I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[punshhh]

Yes, but what does exist and real mean?

Well that is debatable within language and external to the human mind the realities just are the way they are, independent of meaning.

My meaning can simply be put as "to be", I am being me, the reality out there is being the way it is. Existence is a process resulting in something being real, coming to pass. Something has existence if it comes to pass.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, if the evidence suggests that we are a separate identity looking out through our eyeballs at a world of objects with independent existence, and we prefer that description, then yes, there is no reason to change.

No ifs or buts about it, and "prefer" was added by you.

 

[Dancing David]

The material world existed before conscious human and will exists after it. Idealism is a dead born philosophy "wanking" which leads to no new knowledge no new model no new laws. Materialism on the other hand... Lead us to where we are now.

Yeah I think I'll state that materialism is far more reasonable than the alternative : in fact we reason on it on regular basis to make model and projection.

All that idealism gave us is the brain-in-a-jar solipsistic philosophy more or less.

Just so you might understand, the idealist perspective is an ontology, that there is some universal mind that the universe came from and then it is also bizarre argument that we can only experience the world through mind.

That is what I have learned talking to idealists on this forum, that and they can't find a way to demonstrate how it is different then materialism...

 

[Dancing David]

too much of an adolescent understanding of Idealism for me to respond

Bravo, you are obviously here to explain your ideas so others can understand them, well done.

 

[Dancing David]

The accuracy of the impression is irrelevant. It happened and is still happening moment by moment. Rather like the idea that you have to actually be conscious to experience the illusion of consciousness. In order to know something the knower has to both exist and be real, Just what exists and is real is another question.

Ahh so admit it could be just an appearance of a knower and the known

"In order to know something the knower has to both exist and be real," is a huge assumption, remember that automata the p-zombie? It has exactly the same experience...

It thinks it is a knower and that it knows something...

 

[tsig]

The progress we have made in understanding how things in the world work together is based upon our ability to measure and quantify - which has nothing to do with whether the world exists in consciousness, or is independent of consciousness (material). Materialism and Idealism are descriptions or ways to represent reality - and if properly understood, are both compelling, perhaps in different applications. The question is: which of the two do you find more useful in describing your experience? It's possible that during the course of a lifetime or a single day, we might swing between the two descriptions.

Reality doesn't depend on our point of view.

 

[Dancing David]

It is funny to see the same patterns in pseudo-knowledge everywhere.

The pretentious silliness exposed by the idealists here is just staggering.

Now that really added to the discussion in meaningful way, I am just astounded by your ability to explain something.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Reality doesn't depend on our point of view.

Well, a part of reality depended on your point of view. Namely to take the point of view that reality doesn't depend on our point of view depended you thinking that thought and finding it useful. So this sentence "Reality doesn't depend on our point of view" is a result of you finding it useful and thus it depended on your point of view. Therefore we can conclude that this sentence is not a part of reality.

tsig, this form of a naive objective reality doesn't in practice work, but no matter what you choose to do as an answer to this post, it is something you do - it depends on your point of view.

 

[barehl]

Would you mind expounding on that? Not a challenge, rather a request for further argument.

Yes, I see the typo now. Let me correct that. I should have said that computational theory relies on external abstractions.

.... Basically, the die-hard Computational Theorists claim that Motivation, Inhibition, and Comprehension can be simulated however this rather misses the point. Cognitive theory requires general solutions based on broad abstraction. In contrast, cognitive computational theory relies on external abstraction protocols which have never had a general solution. So, can you create general solutions without adding yet another rule every time the computer makes a mistake? Computational theorists would like to say, yes. Based on what I know about Cognitive theory I would say this cannot be done within the framework of a Turing machine.

In computational theory you can always create a pattern that is linked to some action. So, no actual comprehension is required since the abstraction (the reason for the link) is external (put in by the programmer). All of these links are neutral since there is no comprehension. Some computational theorists try to get around this by adding another level, a pattern for the patterns. But this still leads you to an unending sequence of patterns to allow for each possibility.

Cognitive theory works differently from this. You have the assumption that abstraction primitives are internal which are then used to create general solutions.

 

[barehl]

It depends what you are thinking about. I have pointed out towards the begining of the thread that it is not possible for humanity from our position to determine the ontology we have. As such there is no way to prove materialism or idealism, or to distinguish what each scenario would be like if it were something which could exist,( Indeed the distinction between the two is a rather short sighted naivety).

Right, but that wasn't my position.

Abstraction of information has to have a basis. If you are talking about computation then the basis is external because it comes from the programmer. However, within an Idealistic framework there is no outside source. This means that in order to have any kind of Idealism you would have to explain the source of abstract. This is self-contradictory since a mind cannot create the basis of abstraction without comprehension and cannot comprehend without having the basis already in place. You would have to be arguing that a mind popped into existence with the basis already in place. However, that too is self-contradictory since you claim that reality doesn't exist without the mind.

This is not a contradiction with materialism. If you can think of some way to get around this problem, I'd like to hear it.

 

[tsig]

too much of an adolescent understanding of Idealism for me to respond

If you can't explain it to an adolescent then there's no hope for you when you encounter and adult.

 

[LarryS]

If you can't explain it to an adolescent then there's no hope for you when you encounter and adult.

I almost remember the exact day at age 12 when I realized there were no adults, certainly none in charge.

 

[LarryS]

Reality doesn't depend on our point of view.

perhaps, but we can choose different descriptions for the same reality, and materialism/ idealism are descriptions, they are a map and the map is not reality.

whether reality is different for different point of views is another topic. I find reality different between waking and dreaming.

 

[tsig]

perhaps, but we can choose different descriptions for the same reality, and materialism/ idealism are descriptions, they are a map and the map is not reality.

whether reality is different for different point of views is another topic. I find reality different between waking and dreaming.

Dreaming is not reality.

Take a ball, drop it, how does idealism describe the event?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Dreaming is not reality.

Take a ball, drop it, how does idealism describe the event?

So reality is nothing but dropping balls; i.e. gravity. Or if you like gravity is everything?

ETA: So is dreaming not a part of reality?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

So we have "But you can't prove everything isn't an illusion" and "But you can't prove that the giant invisible sky wizard didn't change the rules of reality" in a race for the biggest anti-intellectual copout.

Pretty much, so far. And neither of those are in any way anything remotely resembling any kind of serious challenge to materialism. They're more like Jester-type-of-Philosophical-Jokesy arguments. "Hahaaa... oohh, but what if I happen to have a giant Alligator behind that door, ready to come in and shoot you with his machine gun? Ahhh, don't laugh. It's not entirely impossible that it could be true! Maybe I'll call him now. Oooh, Giant Alligator! You can come out now!... Oh, wait.... Hold on. Maybe I'll give you one last chance to apologize before I call the Giant Alligator! Haaa hah ahahahaha!!"

 

[NutCracker]

Now that really added to the discussion in meaningful way, I am just astounded by your ability to explain something.

Errr.. the idealists here have yet to demonstrate there is something meaningful here to discuss to begin with. That's my point.

I just noted, dear Dancing David, that we see patterns of argumentation we see everywhere we pseudo-knowledge is promoted. Reversal of burden of proof being the latest example.

 

[doronshadmi]

I have doubts that you can measure and quantify from an idealistic framework. How would you define up or down or larger or smaller without material references?

Idealistic framework is the measuring aspect and materialist framework is the measured aspect.

Both of them are multiplicity that emerges from one neutral substance (which is not one_of_many substance) that is naturally not limited to any one of its multiple aspects or all of them together (it is not limited by its expressions whether they are ideal or material).

By this neutral monist view, multiplicity can be developed into an anti-entropic harmonious realm, and the main goal of Science is to develop such possibility.

 

[abaddon]

Idealistic framework is the measuring aspect and materialist framework is the measured aspect.

Both of them are multiplicity that emerges from one neutral substance (which is not one_of_many substance) that is naturally not limited to any one of its multiple aspects or all of them together (it is not limited by its expressions whether they are ideal or material).

By this neutral monist view, multiplicity can be developed into an anti-entropic harmonious realm, and the main goal of Science is to develop such possibility.

My hovercraft is full of eels.

 

[wea]

My hovercraft is full of eels.

makes sense to me