I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[punshhh]

Evolutionist offers evidence for evolution. Creationist is unhappy with the evidence. What has creationist to offer in terms of evidence? Zilch, nada.

materialist offers working definition of 'up' and ' down'. Very sketchy I admit, but I think the point is clear, We all have a consistent notion of what is up and what is down. It works. It allows Boeing to build aircraft that can fly and touch down safely. It allows skyscrapers to be built, and those that lay skyscrapers' foundations to do there work. etc. Idealist is unhappy with the quality of the definition. What has idealist has to offer in terms of defining 'up' and 'down'? Nothing. That's what I mean.. traits.. pseudo-knowledge. Thanks for the data-point! (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

But the mind constructs a mental world of concepts in which we dwell already. Up and down are concepts in that world. The fact that there is a material world out there with gravity is besides the point. Although it is interacting with the outside world which enables each human to develop that world of mind.

Now, be the first one here to explain idealism in a coherent fashion. Explain how it is better and in what way to materialism. Thus far I've seen nothing but word soup that makes the phrase 'idealism is an incoherent position' an error of category. Until such time I'm sticking with my working hypothesis that I alluded to in my parody a page or so back: that idealism is nothing but a bold assertion cloaked in phraseology that is designed to make it sound profound.

Its quite simple, it's the way you interpret it that is causing the confusion.
Here it is:

Mind* is our primary means of experience, as such all else is uncertain. Perhaps mind is the reality and all else is peripheral, distortion, illusory, reflection of mind.

Rationally, or logically this fact* cannot be denied and must be considered a possibility for any system of philosophy to be comprehensive.

(Funny.. I'm having a deja-vu of directing a similar paragraph at 9/11 truthers).

As I said, it's your interpretation which is resulting in the confusion.


*By mind I am referring to the personal experience of existing/being. This experience is our only window, lens, means, of both knowing that we are alive and that the physical world exists. Without this mind, there is nothing whatsoever.

 

[NutCracker]

way you interpret it that is causing the confusion.
Here it is:

Mind* is our primary means of experience, as such all else is uncertain. Perhaps mind is the reality and all else is peripheral, distortion, illusory, reflection of mind.

Perhaps there's a dragon in the room next door. 'Perhaps X is true' is a true statement for any proposition X. You would impress me if could provide some proof your brand of X is actually a true statement.

Reality behaves consistently and independent from me, unlike my ideas. I can change my ideas at will when I don't like them. I have to collect paint and do hard work when I want to to change the colour of my garage door.

Turtles all the way down all over again. Shall we save a step?

It seems to me idealism is self defeating. Words lose there meaning, if I understand you correctly. How then can any phrase expressed within idealism be meaningful? How can any attempt within idealism to articulate itself be meaningful? I'm particularly interested the meaning of the words 'true' and ' false' and the phrases 'idealism is true' and 'idealism is false' within idealism.

 

[NutCracker]

Hi,
That is language not materialism.

That may or may not be be right. The point is that reality gives meaning to these words. It works. Even without a working definition. It is consistent. Mountaineers, vertigo therapists, and Boeing engineers agree on it, as far as I can see.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I have to admit that this could be one of the funniest statements that I have seen. Are you seriously asking for an abstract term that is comprehensible by a human but is independent of human comprehension?

You have never been much around reductive/eliminative physicalists, have you?

While I am not a dualist/idealist/theist, there are in practice some limitations to how far we can "torture" everything is physical Funny or not

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

That may or may not be be right. The point is that reality gives meaning to these words. It works. Even without a working definition. It is consistent. Mountaineers, vertigo therapists, and Boeing engineers agree on it, as far as I can see.

For which we can now consider if the strong dichotomy between materialism and idealism may have in practice some "cracks", which can not be explained if we only focus on metaphysics.

 

[punshhh]

Perhaps there's a dragon in the room next door. 'Perhaps X is true' is a true statement for any proposition X. You would impress me if could provide some proof your brand of X is actually a true statement.

This is besides the point. I said our primary experience is our mind. This is irrefutable. Do you understand? Can you give me an alternative?

Reality behaves consistently and independent from me, unlike my ideas. I can change my ideas at will when I don't like them. I have to collect paint and do hard work when I want to to change the colour of my garage door.

This is a common misunderstanding of idealism. It is not about our personal mind generating our physical world. It is about the nature of reality.

Turtles all the way down all over again. Shall we save a step?

Its turtles all the way down with materialism aswell. In fact materialism appears to be mute on the issue.

It seems to me idealism is self defeating. Words lose there meaning, if I understand you correctly. How then can any phrase expressed within idealism be meaningful? How can any attempt within idealism to articulate itself be meaningful? I'm particularly interested the meaning of the words 'true' and ' false' and the phrases 'idealism is true' and 'idealism is false' within idealism.

I suggest you look up idealism on wiki and familiarise yourself with the idea, because you don't appear to have much understanding of what you are criticising.

 

[MRC_Hans]

But the mind constructs a mental world of concepts in which we dwell already.

No. We dwell in an actual, material world, and our mind constructs concepts to describe that world.

Up and down are concepts in that world. The fact that there is a material world out there with gravity is besides the point.

No. Why should we have the concept of up and down if we did not live in a world with gravity?

- Imagine a life-form that exists in deep space (never mind how): Do you think it will have concepts like up and down?

Although it is interacting with the outside world which enables each human to develop that world of mind.

You just contradicted your previous claims.

Hans

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, if there is an idealistic ontology for example.
No it doesn't have experience and it doesn't know anything. However it does store data and process that data in an equivalent way to how a human does, with the same behavioural outcome. It is entirely devoid of consciousness.

I still have not been given an explanation of why an automata can not in theory emulate all the processing of the brain in the absence of consciousness.

I don't think you will do more than special pleading.

 

[Dancing David]

But the mind constructs a mental world of concepts in which we dwell already. Up and down are concepts in that world.

The processes by which the brain creates perceptions and thoughts is partly established.

What evidence is there for this mind?

 

[Dancing David]

That may or may not be be right. The point is that reality gives meaning to these words. It works. Even without a working definition. It is consistent. Mountaineers, vertigo therapists, and Boeing engineers agree on it, as far as I can see.

language is an idiomatic self referencing set of symbol exchanges , it is not reality. It needs reference to reality for communicants to agree.

The definition of up and down requires gravitation or the appearance of a fixed direction in which objects fall. (See what I mean about idiomatic and self referencing with referral to external referents)

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I challenge you all to demonstrate that this rock I hold in my hold does not keep tigers away. There are, after all, no tigers in the vicinity. So there.

 

[LarryS]

I challenge you all to demonstrate that this rock I hold in my hold does not keep tigers away. There are, after all, no tigers in the vicinity. So there.

Having a rock in one's hand is effective at keeping many wary creatures away.

 

[JoeMorgue]

In fact materialism appears to be mute on the issue.

If by "Mute" you mean "Doesn't fill in gaps (both real and imaginary) with pompous word salad nonsense" then sure.

Philosophy, making up questions that don't make sense and than patting itself on the back for giving answers that don't make sense.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

language is an idiomatic self referencing set of symbol exchanges , it is not reality. It needs reference to reality for communicants to agree.

The definition of up and down requires gravitation or the appearance of a fixed direction in which objects fall. (See what I mean about idiomatic and self referencing with referral to external referents)

What is reality?
If language is not reality, then where does language take place?
You seem to imply a sort of dualism; reality and not reality?

 

[annnnoid]

What is reality?
If language is not reality, then where does language take place?
You seem to imply a sort of dualism; reality and not reality?

Careful who you’re accusing of being a dualist Mr. Jeppensen. It may look like a duck, it may sound like a duck, it may walk like a duck, and it may smell like a duck, but it sure isn’t a duck (...or doth I protest too much?)!

Funny isn’t it....how academics so easily come to believe their own gibberish. Language doesn’t actually take place (…I wonder how many degrees are required to understand such nonsense [one too many I’d say]?). The reason being that for language to actually take place implies that language (aka: meaning) occurs as some variety of discreet reality (…..gasp!).

…and we all know that simply cannot be in a materialistic universe.

…but hang on…doesn’t this very forum depend for its existence on the ‘reality’ of language.

Thus…we may witness the amusing spectacle of language being used to establish that there is no such thing as language?!?!??!? The absurdity of skeptic thought never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Careful who you’re accusing of being a dualist Mr. Jeppensen. It may look like a duck, it may sound like a duck, it may walk like a duck, and it may smell like a duck, but it sure isn’t a duck (...or doth I protest too much?)!

Funny isn’t it....how academics so easily come to believe their own gibberish. Language doesn’t actually take place (…I wonder how many degrees are required to understand such nonsense [one too many I’d say]?). The reason being that for language to actually take place implies that language (aka: meaning) occurs as some variety of discreet reality (…..gasp!).

…and we all know that simply cannot be in a materialistic universe.

…but hang on…doesn’t this very forum depend for its existence on the ‘reality’ of language.

Thus…we may witness the amusing spectacle of language being used to establish that there is no such thing as language?!?!??!? The absurdity of skeptic thought never ceases to amaze me.

You got a point.
I will try again:
"What is reality?
If language is not reality, then where does language take place?
You seem to imply a sort of dualism; reality and not reality?"

"What is reality?
If language is not a part of reality, then where does language take place?
You seem to imply a sort of dualism; reality and not reality?"

I.e. we have models of reality, but the map can never be the landscape. A stupid question is then, where is the map?

 

[annnnoid]

You got a point.
I will try again:
"What is reality?
If language is not reality, then where does language take place?
You seem to imply a sort of dualism; reality and not reality?"

"What is reality?
If language is not a part of reality, then where does language take place?
You seem to imply a sort of dualism; reality and not reality?"

I.e. we have models of reality, but the map can never be the landscape. A stupid question is then, where is the map?

In the Matrix when an event duplicated itself the occupants recognized it as a sign of an anomaly. Just sayin.

It was more a comment on DD's point (or lack thereof). Where does reality end and imagination begin? Can we yet say with any certainty that even dreams do not comprise some variety of reality? Absolutely not... for we have not the slightest capacity to directly adjudicate the phenomenon we call consciousness. For all we know a dream may be a portal to another variety of existential condition (for all we know)!

How little we know... yet how much we imagine we do (what's up with that????). But if we imagine we know something...and imagination is not a real thing... then knowing itself must be some variety of illusion...which renders this very statement meaningless;;;; oooooh, my brain hurts!.

Conclusion: insisting that 'language' is not 'reality' is (and regrettably I am forced to use the only means currently available...a word) incoherent.

I suspect DD was simply being hasty and has not read the most recent Iron Man comic wherein Iron Man confronts the nefariously duplicitous Dr. Philosophico and is rendered impotent by the utter impenetrability of the Dr.'s confounding matrix of meaning (blibber blabber blibber blabber blib).

...impotent, that is, until Iron Man realizes that realization itself has the capacity to undermine the phenomenological foundation of Dr. Philosophico's vast pantheon or power (there be cracks in that there tower [Babel....that one][or conceptually similar]). Ha! ... a new and potent weapon in the never-ending cosmic clash between evil stuff and good stuff. Good stuff (with appropriate quantities of ice-cream) must invariably prevail (who needs Thor when you have irony and a bat-crazy brain)!

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

In the Matrix when an event duplicated itself the occupants recognized it as a sign of an anomaly. Just sayin.

It was more a comment on DD's point (or lack thereof). Where does reality end and imagination begin? Can we yet say with any certainty that even dreams do not comprise some variety of reality? Absolutely not... for we have not the slightest capacity to directly adjudicate the phenomenon we call consciousness. For all we know a dream may be a portal to another variety of existential condition (for all we know)!

How little we know... yet how much we imagine we do (what's up with that????). But if we imagine we know something...and imagination is not a real thing... then knowing itself must be some variety of illusion...which renders this very statement meaningless;;;; oooooh, my brain hurts!.

Conclusion: insisting that 'language' is not 'reality' is (and regrettably I am forced to use the only means currently available...a word) incoherent.

I suspect DD was simply being hasty and has not read the most recent Iron Man comic wherein Iron Man confronts the nefariously duplicitous Dr. Philosophico and is rendered impotent by the utter impenetrability of the Dr.'s confounding matrix of meaning (blibber blabber blibber blabber blib).

...impotent, that is, until Iron Man realizes that realization itself has the capacity to undermine the phenomenological foundation of Dr. Philosophico's vast pantheon or power (there be cracks in that there tower [Babel....that one][or conceptually similar]). Ha! ... a new and potent weapon in the never-ending cosmic clash between evil stuff and good stuff. Good stuff (with appropriate quantities of ice-cream) must invariably prevail (who needs Thor when you have irony and a bat-crazy brain)!

Do you accept cause and effect? I will assume yes.
Do you accept that there can be something without you being alive? I will assume yes.
Do you accept that there was something before you were born? I will assume yes.
Something(A) caused you(B)
Something else(non-A) caused you(B)

So for A and non-A we know go reality versus the Matrix and what not as the examples go in epistemology.
So how do you decide between A and non-A?
Well, you don't and I assume you believe in reality. Okay, so do most people, but just because 99.9999...% of humans believe it, it won't make it a fact. For it to become a fact you have to reverse cause and effect. You think reality into being.

 

[barehl]

Everything popped into existence anyway, didn't it?

I understand that within philosophy you can make assumptions like excluded middle is a logical fallacy. However, to make this claim within cognitive theory you have to explain where you got "excluded" and where you got "middle". If you can't define it within an idealistic framework then what basis do you have for discussion?

 

[barehl]

You have never been much around reductive/eliminative physicalists, have you?

To the best of my knowledge, I would be in the reductive category while Dennett is in the eliminative category.

While I am not a dualist/idealist/theist, there are in practice some limitations to how far we can "torture" everything is physical

You would have to explain that. Mind as a function of neural activity in the brain seems to be the only possible explanation. What else is there?