A question for scientists: Primary and Secondary qualities

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Ian

The fundamental, upprovable axiom of materialism (and dualism) is that an objective, physical, world exists.

The problem with dualism is that if anything is causally effective or affective with that assumed "objective physical world", it too must be physical.

This is what Stimp says. But it's not very helpful because then we would have this physical thing called consciousness which is characteristically unlike all other existents ie this first person perspective which cannot be known from the third person perspective. We are then faced with all the difficulties of materialism. Why not just be explicit and admit the difference and just call it interactive dualism?

 

[hammegk]

Re: Re: Ian

We are then faced with all the difficulties of materialism. Why not just be explicit and admit the difference and just call it interactive dualism?

Or do what others have done and conclude Idealism=Mind is the best-defensible, logical, choice.

Conversely, pretend ontological questions are "meaningless" & proclaim yourself a "naturalist".

 

[Interesting Ian]

Your ideas about souls, consciousness, and reincarnation all seem heavily dependent on standard materialist assumptions regarding locality and temporality. In the 'afterlife realm' you claim exists, you tacitly assume the applicability of concepts such as now (versus then) and here (versus there). All of your notions about this afterlife are framed in such terms -- yet these concepts are meaningful only within the context of a physical world (the existence of which, as hammegk has just pointed out, is a materialist axiom).

These are not materialist assumptions. Why do you imagine they are? On the contrary, time and space only exist and make sense because of consciousness. Each one of us experiences a particular time going to the future and a particular location. At least while embodied.

BTW, when you say the alleged physical world is an axiom, does that mean that materialism is a faith since no attempt is made to justify this axiom?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Boy, am I ever -- in fact, over and over, it would seem.

In the same breath with which it defines itself as a phenomenon independent of physical reality, dualism renders itself incapable of being interactive. Interactive Dualism is prima facie self-contradictory; it's an oxymoron.

Well I've just addressed this point in my response to Hammegk

 

[Dancing David]

Or, better yet, cover our ears and shout Nah Nah Nah I Can't Hear You.

Or cover your eye and say "Where did hamme go?"

 

[Mercutio]

Just as an aside...this thread is only the second in forum history (at least, as available to check) to surpass 2000 replies. The other is, of course, the thread that will not die. In fact, only 10 threads have hit 1000.

...and what have we settled?

 

[Titus Rivas]

I rest my case

Again, I've nothing to add as long as you don't accept that physicalism is nonsense . I rest my case.

Goodbye

Titus

 

[Interesting Ian]

Just as an aside...this thread is only the second in forum history (at least, as available to check) to surpass 2000 replies. The other is, of course, the thread that will not die. In fact, only 10 threads have hit 1000.

...and what have we settled?

Is the thread that will not die as interesting as this one? I've never looked at it.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

These are not materialist assumptions.

Not directly. But there are materialist assumptions underneath them; they derive their meanings from the assumption of the existence of a physical world.

BTW, when you say the alleged physical world is an axiom, does that mean that materialism is a faith since no attempt is made to justify this axiom?

Yes, I'll conceed that.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammy said:

Or, better yet, cover our ears and shout Nah Nah Nah I Can't Hear You.

Happy to listen to any proposal you might have. However, if it is decorated with *I* and *you*, please explain what those really mean. I suspect your explanation will involve some ontological shenanigans that most will agree are incomprehensible.

The more I listen, the more ontology is incoherent.

~~ Paul

 

[Mercutio]

Is the thread that will not die as interesting as this one? I've never looked at it.

I must say I prefer this one. Although, with TTTWND being essentially a random string, there are times when it is difficult to tell the two apart.

 

[ceptimus]

I've posted to both this thread and TTTWND. Both are interesting in their own way. One poster has made over 1000 posts, just in that one thread.

 

[slimshady2357]

Re: I rest my case

Again, I've nothing to add as long as you don't accept that physicalism is nonsense. I rest my case.

Goodbye

Titus

You've said something like this a number of times, and just like the cat in the story, you've always come back

I don't accept physicalism is nonsense anymore than I accept dualism is nonsense.

And yet there are people telling me both are nonsense... I just don't listen I guess

Adam

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: I rest my case

You've said something like this a number of times, and just like the cat in the story, you've always come back

Dunno, he sounds quite pissed off to me. Funny how different things piss off different people. I'm well accustomed to skeptics frothing at the lips at the mere mention of reincarnation. I mean they seem to do it more so than say at the idea of the concept of heaven. I think that's because reincarnation is alien to the western way of thinking, even for those who believe in life after death. Our beliefs are molded to a large extent by ones cultural background.

I don't accept physicalism is nonsense anymore than I accept is dualism is nonsense.

And yet there are people telling me both are nonsense... I just don't listen I guess

Adam

No you don't.

Allow me to say it again.

They are both nonsense!!

 

[ceptimus]

From Erewhon by Samuel Butler. 1871

There is no security against the ultimate development of mechanical consciousness, in the fact of machines possessing little consciousness now. A mollusc has not much consciousness. Reflect upon the extraordinary advance which machines have made during the last few hundred years, and note how slowly the animal and vegetable kingdoms are advancing.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Titus said:

Again, I've nothing to add as long as you don't accept that physicalism is nonsense. I rest my case.

Sweet Jesus on a pogostick! Why didn't you just say that at the beginning and we could have skipped all this?

Toodles.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:

BTW, when you say the alleged physical world is an axiom, does that mean that materialism is a faith since no attempt is made to justify this axiom?

Are you suggesting by this question that there is some metaphysic that requires no axioms?

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian said:
Are you suggesting by this question that there is some metaphysic that requires no axioms?

~~ Paul

What axioms does my metaphysic require?

 

[Mercutio]

What axioms does my metaphysic require?

I may not be up to speed on my philosophical terms, but I think you take as axiomatic that mental entities exist. (by this I mean thoughts, feelings, qualia, not necessarily the things you eventually build up to)

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Titus RIvas

Goodbye

Titus, I would like to acknowledge the high standard to which you have held your contributions to this discussion. You have defended your position patiently, energetically, thoroughly, and eloquently. You must be fairly well exhausted. Though I cannot honor your efforts by becoming a convert to your position, I will continue to give further thought to some of the things you have said.

Thanks for playing!