I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[doronshadmi]

Ah. Doron is back. Wonderful. Allow me.

There are no coherent definitions for anything he says. He jumbles together the basic tenets of neutral monism, which is incoherent and undefined already, with some nonsensical terms like "Unity", which are never given even the barest semblance of a definition. He does, however, spend an awful lot of time trying to make binary trees and posting pretty pictures to arbitrarily crowbar these terms into; the most memorable attempt thus far has been creating a binary tree of ones and zeroes, then placing "Unity" at the root, "tautology" at 1111, and "contradiction" at 0000, then acting as if he had proven something.

He is so far into gibberish that his words have no coherent meaning even to himself. He just likes to dress that up behind pseudomathematics, because this leaves him the option of claiming that you simply don't understand it.

It's the same word games punshhh plays, but taken to the extreme.

Too many words in order to say that you exclude actual simplicity as the substance of multiplicity.

 

[doronshadmi]

Why does that have to do with diversity? What do you mean by diversity?

I mean that no phenomenon blocks the progression of another phenomenon because they are organs of a one realm that is naturally derived from a simple substance.

If something is in harmony with something else, is diversity affected?

What do you think?

 

[Nonpareil]

Too many words in order to say that you exclude actual simplicity as the substance of multiplicity.

"A slavish concern for the composition of words is the sign of a bankrupt intellect. Begone, odious wasp! You smell of decayed syllables."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth

 

[doronshadmi]

'Common substance' is broken down into specific forces and particle families, energy and matter.

And what if 'Common substance' is still one simplicity as the actual substance of multiplicity, which is naturally expressed from and returns to it?

Humor is the spice of life.

As long as you first choose life.

Who cares what the answers are if we are not having fun? I aspire to the highest forms of good-natured laughter known to mankind; without that, the rest of life sucks pretty much bigtime.

If life is without compassion and love, just fun can be used in order to create a living hell.

Or didn't anyone tell you an irony-poor diet is bad for you?

Did anyone tell you a glass_half_full_optimistic-poor diet is bad for you?

 

[doronshadmi]

"A slavish concern for the composition of words is the sign of a bankrupt intellect.

That's why simplicity is characterized by silence.

 

[Nonpareil]

That's why simplicity is characterized by silence.

And gibberish is characterized by excessive_use_of_the_underscore. What's your point?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

And what if 'Common substance' is still one simplicity as the actual substance of multiplicity, which is naturally expressed from and returns to it?

Been there. I think I'll give this a break.

 

[dlorde]

What do you mean exactly by "empirically based"?

Fact and peer-review based.

Yes; A.J. Ayer said the the analytic statements of logic and pure mathematics are, in essence, tautologous, because they're true by definition. [Language Truth & Logic]

More generally, do you think that life phenomena can be developed into an harmonious factor among the evolution of the observed reality?

I have no idea what that sentence means.

I think he means, "Can we make the world a better place?" - or more simply, "Can we be nice?"

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Yes; A.J. Ayer said the the analytic statements of logic and pure mathematics are, in essence, tautologous, because they're true by definition. [Language Truth & Logic]

Depending on the math skills and logic chops, yeah. This is when I am sadly reminded of the stark difference between dreamt of competence and actual performance.... Think I'll take a nap.

ETA: BTW, my foundational tautology is 'it is.' Now, from an information theory point of view (I am practicing these days), suppose for a moment we think of this (unoriginal) ontological statement as a message without a sender of sorts. Knowing nothing else, the potential amount of information in the signal is infinite, then reduced as we discover bits; i.e, do science. My current word salad, but was reminded of it since you brought up tautologies.

Apart from any other deficiencies, I detest the idea of infinity in general, since I do not understand it, but the little I do would indicate it could never be meaningfully reduced. So, more word salad. Would you like a glass of wine to go with that?

 

[doronshadmi]

Been there.

Where and when, exactly?

Is it your

I have no idea what meanings you are attaching to the terms here.

reply?

I think I'll give this a break.

Do you mean that

'Common substance' is broken down ...

is your axiomatic view of natural world?

I think the best description of the basics of the natural world is provided by the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

Do you mean that it is currently the best description, or it is axiomatically the best description?

Also you ignored the rest of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10539929&postcount=218 ?

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes; A.J. Ayer said the the analytic statements of logic and pure mathematics are, in essence, tautologous, because they're true by definition. [Language Truth & Logic]


I think he means, "Can we make the world a better place?" - or more simply, "Can we be nice?"

Can we survive the power of our abilities (where our abilities are not limited to the lifetime of each one of us or to the observation and action of our biological bodies)?

 

[doronshadmi]

And gibberish is characterized by excessive_use_of_the_underscore. What's your point?

Actual simplicity in itself does not need any kind of expression (underscores, etc.)

The current state is that you are still missing http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10440785&postcount=1481 as can be seen, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10439351&postcount=1449.

 

[Nonpareil]

I'm still waiting on my dressing. As it is, I could get anything you're trying to say out of a re-read of Lord of Light, by Roger Zelazny, and that comes with the added bonus of the person saying it knowing it's bunk, and also the Buddha throwing lightning bolts at Brahma.

You're going to have to spice it up a bit if you want to keep your customers.

 

[doronshadmi]

I'm still waiting on my dressing.

It is a self-service restaurant.

 

[realpaladin]

Ha! Doron! Besides being snide and snarky, got any substance yet?

No?

Why not?

Because nothing you claim holds?

Doron Shadmi... soooo many words... soooo little results...

 

[Nonpareil]

It is a self-service restaurant.

A set of empty trays on a countertop with a sign reading "BUFFIT" set above is not a restaurant.

It's all well and good to say you want people to work things out for themselves, but you have to show that there is something to be worked out first. Making up terms, failing to define them in any way, making improper use of mathematics and computer science, then telling the listeners that they are at fault is just a waste of time for everyone involved.

 

[MRC_Hans]

And who exactly decides about such an evidence?

Well, let's decide, should some evidence show up.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mmm, let's see....

The common definition is based on observation. As such it is descriptive of the human experience of it. This is fine, but does not explain how it comes to be, or how it can, if generated scientifically by experiment, be distinguished from the mere appearance of consciousness, by observation.

How can anything be distinguished, if observations are identical?

This self awareness must be experienced to be known. Presumably for self-awareness to be self-aware, it must be known. This requires the experience of knowing something and the experience of knowing one's self, as distinct from everything else.

Is this useful in any way?

They can't care, or know.

So is this a new addition to your definitions of consciousness? That the entity must care and know? How will you show that this applies to, say, sponges, which you previously claimed to have consciousness?

Do you have a point, at all?

Hans

 

[doronshadmi]

It's all well and good to say you want people to work things out for themselves,

You are still missing the exact meaning of the term self-service, it starts by directly being aware of the simple undivided one non-particular (and therefore neutral) substance of all possible particular multiple phenomena.

Your current self-service actually excludes the simple undivided one non-particular (and therefore neutral) substance, by arbitrarily being limited only to its multiple particular expressions.

Your

the most memorable attempt thus far has been creating a binary tree of ones and zeroes, then placing "Unity" at the root, "tautology" at 1111, and "contradiction" at 0000, then acting as if he had proven something.

clearly demonstrates my argument, in this example you arbitrarily exclude the simple undivided one non-particular (and therefore neutral) (named as "Unity", but names do not matter since the neutral naturally can't be detected in terms of the particular) as the natural substance of tautology and contradiction (which are particular expressions of multiplicity).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10420769&postcount=1041 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10421393&postcount=1049 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10381545&postcount=645 are currently not in your scope.

----------------------------------------

Generally, all the posters here are invited to air their view of why the simple undivided one non-particular (and therefore neutral) can't be the substance of multiple particular phenomena?

By doing so please do not ignore the fact that modern physics scientifically considers the four forces of nature as expressions of a one substance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything).

 

[doronshadmi]

Well, let's decide, should some evidence show up.

Why, because we decide so?