For IchneumanWasp, Geoff's neutral monism clarified.

[Darat]

Darat,

I can't put you on ignore, but I'm not going to continue with this.

Whenever I am in a debate with you, and you have run out of constructive things to say, you make a post like that one. Your last roll of the dice is to bring out those claims at the bottom of the page - in a naked attempt to undermine my credibility in the eyes of newbies. WHAT HAS IT GOT TO DO WITH THIS THREAD? Nothing.

You are like scribble. What is the point in you existing? None, as far as I can see. You're like a mosquito.

Sorry, but that's how you seem to me. small-minded, with a small "s".

Geoff.

As I explained it is because of your dishonesty in debates that I make "these" types of posts. These could be very interesting debates and discussions but you try to conceal your true beliefs from people whilst still trying to argue for them.

That your past posts embarrass you or perhaps reveal things your would rather people not know about is unfortunate for you but it would be wrong for me to say "you are being dishonest" without supporting that statement.

And I do think it is OK to inform "newbies" that they are wasting their time in discussing (for example) "symmetry maths" with you since you are not concerned about the flaws in it and will just say "it's not important" once they have gone to the trouble to find out it is a load of rubbish (especially in terms of supporting your arguments). Why shouldn't I try to save people some pointless effort?

Out of curiosity why do you bring up time and time again "evidence" that in the end you will just say "it's not important that it is flawed"?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And I do think it is OK to inform "newbies" that they are wasting their time in discussing (for example) "symmetry maths" with you....

In other words you are trying to stifle open debate. Yes, Darat, that is precisely what you are doing. As a moderator, you should know better.

I hope you'll understand why I do not want to continue talking to a person with your rather mean-minded and unimaginative agenda. Your tactic risks filling this thread up with drivel and bickering, and I'm not going to co-operate.

 

[Darat]

In other words you are trying to stifle open debate. Yes, Darat, that is precisely what you are doing. As a moderator, you should know better.

(All my posts here have been as a Member - please don't confuse the two.)

I am not trying to stifle any debate - all I am trying to do is ensure that the debate is honest. What you are actually doing is trying to disguise your preaching, your evangelism to make it look like a debate. Which of course you are perfectly entitled to do so, just as I am perfectly entitled to point out that this is what you are doing.

I am curious - have you ever entered into one of these threads or started one with an open mind?

I hope you'll understand why I do not want to continue talking to a person with your rather mean-minded and unimaginative agenda.

You are free to respond (or not) to whoever you want for whatever reason, just as I am.

 

[hammegk]

Then you agree that math has no ontological consequences.

Use of math is independent of ontology. Is math itself?

 

[drkitten]

Use of math is independent of ontology.

I'm glad that you agree and have no further relevant questions.

 

[drkitten]

I Your tactic risks filling this thread up with drivel

Goodness, gracious me -- that will be such a change.

 

[hammegk]

I'm glad that you agree and have no further relevant questions.

It doesn't surprize me that you failed to see the relevance of my question that you chose not to answer.

 

[scribble]

It doesn't matter

Geoff the Undercover Elephant has put us through all this before.

It hardly matters... according ot him, we've got six years left.

2012 ... then it all changes.

Hey, Geoff, you ever sort out those copyright infringement issues with God?

 

[hammegk]

Took you long enough to show up. Been busy?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Took you long enough to show up. Been busy?

 

[Complexity]

Why'd you bother making that post then?

It's like "You're wrong. You haven't thought about. I can;t be bothered to explain why. Bye."

Whoopie Doo! What a clever boy!

I'm just expressing some contempt before I ignore you.

It felt good.

Good riddance.

 

[Q-Source]

Darat, are you supposed to be a moderator?

Nothingness is the abscence of Being. Everythingness is the totality of Being. So we have replaced a Zero as not-being with a Zero as Being.

I must admit that your theories are difficult to grasp. Why do you equal zero to everything when in fact we know that zero equals nothingness?. Wouldn´t it be more convenient to refer to this substance as "everything" or symmetry instead of "zero entity"?.
Are you familiar with Spinoza´s substance?. It seems that you are refering to the same thing that he describes.

Minds are tightly bound to brains, but they aren't "brain processes". They are the relationship between brain processes and the newly defined Zero.

I don´t see how the mind-body problem disappears.
Instead of solving the problem I see that you just introduce an interaction between brain processes and this neutral entity. How does this interaction happen?.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Darat, are you supposed to be a moderator?

Incredible, isn't it? He's harmless really. Pointless, but harmless (mostly).

I must admit that your theories are difficult to grasp. Why do you equal zero to everything when in fact we know that zero equals nothingness?

But we don't! It seems obvious that zero equals nothingness, but we don't really know what we mean by "nothingness". There's no such thing. Nothingness has never existed and never will exist, otherwise there would be nothing now.

Wouldn´t it be more convenient to refer to this substance as "everything" or symmetry instead of "zero entity"?

It might be more convenient to refer to it as Being, but I am trying to stress the critical important of the relationship between Being and nothing. Partly I am doing this because I want to reach out to atheists (and even materialists) instead of just people who would be likeley to accept that "Being" is the root of everything. The atheists would likely say "where did this Being come from?" By refering to it as nothing, which is, I believe, perfectly legitimate, I hopefully avoid them asking that question. Jean-Paul Sartre was the person who most clearly stated that the root of all Being was absolute nothingness, and Sartre was most definately an atheist.

I'm trying to be neutral.

Are you familiar with Spinoza´s substance?. It seems that you are refering to the same thing that he describes.

My position isn't the same as that of Spinoza, but it's directly descended from it. There are many things in common. So, sort of. But not exactly.

I don´t see how the mind-body problem disappears.
Instead of solving the problem I see that you just introduce an interaction between brain processes and this neutral entity. How does this interaction happen?.

The notion of "interaction" is unhelpful. I've already stated that I am neutral towards naturalism and non-naturalism where I have defined the difference as the presence or abscence of non-empirical forms of causality. If you assume naturalism then there is no interaction apart from those interactions already describable by empirical science. In this case what I am calling "zero" is passive. It's like a screen - acted upon rather than an actor. Such a position is obviously compatible with determinism rather than libertarian indeterminism. If you allow for other forms of causality, such as libertarian free will then you may have to explain some sort of "interaction". The most obvious way of doing this is an appeal to QM, where the "interaction" takes the form of loading of the quantum dice. In other words, the laws of physics can be respected because QM allows for events which are, from an empirical point of view, random or non-determined (probabalistic). The interaction would have the effect of making these events not actually random but determined by a form of causality which was not empirical. There would be no way to empirically verify that this was happening, but it is possible to specify how it could happen.

 

[Darat]

Darat, are you supposed to be a moderator?

...snip...

Strictly speaking no - I am one of the Administrators but I am part of the Moderating Team - why do you ask?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm sorry, but this Zero thing is way too reductionistic for me.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm sorry, but this Zero thing is way to reductionistic for me.

~~ Paul

Well, unless you want to be a dualist, some sort of reduction is going to have to take place. So you have to choose again. What's more it is going to be either a lop-sided reduction which ends up marginalising either mind or matter, or it's going to be a symmetrical reduction which allows them equal status. Also, my reduction leaves you with precisely nothing (or Being itself, but without anything to be). The others leave you trying to explain "where the matter comes from" or "where mind comes from".

 

[cyborg]

THERE IS NO MIND INDEPENDENT OF MATTER!

Christ! There's nothing to explain there! It's an abstraction for the workings of the brain! Gunderscored damn!

 

[Darat]

THERE IS NO MIND INDEPENDENT OF MATTER!

Christ! There's nothing to explain there! It's an abstraction for the workings of the brain! Gunderscored damn!

Maybe you should try asking what evidence there is for holding a contrary belief?

 

[cyborg]

I could but I've already hashed this over so many times in the other thread without getting anything close to a satisfactory response.

Sledgehammer time.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

THERE IS NO MIND INDEPENDENT OF MATTER!

Christ! There's nothing to explain there! It's an abstraction for the workings of the brain! Gunderscored damn!

Well, given that your attempt to defend this position ended up being a grand tour of just about every metaphysical position under the sun........

You not only don't understand your own position, you don't even know what your own position is, cyborg. Apart from armwaving, that is