I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Nonpareil]

Of course it sounds like magic or "word salad." If the only acceptable explanations are materialist in form, anything other than that has to sound nonsensical. Oroborus for worldviews.

Straw man.

This doesn't qualify as word salad because it describes something outside the materialist worldview. This qualifies as word salad because it attempts to use big, complicated phrases to disguise simple ideas, and those ideas are nonsense.

For example, doronshadmi claims that physical and mental phenomena - regarding which he makes an unsupported assertion of being separate, which is the first flaw in his argument - both have their roots in a third type of substance which is neither mental or physical, but rather, beyond both (and is never, in any way, defined beyond this).

This claim is, naturally, also unsupported, and then contradicted when, immediately after stating this, doronshadmi also claims that both mental and physical phenomena stem from "Consciousness" (specifically, that they are its "multiplicity aspect"), which itself has a "meta aspect" which is its "unity". Then he goes off on a tangent which attempts to detail some aspect or other of this proposed model that has no actual evidence to support it, and as such is entirely irrelevant.

"Multiplicity", in mathematics, is the number of times that an element appears within a given set.

"Unity", in mathematics, is one.

"Meta aspect", in anything, is a crock.

So yes. Word salad. Not because of any bias against non-materialist viewpoints, but because it is word salad.

 

[Apathia]

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823 is my best alternate to materialism.

Doron,

It's certainly an alternative to Materialism.
You are calling it "Neutral Monism" because you say you posit a substrata that isn't itself mental or physical.
But then you identify that substrata as "Consciousness."
Consciousness is generally a mental matter.

So it seems to me you are offering a species of Objective Idealism, which is no surprise since this is the ontology of Transcendental Meditation tm.

I suspect your reply will be something along the lines of it's neutral because it uses the binary aspects of Materialism and Idealism. One can be "natural" by combination of all opposites.

I take the easier approach. As an empiricist, I'm agnostic about whatever the ultimate ontological substances is or are.
Asking what's it all made of as an ontological question that expects a metaphysical answer is a dubious overreach of imagination.

I want to know what happens and how it happens. That's why I keep asking you how your Organic Mathematics works to bring actual transformation of human behavior and character.

An ontological position is kin to a religious belief. Yes a religious belief can influence behavior. The same belief can be the excuse of acts of altruism and acts of atrocity. My impression is you offer your Organic Mathematics as more than that. You need to show how it is more than a metaphysical belief.

 

[Belz...]

I object to the objections.

Of course it sounds like magic or "word salad." If the only acceptable explanations are materialist in form, anything other than that has to sound nonsensical.

Well, yeah, that's the point: materialism is the only example of non-magic/mundane ontology: the world is as we observe it to be. Anything else IS magic by definition.

 

[marplots]

Well, yeah, that's the point: materialism is the only example of non-magic/mundane ontology: the world is as we observe it to be. Anything else IS magic by definition.

That's actually an OK description, so long as "magic" isn't merely used as a slur to mean: "impossible out of the gate." We might think of it as "things not yet adopted by science" instead.

Under that framing, we can see that the materialist worldview has been forced over the centuries to accept ideas that might, on their face, be considered magic. Even something as simple as gravity - a mysterious "something" acting at cosmic distances, keeping the moon in place and birthing stars - sounds pretty magical, or at least not the kind of naive materialism you'd find in a two-year-old. It's odd to think of gravity as a "material" thing, but it's been adopted into the worldview to keep things consistent.

So, let's say something as odd as "morphogenic fields" panned out. It would move from the magic side of the ledger to the materialist side.

In this form, materialism becomes a kind of catch-all philosophy which doesn't help us discriminate or eliminate much. It becomes more of a "things I believe are true," because, those things I believe are true have been proven to me.

There's no particular reason spirits and gods can't be included as well, so long as the "proof" consists of personal experience and experiment. In this light, what does materialism claim is impossible under it's framing? Anything at all?

 

[Nonpareil]

So, let's say something as odd as "morphogenic fields" panned out. It would move from the magic side of the ledger to the materialist side.

In this form, materialism becomes a kind of catch-all philosophy which doesn't help us discriminate or eliminate much. It becomes more of a "things I believe are true," because, those things I believe are true have been proven to me.

There's no particular reason spirits and gods can't be included as well, so long as the "proof" consists of personal experience and experiment. In this light, what does materialism claim is impossible under it's framing? Anything at all?

You're equivocating between materialism and rational skepticism. The former is a conclusion reached by the latter. They are not even close to equivalent.

And yes, rational skepticism is essentially "things that can be shown to be true are true". It is that simple, that much of a catch-all, and so blindingly obvious that it borders on tautological.

As for what it says to be false, that's very simple as well. A corollary to the first point is that "things that cannot be shown to be true are false", which is also simple, a catch-all, and blindingly obvious - it's literally just the definition of false.

Yes, it's very simple. Yes, it's a catch-all. But that doesn't make it any less right.

EDIT: On the topic of falsifiable claims made by materialism: there is consciousness without brains. There have been several threads where evidence for this has been requested, but none where it has been presented.

 

[marplots]

You're equivocating between materialism and rational skepticism. The former is a conclusion reached by the latter. They are not even close to equivalent.

I think I understand this, but I don't see why that matters to my objection.

And yes, rational skepticism is essentially "things that can be shown to be true are true". It is that simple, that much of a catch-all, and so blindingly obvious that it borders on tautological.

Except it isn't just "things that can shown to be true" it's really, "things that can be shown to be true by certain methods" - with "true" a tautology based on "whatever this method reveals."

As for what it says to be false, that's very simple as well. A corollary to the first point is that "things that cannot be shown to be true are false", which is also simple, a catch-all, and blindingly obvious - it's literally just the definition of false.

Again, I don't understand why "things that cannot be shown to be true are false" adds much. How could we ever know that something could not be shown to be true? All we actually do is try to prove some thing is true and fail at it.

Yes, it's very simple. Yes, it's a catch-all. But that doesn't make it any less right.

Does it make it more right though? I think it makes it easier to grasp, but, like "true," the word "right" is a tautology based on the results of the method - that which is produced is "right" and that which is unreachable is "wrong."

EDIT: On the topic of falsifiable claims made by materialism: there is consciousness without brains. There have been several threads where evidence for this has been requested, but none where it has been presented.

If such a thing were discovered, wouldn't materialism simply adopt it though? It wouldn't disprove materialism, it would just add another ingredient. I think the history of science shows this over and over again.

 

[MRC_Hans]

That's actually an OK description, so long as "magic" isn't merely used as a slur to mean: "impossible out of the gate." We might think of it as "things not yet adopted by science" instead.

Under that framing, we can see that the materialist worldview has been forced over the centuries to accept ideas that might, on their face, be considered magic. Even something as simple as gravity - a mysterious "something" acting at cosmic distances, keeping the moon in place and birthing stars - sounds pretty magical, or at least not the kind of naive materialism you'd find in a two-year-old. It's odd to think of gravity as a "material" thing, but it's been adopted into the worldview to keep things consistent.

So, let's say something as odd as "morphogenic fields" panned out. It would move from the magic side of the ledger to the materialist side.

In this form, materialism becomes a kind of catch-all philosophy which doesn't help us discriminate or eliminate much. It becomes more of a "things I believe are true," because, those things I believe are true have been proven to me.

There's no particular reason spirits and gods can't be included as well, so long as the "proof" consists of personal experience and experiment. In this light, what does materialism claim is impossible under it's framing? Anything at all?

This is wrong. Nonpareil already explained, still:

Rational skeptisism requires proof before accepting the existence of something.

Using rational skepticism (also known as science), we have found that the only things we can prove are material things, that is, things that follow the laws of physics. That worldview (that everything follows tlop) is materialism.

Materialism does not include anything unproven. However, the investigation of reality is an ongoing process, even the laws of physics are open for revision. Therefore, there are some things that are waiting in the wings, pending affirmative proof (they are called theories, and must be falsifiable). They are not included in materialism, but will be, should they be proved.

If you will use materialism as a catch-all it is the catch-all for all things that can be shown, by solid evidence, to exist.

If things like gods and spirits or other magic should one day be proved to exist, then it shall have to be included in the rational skeptic world-view, but I don't think it will then be called materialism any longer.

Hans

 

[tsig]

I think I understand this, but I don't see why that matters to my objection.



Except it isn't just "things that can shown to be true" it's really, "things that can be shown to be true by certain methods" - with "true" a tautology based on "whatever this method reveals."



Again, I don't understand why "things that cannot be shown to be true are false" adds much. How could we ever know that something could not be shown to be true? All we actually do is try to prove some thing is true and fail at it.



Does it make it more right though? I think it makes it easier to grasp, but, like "true," the word "right" is a tautology based on the results of the method - that which is produced is "right" and that which is unreachable is "wrong."



If such a thing were discovered, wouldn't materialism simply adopt it though? It wouldn't disprove materialism, it would just add another ingredient. I think the history of science shows this over and over again.

Non materiel minds would mean that all our science was mistaken.

 

[marplots]

Non materiel minds would mean that all our science was mistaken.

I don't see why. All it would mean would be science has been describing something different than what we thought it was. It would become "science of the uber-super-overconsciousness." So long as science is describing something, it's still science. Kinda like mathematics.

 

[Nonpareil]

I think I understand this, but I don't see why that matters to my objection.

If you don't see why knowing what you're objecting to is important, you need to reevaluate your priorities.

Except it isn't just "things that can shown to be true"

Yes, it is.

it's really, "things that can be shown to be true by certain methods"

Where "certain methods" means "literally any method that works", yes.

with "true" a tautology based on "whatever this method reveals."

Why yes, a natural consequence of a claim being true is that it can be shown to be so.

Again, I don't understand why "things that cannot be shown to be true are false" adds much.

Then you don't understand what's being said.

How could we ever know that something could not be shown to be true? All we actually do is try to prove some thing is true and fail at it.

A lot of people say this.

That doesn't make it any more right, mind you, but a lot of people do say it.

We can and do prove things false all the time. For example, take the claim that I am not a ladybug. You cannot in any situation prove that I am a ladybug, because I am not a ladybug. It cannot be shown to be true unless you're using a very, very poor definition of "true".

Does it make it more right though?

More right? No. It is right. That's all there is to it. That is what these words mean. There isn't any argument to be made here.

I think it makes it easier to grasp, but, like "true," the word "right" is a tautology based on the results of the method - that which is produced is "right" and that which is unreachable is "wrong."

You're strawmanning again. You're taking conclusions reached and stating they are assumptions.

The method you seem so adamantly opposed to is literally just follow the evidence to its logical conclusion and make no unjustified leaps. Unless you want to argue that we shouldn't listen to what the evidence tells us or that making things up on the spot is a viable means of discovering truth, then there isn't anything to argue against.

If such a thing were discovered, wouldn't materialism simply adopt it though?

No. Again, you need to differentiate between materialism and rational skepticism. Materialism holds that consciousness does not exist without matter, and is a conclusion drawn by rational skepticism after considering all the evidence.

Rational skepticism would adopt it and move on.

 

[tsig]

Non materiel minds would mean that all our science was mistaken.

I don't see why. All it would mean would be science has been describing something different than what we thought it was. It would become "science of the uber-super-overconsciousness." So long as science is describing something, it's still science. Kinda like mathematics.

If science has been describing something different than what we thought it was then science has been mistaken.

 

[doronshadmi]

Consciousness is generally a mental matter.

Only by those how get it only at the level of multiplicity, which is the physical\mental expression of Unity, but not vise versa.

 

[doronshadmi]

On the contrary. I understand fully.

No, you don't understand it, because of a very simple reason, which is, by your own evidence:

your proposed alternative remains what I said: word salad.

A word salad can't be used in order to conclude anything.

such as trying to claim that an infinitely repeating sequence has a final digit.

My theorem does not claim such nonsense, and this is another example of how you produce baseless conclusions.

 

[Fudbucker]

"
Is there a possible world where that comic is true?
"

Could we agree that the wording makes it a rather loeaded question?

Thus, while indeed formed as a question, it certainly conveys an opinion (and I assume it was yours).

Hans

No, we can't agree.

I'm asking you if you think the comic I posted is possibly true. It's a genuine question. There are people here who do indeed believe that moving rocks around the right way can produce a simulation of an entire universe like ours. I was wondering which camp you belonged to.

 

[doronshadmi]

So it seems to me you are offering a species of Objective Idealism, which is no surprise since this is the ontology of Transcendental Meditation tm.

An actual practice that enables one to directly aware of Unity as the source of multiplicity, does not involved with any kind of belief ontology etc. , which is always at the level of multiplicity.

 

[Fudbucker]

I object to the objections.

Of course it sounds like magic or "word salad." If the only acceptable explanations are materialist in form, anything other than that has to sound nonsensical. Oroborus for worldviews.

How might someone describe an alternate way of understanding the world - distinct from materialism - and not fall into the same trap? Without the preexisting language and conceptual grounding to draw on that we have for materialism, anything else is always going to sound bizarre.

Good point.

Words like "magic" are loaded with too much baggage. If you had told someone like Newton that you can get in a spaceship, travel real fast, and hundreds of years will have gone by on Earth, while only a weeks while have gone by for the person in the ship, he might very well have claimed that that would be "magic".

 

[doronshadmi]

I read it already. Sounds like magic to me.

Please be more specific, according to what is written in my link.

 

[doronshadmi]

My impression is you offer your Organic Mathematics as more than that. You need to show how it is more than a metaphysical belief.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10365625&postcount=280

 

[MRC_Hans]

No, we can't agree.

I'm asking you if you think the comic I posted is possibly true. It's a genuine question. There are people here who do indeed believe that moving rocks around the right way can produce a simulation of an entire universe like ours. I was wondering which camp you belonged to.

I suppose I lost track of the questions at some point. If that was the question, then my answer is that I find it very unlikely^*) that moving rocks around can simulate something as complex as the human mind, let alone the universe.

Hans

*) 'Unlikely' as in 'impossible'

 

[Fudbucker]

I suppose I lost track of the questions at some point. If that was the question, then my answer is that I find it very unlikely^*) that moving rocks around can simulate something as complex as the human mind, let alone the universe.

Hans

*) 'Unlikely' as in 'impossible'

OK, fair enough. We're also in agreement on that point.