I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[LarryS]

I think we've all had plenty of conversations like this thread . . . I know I've had 'em . . . with concepts such as physical, non physical, supernatural, God, and etc.

Most folks who use the term 'supernatural' (or I suppose Unity, or God) and etc. mean it as: non physical yet interacts with the physical. So, if one introduces and requires a definition of physical as: physical or interacts with the physical . . . it's a conversation stopper.

I'm going to propose a different definition, physical: bound by time/space, or subject to modification.

All our sensory perceptions ,all states of mind, emotive states, mental images and mental processes and beliefs; these are all physical. Observations via telescopes, microscopes and colliders are also physical.

If we were to posit a deity subject to a change of mind or heart, or subject to whims or fancies; or a deity that can appear as a snake, bush, blue man or dove, such a deity would also be physical.

So, regarding the non-physical, what am I missing, what's left?

What's left (non physical/supernatural/Unity) can't be experienced, is not a state of mind and can not be the content of a belief, though we can have a belief about the description. The non physical can not be measured and does not fall under the purview of science, but yet it interacts with the physical. I think this is where the concept of 'magic' comes to play.

 

[MRC_Hans]

They do affect the physical world though, such as the abstraction God. Any gods which exist out there may, or may not utilise abstraction to affect the world(via the human mind).

Ahh, not bad, that one. One flaw, though: Human minds, and hence their abstractions, are part of the physical world.

Hans

 

[Apathia]

How do we get Multiplicity from Unity?

 

[Nonpareil]

How do we get Multiplicity from Unity?

He's using the mathematical definitions.

Presumably, anyway. The fact that he keeps capitalizing mathematical Concepts is a bit of an indicator of his general mindset when it comes to this sort of thing, and may mean that he doesn't actually accept the general definition, or attaches some sort of additional, woo-centric value to it (in fact, I think this is highly likely given his general attitude).

That means "unity" is "one", and "multiplicity" is "the number of times a certain condition is true".

His "theorem" is actually not particularly complicated, except in that it appears self-contradictory at points and lacks an actual definition for most of its terms, so, when it is actually examined critically, it's just a string of gibberish.

Neutral monism is just the claim that materialism and idealism are both false, and the universe is made up of a third, usually unnamed "true" substance. It has all the problems that idealism has, plus a slew of its own, as it posits the same unwarranted distinction between material and mental phenomena that idealism does, then goes on to make an unwarranted claim for the existence of a third "supersubstance" that is never defined, given any sort of evidential support, or even shown to be a coherent idea.

Take doronshadmi's "theorem" and run it through a translator, and you get:

1. Physical and mental phenomena are both just instantiations of consciousness. This is just the basic premise of neutral monism, where the posited supersubstance is designated "consciousness". This leaves the issue of the unwarranted distinction between physical and mental phenomena, but also raises two new questions: what is the definition of "consciousness" in this model, and what sort of mental phenomena are distinct from it? Beyond that, there's the standard issue with neutral monism: what evidence is there for consciousness being the "true" substance of reality?
2. Consciousness' "meta aspect" is actually its single unit - a discrete instance of consciousness, like the Planck length is a discrete unit of space or an apple is a discrete unit of apple...

...and that's where it breaks down, more or less. "Meta aspect" is a nonsense term, "naturally unbounded by its multiple expressions" is a nonsense phrase, "beyond multiplicity" means nothing, and so forth.

What doronshadmi is trying to say is that all of reality is, in truth, just aspects of consciousness, which is limitless and is not defined solely by physical and mental phenomena, even assuming that they are separate. But he doesn't define his terms, he doesn't offer any evidence, and he doesn't understand math.

He tries anyway, though. He smashes a bunch of nonsense phrases together, slaps an arbitrary (and nonsensical) binary tree diagram on there, and pretends that it all means something.

Thus, the final result is word salad. Only its original premises, which are not doronshadmi's own reasoning, even border on coherence, and even those fail to define their terms or present any evidence for their claims. The entire thing falls apart even before factoring in his nonsense.

Yes, doronshadmi is demonstrably bad at constructing mathematical models of things like this, particularly when the concept of infinity is involved. Yes, everything in his "theorem" is demonstrably nonsense. But like I've said many, many times already, it doesn't actually matter.

Neutral monism doesn't need his help to collapse under the crippling weight of unjustified assertions. It does that perfectly well on its own.

 

[Belz...]

Thank you, Pure Argent, you're managed to explain what the actual poster of theory couldn't. Seems you understand his ideas better than he does himself.

And it seems that idea is just the same as idealism.

 

[Nonpareil]

Thank you, Pure Argent, you're managed to explain what the actual poster of theory couldn't. Seems you understand his ideas better than he does himself.

And it seems that idea is just the same as idealism.

Obligatory: for those who were not around during my initial time on the forums a few years back, my username was originally Pure Argent.

And thank you. Not quite the same as idealism, but close, and ultimately it fails for the same reason.

 

[Apathia]

He's using the mathematical definitions.

Presumably, anyway. ....

Well, thanks for serving the chicken caesar instead of Doron.
I was hoping to get a little extra mayo from him.

And something to help me wash it down.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I deal with these arguments all of the time. Just recently, I had a small "argument" with one of my friends, who is now some sort of Astrologer, who believes in fairies. Like literally. His religion has a whole set of fairies related to different plants and such.

Guys.... lets just accept that it's pointless to try to argue these things. And mainly because of the first thing that they tell you when they defend their argument:

"It's not rational"

That's right. Their worldview is irrational, and they're admitting it right of the bat. Here's more or less how the discourse goes:

"See, it's not rational. You can't comprehend it rationally. Science has tried to understand it but they're too primitive. They're trying to understand it with the brain, and not with the soul. They have blinders on. They haven't opened their eyes to the spiritual world, and that's why they can't see it.

I can see it. I can feel it in my soul. I can just feel that it's true. I've experienced it directly and that's how I know it's real. See, science has gone out of date. Their tools are primitive. They can't see past their own judgement. They think that everything can be explained rationally and that's their first mistake. But the truth is that there is a metaphysical world. There's something out there. Something that can't be explained with science and with evidence and all these things you hold so dearly"



I'm not quoting anyone in specific. I just made that all up myself using as reference, the discourse from every single person that I've argued about religion, astrology, feng shui, the existence of a soul, clairvoyance, ancient aliens, reincarnation, etc.

The funny thing is that they think they're telling me something new, when I've already dealt with these same arguments thousands of times. And they all sound exactly the same.


So, trust me, I know: Your argument is irrational. It can't be proved scientifically. You experience it yourself. Fine then. But don't expect to be able to discuss it with me or anyone who just won't take your claim at face value.

So I don't need a best argument for materialism. I not only experience it myself, but I can prove that the pencil is real because if I stab you on the hand with it, it won't matter how much you believe in your mind and in your soul that that didn't happen. When you open your eyes, your hand will still be bleeding. Because both your hand and the pencil and the brain with which you so passionately believe Materlism isn't true, is all part of the Material world.

 

[The Man]

Obligatory: for those who were not around during my initial time on the forums a few years back, my username was originally Pure Argent.

Well, thanks for that, for a minute there I thought I was the one that was stoned. Thinking to myself "When the heck did Pure Argent get back and in on this"?

 

[marplots]

Why to you use the word belief, there? Obviously, you know there is no hippo on your desk, and you can prove it. (You cannot prove a negative, but you CAN prove absence)

Hans

Because I like to believe things I can prove?

 

[Nonpareil]

Well, thanks for that, for a minute there I thought I was the one that was stoned. Thinking to myself "When the heck did Pure Argent get back and in on this"?

Yeah, I figured that would happen at some point. Might reinstate that line in my sig mentioning it.

Can't multiquote because phones are terrible, but Ron, I have no problem with people holding admittedly irrational beliefs.

My issue is when they try to tell me they're rational.

 

[Apathia]

For clarity sake, there are a number of posters here at the ISF who meditate and have experienced this silence and unity I speak of and who don't make this subjective state of consciousness into a metaphysical substance or some kind of objective realm, spirit, or deity.
No metaphysical position necessarily follows from it, and to overlay one on it is to interrupt the silence with mental chatter.

When I'm up and talking again, I'd rather not argue over a supposed stuff, be it physical stuff or mental stuff, or some other stuff. My ideas arise from and are limited by the circumstances of how I experience the world. I can't say much beyond that, and I'm careful not impose my esoteric constructions upon reality.
Let it be. Let it show me its own behavior.

Remember when you were a child and barraged your parents with the question "why?"
There is only so far that why can be asked before asking it becomes stupid.
The same with "stuff." you can ask what atoms are made of, quarks are made of, but at a certain point made of ceases to be a useful question.
Especially when it comes to some metaphysical made of.
There are no objective answers to metaphysical questions.

Back to using Doron's analogy:
There are waves of experience. Some are material like, some are mental like. But notice that really it's not that cut and dried.We can't speak of ideas without physical analogs. Our languages are riddled with them. The words "unity, multiplicity, silence, are all rooted in our sensory experience. To make of them objective metaphysical substances is to commit what Alfred North Whitehead called "The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness."

 

[Fudbucker]

Triangles are real entities. "Triangle" is a descriptor we give to a shape that fits a certain definition.

Descriptors are only possible if something is there to do the descripting. If triangles are independent of the mind, then triangles exist in universes where there are no minds.

How then, do they exist, if there's no one to give a description of them?

 

[Nonpareil]

Descriptors are only possible if something is there to do the descripting. If triangles are independent of the mind, then triangles exist in universes where there are no minds.

How then, do they exist, if there's no one to give a description of them?

Apples exist whether or not there is someone to call them apples.

 

[Fudbucker]

Apples exist whether or not there is someone to call them apples.

There is a difference between apples and numbers and mathematical concepts. Do numbers exist in a universe without minds? If they do, how do they exist?

 

[Belz...]

Do numbers exist in a universe without minds?

If I say no, what does it change, since they exist in a universe with minds ?

 

[Lowpro]

There is a difference between apples and numbers and mathematical concepts. Do numbers exist in a universe without minds? If they do, how do they exist?

Only for my pleasure, if you assert there is a difference between apples and numbers/mathematical concept, tell me why and how. Nonpariel gave a difference between descriptor and entities.

The map is not the territory and all.

I'd argue that entropy is a very good distinction if that helps you here.

 

[Nonpareil]

There is a difference between apples and numbers and mathematical concepts. Do numbers exist in a universe without minds? If they do, how do they exist?

There are fewer differences than you think, and none of them are relevant to the point I am making.

"Apple" is, at its most basic level, an abstraction. It is a descriptor we apply to groups of atoms that fit certain qualifications. It is a descriptor. Remove observers from the universe and no one uses the descriptor, but the thing being described still remains and is unchanged.

"Triangle" is, at its most basic level, an abstraction. It is a descriptor we apply to groups of atoms (or points in space, et cetera) that fit certain qualifications. It is a descriptor. Remove observers from the universe and no one uses the descriptor, but the thing being described still remains and is unchanged.

"Three" is, at its most basic level, an abstraction. It is a descriptor we apply to groups of atoms (or apples, or triangles, et cetera) that fit certain qualifications. It is a descriptor. Remove observers from the universe and no one uses the descriptor, but the thing(s) being described still remains and is unchanged.

Numbers and shapes are abstractions, but they are abstractions with objective definitions - like almost every other descriptor we might apply to something.

 

[Apathia]

For clarity sake, there are a number of posters here at the ISF who meditate and have experienced this silence and unity I speak of and who don't make this subjective state of consciousness into a metaphysical substance or some kind of objective realm, spirit, or deity.
No metaphysical position necessarily follows from it, and to overlay one on it is to interrupt the silence with mental chatter.

When I'm up and talking again, I'd rather not argue over a supposed stuff, be it physical stuff or mental stuff, or some other stuff. My ideas arise from and are limited by the circumstances of how I experience the world. I can't say much beyond that, and I'm careful not impose my esoteric constructions upon reality.
Let it be. Let it show me its own behavior.

Remember when you were a child and barraged your parents with the question "why?"
There is only so far that why can be asked before asking it becomes stupid.
The same with "stuff." you can ask what atoms are made of, quarks are made of, but at a certain point made of ceases to be a useful question.
Especially when it comes to some metaphysical made of.
There are no objective answers to metaphysical questions.

Back to using Doron's analogy:
There are waves of experience. Some are material like, some are mental like. But notice that really it's not that cut and dried.We can't speak of ideas without physical analogs. Our languages are riddled with them. The words "unity, multiplicity, silence, are all rooted in our sensory experience. To make of them objective metaphysical substances is to commit what Alfred North Whitehead called "The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness."

The above comments were made in context to a post I made which has been moved to Abandon All Hope. I therefore retract anything I've said here, and apologize for any offense.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

There are fewer differences than you think, and none of them are relevant to the point I am making.

"Apple" is, at its most basic level, an abstraction. It is a descriptor we apply to groups of atoms that fit certain qualifications. It is a descriptor. Remove observers from the universe and no one uses the descriptor, but the thing being described still remains and is unchanged.

"Triangle" is, at its most basic level, an abstraction. It is a descriptor we apply to groups of atoms (or points in space, et cetera) that fit certain qualifications. It is a descriptor. Remove observers from the universe and no one uses the descriptor, but the thing being described still remains and is unchanged.

"Three" is, at its most basic level, an abstraction. It is a descriptor we apply to groups of atoms (or apples, or triangles, et cetera) that fit certain qualifications. It is a descriptor. Remove observers from the universe and no one uses the descriptor, but the thing(s) being described still remains and is unchanged.

Numbers and shapes are abstractions, but they are abstractions with objective definitions - like almost every other descriptor we might apply to something.

So a thing is things Yes, I know, but there is point "hidden" behind words. All that goes on in the real world is physical/material, but not all that goes on is independent of brains. As to objective definitions of words it has a limit - look up linear A and B http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_A

All words requires subjects; i.e. brains or other physical computational systems. Without brains there would be no meaning, so when considering words you have to included those words which requires brains to be about something. The word apple is about something, which doesn't require brains, where as the word three requires a brain; i.e. a physical computational system. Now reality supports that you, if you can count, can count to 3 and use that in relationship to 3 apples, but the words are not exactly the same because apples don't require brains, 3 does.

With regards