality of non-dualism.

Nick

 

[volatile]

2) because (whatever is there), has objective qualities.

This is entirely oppositional to your prior claim that "there are no objects". For something to have objective qualities, it must be an object.

Then we are agreed: there are objects. In Kantian terms, there is something "that appears". What are these objects, then, if not material? How can they be objective if they do not exist prior to the subjective?

Of the two choices, you picked materialism.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Hi BDZ,

I just wondered if you experienced reduced identification, that's all. The ideas become less "yours." I'm not saying they should or anything. I was just interested.

Kant might not be a dualist but I still don't understand why he should consider it an "absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears," as Volatile quoted. Seems to me to be the reality of non-dualism.

Nick

Nick I understand better now. Not only "reduced" identification but a total annihilation of anything considered dual. In, out, that, me, them, here, there, everything becomes meaningless. From "that" perspective, everything you think or you can think about the world, is wrong.

Now. Lets remember that this is a state of consciousness, nothing "supernatural". I have seen people asking advaita teachers, for example, about other lives (they reason that if you are "beyond time" then you can travel on it), or immaterial realities. All that is nonsense, and any advaita teacher who has reached "THAT" will bring them back to reality.

Volatile interpretations about Kant, (or everyone else's) are inconsequential to whatever he would have responded.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This is entirely oppositional to your prior claim that "there are no objects". For something to have objective qualities, it must be an object.

Volatile. I honestly don't know how to say this. MY CLAIMS HAVE NOT CHANGED A BIT. People have not read what I have stated, either claiming that the wording is "obscure" or by who knows what else.

If you can, please go back and read my OP, but I mean, really read it. Change "noumena" (the meaning you ascribe to that word is completely opposed to the meaning I give it) for "hidden", or "unknown".

I state it again. There are no objects around you, yet, your world is not THE REAL WORLD, it is a fantasy that your cognitive process create, it is your closed, phenomenal world, a world of appearances, of perceptions.

I hope this is it, and I have no longer to explain that my view have not changed a bit, and it is absolutely logical.

Then we are agreed: there are objects. In Kantian terms, there is something "that appears". What are these objects, then, if not material? How can they be objective if they do not exist prior to the subjective?

We have agreed in part (since the beginning but I'm happy it is clear now). You state that "there are objects" prior to perception. I state that there is something objective, independent of our phenomenal world, and that that something appears to our cognitive apparatus in the form of objects.

What "are they", I don't know and I believe the question is irrelevant, fascinating to an extent, but useless. What are they made for? even more useless! "They" are objective because our subjectivity does not affect them. Note how I use here the " ". Without us, why would it be any separation about reality?

Of the two choices, you picked materialism.

No. But it is clearly like it.

 

[Robin]

I really hope this is clear and you stop playing your strawmans!!!

Strawmans are bad aren't they. Good thing you would never engage in the tactic.

Which reminds me (for some reason) I could not find your response to my question:

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]

Which reminds me (for some reason) I could not find your response to my question:

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?

Sorry, I didn't read it. Well, I can only criticize naive materialists, and yes, there are some in the forums. I believe there is not a place where everyone goes to learn what it is.

I also believe that if I do a set of questions to 1000 materialists about what, exactly, they believe in, I will find about that number of different views regarding what it is and what it is not.

One can learn physics, mathematics, astronomy and etc but I have to point out that even in such well established fields the professionals often disagree in any number of subjects.

 

[Robin]

One can learn physics, mathematics, astronomy and etc but I have to point out that even in such well established fields the professionals often disagree in any number of subjects.

However if I were to state that astronomy was a flawed field because astronomers believe that the Sun orbit's the Earth you would be justified in asking which astronomers say that?

Now if you were to point out that modern astronomers don't think this and that no astronomer has thought that for centuries then I suppose I could retort "why should we believe astronomy at all since it is changing all the time?"

 

[PixyMisa]

Sorry, I didn't read it.

Doesn't surprise me.

Well, I can only criticize naive materialists, and yes, there are some in the forums.

You have no understanding of what materialism is, and yet you can differentiate between "naive" and, I assume, "sophisticated" versions?

I also believe that if I do a set of questions to 1000 materialists about what, exactly, they believe in, I will find about that number of different views regarding what it is and what it is not.

You can get the same result by asking one non-materialist.

One can learn physics, mathematics, astronomy and etc but I have to point out that even in such well established fields the professionals often disagree in any number of subjects.

Are you just now discovering that people are people?

 

[volatile]

I state it again. There are no objects around you

Then what gives rise to the phenomenal world? You claim it is something with objective qualities, but at the same time is not an object?

your world is not THE REAL WORLD, it is a fantasy that your cognitive process create, it is your closed, phenomenal world, a world of appearances, of perceptions.

Noone disputes this part of your "framework". No-one.

We have agreed in part (since the beginning but I'm happy it is clear now). You state that "there are objects" prior to perception.

I state that there is something objective, independent of our phenomenal world, and that that something appears to our cognitive apparatus in the form of objects.

The definition of "objective" is "something that is an object". The objective cannot, by definition, be logically prior to the object.

You have absolutely no quibble with materialism at all.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Sorry for the late response, busy days.

However if I were to state that astronomy was a flawed field because astronomers believe that the Sun orbit's the Earth you would be justified in asking which astronomers say that?

Such a different kind of question. I'm not misrepresenting "materialism" in another words, what I'm stating is that there can't be the same degree of consensus among astronomers and materialists. The first ones deal with solid data coming from observations, materialists deal with ideas and changing definitions. It is not the same to theorize about the world with 19 century physics and with 20th century physics.

If you choose to think that THE SAME THEORY is behind both theoretical approximations, well, thats your choice, clearly, new observations and new experimental data lead to revolutionary change of our basic ideas about the world.

Some of you argue that the theoretical framework is exactly the same, I believe it is not an improvement but a complete revision. And this is not matter of "being right or being wrong", it simply matter of interpretation, opinions.

Take for example the change between Newtonian and Einstenian explanations about what gravity is. Up to this day physisist talk about a "graviton" still undetected and the reason of heated debates.

We still use "materialism" for convenience, not because their postulates "are right" (not because it is intrinsically "true".

Now if you were to point out that modern astronomers don't think this and that no astronomer has thought that for centuries then I suppose I could retort "why should we believe astronomy at all since it is changing all the time?"

Again, astronomy is a different field, materialism is a way of thinking, not a research field, astronomy is science, materialism an approach to knowledge.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Doesn't surprise me.

You can stop that, you don't need it anymore. I explained to you in another post that I treated you like you treat most woos, and that it is not nice. So, can we stop the colorful "name calling" (either open or hidden) and discuss ideas?

You have no understanding of what materialism is, and yet you can differentiate between "naive" and, I assume, "sophisticated" versions?

What materialism "is" is in the head of a million individuals.

You can get the same result by asking one non-materialist.

Nope. If I ask 100 materialists what, exactly, they believe in, I believe I will receive 100 views about what materialism is and what it is not. In fact, it would be an interesting experiment.

All of us should THANK FOR THAT, otherwise, it would be a dogma, much a la religious one. Materialism should be a point of view from where you see things.

Now, as I have stated, part of my problem with some forms of materialism is that it is widely used as a ground to make absurd statements, but lets stop here.

Are you just now discovering that people are people?

Exactly!!!. And now that YOU write it, the way you were defending "materialism" seems a little radical, IMO, as if it was final and definitive.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Then what gives rise to the phenomenal world? You claim it is something with objective qualities, but at the same time is not an object?

Correct. And more than that, it is irrelevant. Our concepts belong to the phenomenal world. We hypothesize (and this happens for simple survival) the existence of objects as objects, but when you understand how perception works, and analyze what constitutes the world, it becomes obvious that what we see is a construction.

Noone disputes this part of your "framework". No-one.

Strange, because some posts were quite incisive in that I was talking nonsense.

The definition of "objective" is "something that is an object". The objective cannot, by definition, be logically prior to the object.

I use it to mean that "is something that have an actual existence or reality beyond observers" Another, possible better way to put it: "what is there independently of appearance".

You have absolutely no quibble with materialism at all.

So... what took us 15 pages of discussion???????

 

[Robin]

Sorry for the late response, busy days.



Such a different kind of question. I'm not misrepresenting "materialism" in another words, what I'm stating is that there can't be the same degree of consensus among astronomers and materialists. The first ones deal with solid data coming from observations, materialists deal with ideas and changing definitions. It is not the same to theorize about the world with 19 century physics and with 20th century physics.

If you choose to think that THE SAME THEORY is behind both theoretical approximations, well, thats your choice, clearly, new observations and new experimental data lead to revolutionary change of our basic ideas about the world.

Some of you argue that the theoretical framework is exactly the same, I believe it is not an improvement but a complete revision. And this is not matter of "being right or being wrong", it simply matter of interpretation, opinions.

Take for example the change between Newtonian and Einstenian explanations about what gravity is. Up to this day physisist talk about a "graviton" still undetected and the reason of heated debates.

We still use "materialism" for convenience, not because their postulates "are right" (not because it is intrinsically "true".

You seem to have assumed that the metaphysical position of Materialism depends somehow on the current state of physics. It doesn't.

 

[Nick227]

Nick I understand better now. Not only "reduced" identification but a total annihilation of anything considered dual. In, out, that, me, them, here, there, everything becomes meaningless. From "that" perspective, everything you think or you can think about the world, is wrong.

Now. Lets remember that this is a state of consciousness, nothing "supernatural". I have seen people asking advaita teachers, for example, about other lives (they reason that if you are "beyond time" then you can travel on it), or immaterial realities. All that is nonsense, and any advaita teacher who has reached "THAT" will bring them back to reality.

Volatile interpretations about Kant, (or everyone else's) are inconsequential to whatever he would have responded.

Hi BDZ,

I guess, with regard to the notion of past lives, an Advaitist would point out that they no more happened to "you" than this existing experience of being alive is happening to "you."

To me, non-dualism is what I consider a baseline state. Other states, such as objectivity, arise in it through mental construction, what the Advaitist would claim to be erroneous thinking.

It seems to me, from reading some of this dialogue that you are using evaluations drawn from the objective mindset and applying them to non-dualism. I'm not sure how valid this is. I mean, viewed objectively it might seem that causality exists, that one thing leads to another, yet to then apply this notion, created by a constructed mindset, to what is seen as some kind of absolute truth is tentative, imo.

Just because, experienced relatively, there seems to be causality does not actually, to my mind, imply that any such causality really exists, beyond this apparent experience of it. Thus I question Kant when he considers it absurd that things could have an appearance without anything that appears. I think that if you look closely you will see that this is precisely what is happening.

Nick