• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

There are no material objects

Twiler said:
Fine.

Why should I consider that there is anything but material entities when I see no evidence of anything that isn't a material entity?

How it is 'blind faith' to take a materialistic stand-point when considering the existence of non-material entities makes no difference to my actions?

What is the merit of considering the unknowable?
Click to expand...

Im still unsure about what you are talking about. Have you read the definition of "naive realism" in wikipedia? How does that position differs from yours?

You assume a particular entity before your eyes, you assume that such entity is something concrete, with determinate qualities, and you assume it exists beyond your own mind. Then you choose to call it a "material object", later you do experiments, to determine its weight, how it reflects electromagnetic waves and so on.

If I tell you that what you see is a butterfly dream, what changes? It will reflect EM and weight exactly the same. Its just its "final composition" what I claim is different. What changes? (other than obviously this imagined "final substance").
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Im still unsure about what you are talking about. Have you read the definition of "naive realism" in wikipedia? How does that position differs from yours?

You assume a particular entity before your eyes, you assume that such entity is something concrete, with determinate qualities, and you assume it exists beyond your own mind. Then you choose to call it a "material object", later you do experiments, to determine its weight, how it reflects electromagnetic waves and so on.

If I tell you that what you see is a butterfly dream, what changes? It will reflect EM and weight exactly the same. Its just its "final composition" what I claim is different. What changes? (other than obviously this imagined "final substance").
Click to expand...

I don't see what you mean by 'final substance'. Can you give a example of how something not made of a final substance would behave?
 
Twiler said:
There isn't one.
Click to expand...

Thats it. What it is, is. Now, please allow me to encourage you to read about scientific realism and how is different from materialism. My view can be called instrumentalism (there are more precise descriptions but are more complex), if you want to know more about it... of course.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Thats it. What it is, is. Now, please allow me to encourage you to read about scientific realism and how is different from materialism. My view can be called instrumentalism (there are more precise descriptions but are more complex), if you want to know more about it... of course.
Click to expand...

So your objection to materialism is that it refers to the stuff the universe is made of by a particular label rather than just as 'that stuff the universe is made of'?
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Err.. when the answer is evident, I tend to see hidden agendas... do you have one? He states that it is irrelevant to call reality as "made of matter" or "butterly dreams"... because, ontology is moot.
Click to expand...

Yup and I am a naturalist of some sort. It behaves like it is matter and energy, regardless of the ontology. I forget what flavor of naturalist I am specifically.

Materialism is just a place holder for the model of the current science. It sure acts like matter and energy.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Im still unsure about what you are talking about. Have you read the definition of "naive realism" in wikipedia? How does that position differs from yours?

You assume a particular entity before your eyes, you assume that such entity is something concrete, with determinate qualities, and you assume it exists beyond your own mind. Then you choose to call it a "material object", later you do experiments, to determine its weight, how it reflects electromagnetic waves and so on.

If I tell you that what you see is a butterfly dream, what changes? It will reflect EM and weight exactly the same. Its just its "final composition" what I claim is different. What changes? (other than obviously this imagined "final substance").
Click to expand...
And you can't show that it is a butterfly dreams, it acts like energy and matter.

Not only is ontology moot it is pointless.
 
Dancing David said:
Not only is ontology moot it is pointless.
Click to expand...

Exactly. IMO, it is somehow a remain from the philosophy of the Greeks, later adopted by the main western religions, and as such elevated to dogma in the minds of millions.

Eastern traditions does not share the same interest in talking about a "final essence or substance", and so are perfectly fine with world views without clear ontological postures. Taoism, for instance, or several variants of Buddhism, couldn't care less about an ontology, their views are that, "whatever it is" the so called universe, is beyond our wildest concepts...
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Exactly. IMO, it is somehow a remain from the philosophy of the Greeks, later adopted by the main western religions, and as such elevated to dogma in the minds of millions.

Eastern traditions does not share the same interest in talking about a "final essence or substance", and so are perfectly fine with world views without clear ontological postures. Taoism, for instance, or several variants of Buddhism, couldn't care less about an ontology, their views are that, "whatever it is" the so called universe, is beyond our wildest concepts...
Click to expand...

And yet it is the search for that "ultimate substance" that powers scientists today, and has brought us scientific advances beyond our wildest dreams.

On the other side of things, Buddhism is still just looking at stuff and saying "wow, isn't it wonderful", without knowing what is so wonderful.

As Douglas Adams so eloquently said; "I'd take the awe of knowing over the awe of ignorance any day".
 
Twiler said:
So your objection to materialism is that it refers to the stuff the universe is made of by a particular label rather than just as 'that stuff the universe is made of'?
Click to expand...

Sort of.

The idea is that all we can see are relationships amongst things following some set of rules. There is no way we can know what the 'substance' is. None of this matters when it comes to dealing with the world. Roll a die and see a 6 -- doesn't matter if the world is made of matter or thoughts in the mind of God or polka dot bears.

The most important issue is to realize that there is only one substance whatever you want to call it. And if there is only one substance then any discussion about it being matter or thought or whatever is pointless because all we can do is witness and test how it acts. We can't even define it properly.

ETA:

In other words, most philosophical discussion is a total waste of time. Or as Mercutio so eloquently put it: metaphysics is a pantload.
 
Last edited:
Ichneumonwasp said:
Sort of.

The idea is that all we can see are relationships amongst things following some set of rules. There is no way we can know what the 'substance' is. None of this matters when it comes to dealing with the world. Roll a die and see a 6 -- doesn't matter if the world is made of matter or thoughts in the mind of God or polka dot bears.

The most important issue is to realize that there is only one substance whatever you want to call it. And if there is only one substance then any discussion about it being matter or thought or whatever is pointless because all we can do is witness and test how it acts. We can't even define it properly.

ETA:

In other words, most philosophical discussion is a total waste of time. Or as Mercutio so eloquently put it: metaphysics is a pantload.
Click to expand...

Isn't matter just 'stuff that does stuff' anyway? Why can't the term be used to describe what the universe is made of?
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
And yet it is the search for that "ultimate substance" that powers scientists today, and has brought us scientific advances beyond our wildest dreams.

On the other side of things, Buddhism is still just looking at stuff and saying "wow, isn't it wonderful", without knowing what is so wonderful.

As Douglas Adams so eloquently said; "I'd take the awe of knowing over the awe of ignorance any day".
Click to expand...

Err.... :rolleyes: so... in order to do science, you need to born materialist and atheist... yeah... right.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Err.... :rolleyes: so... in order to do science, you need to born materialist and atheist... yeah... right.
Click to expand...

No, to be a scientist you should never be content with what you have, and always strive for more knowledge.

If buddhism is like you say it is, then I see no real incentive to look any further, hence no major advancements in science.

But that's just based on what I read in your posts, so I don't know how it pans out in the real world.
 
Twiler said:
Isn't matter just 'stuff that does stuff' anyway? Why can't the term be used to describe what the universe is made of?
Click to expand...



It can. I think the objection has more to do with the historical development of materialism and old views that opposed matter and mind or spirit.

I don't care what word anyone uses. I object to substance dualism and think the rest of the arguments aren't really worth engaging any longer.
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
No, to be a scientist you should never be content with what you have, and always strive for more knowledge.

If buddhism is like you say it is, then I see no real incentive to look any further, hence no major advancements in science.

But that's just based on what I read in your posts, so I don't know how it pans out in the real world.
Click to expand...

I'm curious about why you would see that in my posts! I'm as pro-science as the best (science loving) naive materialist you could think of. Would yo tell me that a Buddhist, or an Advaitin, or any other world view other than materialists, can't have that love for knowledge, for advancing things, for technology? You are fighting a straw man.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
It can. I think the objection has more to do with the historical development of materialism and old views that opposed matter and mind or spirit.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Now, another important point is that it is useless. All we need are theoretical models to effectively predict phenomena, it is not necessary, at all, to attempt to describe what it "is", after all, all we can have are systems of thought. And I believe the best we can hope is to hold that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules. Nothing more is needed. Claiming an ontology as "true" is, well... woo.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
I'm curious about why you would see that in my posts! I'm as pro-science as the best (science loving) naive materialist you could think of. Would yo tell me that a Buddhist, or an Advaitin, or any other world view other than materialists, can't have that love for knowledge, for advancing things, for technology? You are fighting a straw man.
Click to expand...

I am not in the least saying that you can't have a love for science.

I am saying that the stance quoted after this bit means that science is futile when it is concerned with the fundamental building blocks of existence:

Taoism, for instance, or several variants of Buddhism, couldn't care less about an ontology, their views are that, "whatever it is" the so called universe, is beyond our wildest concepts...
Click to expand...

Highlighted bit means that any research is pointless by definition, so why pursue science in the first place?

If I misunderstood, please say so, and clarify where I misunderstood you, so I don't just have to take a guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom