I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[punshhh]

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

Ahah! and you've come back with a longer and sharper pencil.

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

It may be hung up with the same issues over a definition of consciousness, identification of the conscious aspect, and any kind of independent evidence. But it still has the same ontological basis as idealism and materialism and it is the glamour of physical material which generates the perception that materialism is the more likely reality.

 

[punshhh]

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

Hans

Well, they have a valid physical explanation, this does not preclude the involvement of other (unknown) materials, or a system of inspirational communication, or communion with entities in the other material.

Such things may be the case and we would be non the wiser.

 

[punshhh]

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.

Point well made.

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.

With humility.

 

[punshhh]

Yes, and minds are also material, so there is no contradiction.

Yes there is no contradiction, however you're confining of the mind to the electrochemical actions of the brain is confining the phenomena to its foundational basis, while ignoring its intellectual or experiential content.

Those materials would be material and physical. Again, no contradiction.

Yes, but the existence of those materials is denied and dismissed by materialists, in the arrogance of stating that if a material has not been detected by a human, it does not exist and to even consider it, is at best folly and more likely woo woo.

 

[punshhh]

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.

Yes, oh and remind me what does materialism say about the basis of the existence we find ourselves in?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Hi Nonparei

Subjective and objective it is

All words require bodies/brains to be of the class of signs. A sign is a triad, it requires that it is about something and it is a "placeholder" for the process in the given brain. I.e. the letter A is a placeholder for the process in the brain and it is a sign itself, which is about something. What a sign can be about can be objective or subjective.
So in the absurd sense no words can be objective as not requiring brains, i.e. not words are independent of brains. All understanding of all words requires brains and the reason we can understand each other is because we can think alike. The structure in your brain if so is similar enough to other humans that we can understand each other, but that understanding is inter-subjective. It requires 2 or more subjects with a certain level of cognition and similar culture/language. That connects to such words as research, repeat and replicate and there are 3 words in play - subjective, inter-subjective and objective

Now for the words objective and subjective they cover different similar meanings, but there is a problem involved.
First a simple subject - object relationship. In short it has to do with cause and effect; i.e. you can't change how an object is by changing how you think. Your thinking can't cause a change in an object and words are not magical. "I command by the magical nature of words this apple, which is now red to become green" won't work, where as words can sometimes work in such a way in a subject - subject relation. "Be a dear and fetch me a cup of coffee". So a subject(s) -subject(s) relationship is in part inter-subjective, because it takes place between 2 or more subjects. I.e. humans and other relevant life forms, for which you have to look at them as individuals in part.
Now an object - subject relationship can make sense as how physical processes can influence the human world, where as an object - object relationship is universal so for all humans and involve physical processes, which are in the strong sense independent of all brains, when it comes to in part causation.

Now yesterday I read a book, which translates to the following title: Theories of science as relevant to practitioners within pedagogy.
In other words for the idea that you can explain everything based on observation(seeing through your eyes objects) and then test it, it breaks down for those of us, who work with humans as humans in toto, because we need to use all 3 kinds of science; natural, social and humane. We need to use several methodologies and be able to differentiate between based on evidence versus informed by evidence.
Now what goes on in a given brain is for some processes not objective, because as physical process they are what makes the thing - Homo Sapiens Sapiens - a subject and I can't help that you within natural science can't differentiate between subject and object across different methodologies, because you want to have the only methodology, so you can in effect try to control other humans, because only you understand truth.

With regards

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

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.

When you look from another angle, then it becomes like this:

• Natural science doesn't work at all!
• Natural science is the only correct methodology, which produces real knowledge.
• It is never that simple as being able to reduce it down to a binary set of positive and negative, but everybody can do that: I think in a good/right/true/correct manner and you don't.

Some of us, skeptics, have learn to accept irrational humans, because we work in a field of practice, where we have to treat them as humans, no matter how irrational they are.
Someone: You are irrational.
Me: Yes, but I am still a human and in the end, there is a price to pay, if you want to use the following ethical rule - "I don't like you, therefore you are totally irrelevant". That one works both ways; i.e. "I don't like how you think, so I don't have to listen to you at all" for which one answer is this: "Likewise!"

So try also to listen to them as humans and sometimes you can learn something new.

With regards

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Yes, oh and remind me what does materialism say about the basis of the existence we find ourselves in?

It doesn't in the strong sense and neither can you!!! You can't explain the basis no matter what angle you claim, you can do that from. Materialism in short and in a brutal simple way says this: You can't think reality into being, but rather you think as a result of something else. If you don't like that, you don't have to accept that, though it is still so, if you test it and just because you have to use idealism/dualism to make sense of reality, won't stop those of us who can think differently. And no - magical thinking only works as a belief system, it doesn't work the moment you interact with the rest of reality. That is even so for solipsism.

 

[Belz...]

Yes there is no contradiction, however you're confining of the mind to the electrochemical actions of the brain is confining the phenomena to its foundational basis, while ignoring its intellectual or experiential content.

No it's not. That's where you're wrong: just because it's physical doesn't remove anything of its perceived qualities. Just because there's no magic involved doesn't prevent you from finding it magical.

Yes, but the existence of those materials is denied and dismissed by materialists, in the arrogance of stating that if a material has not been detected by a human, it does not exist and to even consider it, is at best folly and more likely woo woo.

It's not arrogance; it's pragmatism. If we considered every unproven thing potentially true, we'd be chasing our tails ceaselessly and science wouldn't progress. We focus on the things that we know are true based on current knowledge.

And let's not kid ourselves: people like you don't consider these hypotheses because you're looking at all the alternatives. You're doing it because you want them to be true.

 

[punshhh]

It doesn't in the strong sense and neither can you!!! You can't explain the basis no matter what angle you claim, you can do that from. Materialism in short and in a brutal simple way says this: You can't think reality into being, but rather you think as a result of something else. If you don't like that, you don't have to accept that, though it is still so, if you test it and just because you have to use idealism/dualism to make sense of reality, won't stop those of us who can think differently. And no - magical thinking only works as a belief system, it doesn't work the moment you interact with the rest of reality. That is even so for solipsism.

Its only the materialists who are feigning an explanation for the existence of matter. I can't speak for idealists or Doron, but it seems the worst they have done is offer an alternative view.

This notion of magic is a straw man.

 

[punshhh]

No it's not. That's where you're wrong: just because it's physical doesn't remove anything of its perceived qualities. Just because there's no magic involved doesn't prevent you from finding it magical.

I wouldn't take a scalpel to someone's brain to determine their preference for classical or country music.

Again magic is a straw man, I don't know why materialists bring it up.

It's not arrogance; it's pragmatism. If we considered every unproven thing potentially true, we'd be chasing our tails ceaselessly and science wouldn't progress. We focus on the things that we know are true based on current knowledge.

The pragmatic view is irrelevant when ontology is embraced which is necessary for a philosophy to make ontological claims. Yes I know the line, there could be infinite ontologies, so we should stick to the one we know. But there is no knowing, there is no proven ontology, only speculation. With speculation all rationally derived avenues should be considered. The one with the strongest basis is idealism as it is extrapolated from the personal experience of existing.

And let's not kid ourselves: people like you don't consider these hypotheses because you're looking at all the alternatives. You're doing it because you want them to be true.

I don't see a hypothesis from materialism.
I am more concerned with truth than hypothesis or belief.

 

[Belz...]

I wouldn't take a scalpel to someone's brain to determine their preference for classical or country music.

No because scalpels can't do that. That's a job for a brain scanner. Or, if you are looking for something less invasive, you can ask the person. I don't know why you think this is relevant.

Again magic is a straw man, I don't know why materialists bring it up.

Because that's what non-materialists propose, perhaps unknowingly. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want something that exists beyond the material, is ineffable, but somehow interacts with the physical universe. It interacts, but doesn't. That's magic.

The pragmatic view is irrelevant

Read that to yourself again, and let it sink in. You are saying that the practical considerations are irrelevant. You are basically putting musings over fact.

Yes I know the line, there could be infinite ontologies, so we should stick to the one we know.

No, we should stick to the one that works. Assuming that the world is material is the reason everything we have works.

I am more concerned with truth than hypothesis or belief.

No, you're not.

 

[Nonpareil]

All that goes on in the real world is physical/material, but not all that goes on is independent of brains.

Not all that goes on is independent of apples or crayfish, either.

As to objective definitions of words it has a limit - look up linear A and B http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_A

Indecipherable writing systems are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

the words are not exactly the same because apples don't require brains

Yes it does.

I literally just went over this.

Ahah! and you've come back with a longer and sharper pencil.

If you say so.

It may be hung up with the same issues over a definition of consciousness, identification of the conscious aspect, and any kind of independent evidence. But it still has the same ontological basis as idealism and materialism

As idealism, yes. As materialism, no.

Idealism and neutral monism are assertions. Materialism is a conclusion.

and it is the glamour of physical material which generates the perception that materialism is the more likely reality.

No one claims that materialism is more likely. That's very nearly a nonsense question, and almost certainly one that we will never get the answer to.

What we claim - and what is undeniably true - is that materialism is the most rational.

Yes there is no contradiction, however you're confining of the mind to the electrochemical actions of the brain is confining the phenomena to its foundational basis

Confining the thing to what it is, you mean? I have no problem with doing this.

while ignoring its intellectual or experiential content.

I do not ignore this.

This is not separate from the electrochemical actions of the brain.

Yes, but the existence of those materials is denied and dismissed by materialists, in the arrogance of stating that if a material has not been detected by a human, it does not exist and to even consider it, is at best folly and more likely woo woo.

Considering it is fine.

Asserting it, and attempting to use it as the basis for an argument that you claim is rational, is another matter entirely.

So in the absurd sense no words can be objective as not requiring brains, i.e. not words are independent of brains.

That is not what "objective" means.

We've been over this.

Now for the words objective and subjective they cover different similar meanings, but there is a problem involved.
First a simple subject - object relationship. In short it has to do with cause and effect; i.e. you can't change how an object is by changing how you think. Your thinking can't cause a change in an object and words are not magical. "I command by the magical nature of words this apple, which is now red to become green" won't work, where as words can sometimes work in such a way in a subject - subject relation. "Be a dear and fetch me a cup of coffee". So a subject(s) -subject(s) relationship is in part inter-subjective, because it takes place between 2 or more subjects. I.e. humans and other relevant life forms, for which you have to look at them as individuals in part.
Now an object - subject relationship can make sense as how physical processes can influence the human world, where as an object - object relationship is universal so for all humans and involve physical processes, which are in the strong sense independent of all brains, when it comes to in part causation.

This is indecipherable. I have absolutely no idea what point this is meant to make, because it means nothing in English.

In other words for the idea that you can explain everything based on observation(seeing through your eyes objects) and then test it, it breaks down for those of us, who work with humans as humans in toto, because we need to use all 3 kinds of science; natural, social and humane.

Which are still based on observation and objective evidence.

What's your point?

Now what goes on in a given brain is for some processes not objective

Yes, they are.

because as physical process they are what makes the thing - Homo Sapiens Sapiens - a subject

You're equivocating between "subjective" and "subject".

and I can't help that you within natural science can't differentiate between subject and object across different methodologies, because you want to have the only methodology, so you can in effect try to control other humans, because only you understand truth.

Did... did I just get accused of supervillainy?

Is this a thing that just happened?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Hi Nonpareil
How does "I like the color green" look like? What kind of observation as through sight can you give for something you like?
Now the words - "the real world" - what does real look like and do you observe real?

Come on - what does "I like" look like - how do you see "I like"?

 

[Nonpareil]

Well, they have a valid physical explanation, this does not preclude the involvement of other (unknown) materials, or a system of inspirational communication, or communion with entities in the other material.

Such things may be the case and we would be non the wiser.

We would also be entirely without any rational reason to assert it.

Its only the materialists who are feigning an explanation for the existence of matter.

Materialism doesn't claim to know why we have matter.

Just that we do.

I wouldn't take a scalpel to someone's brain to determine their preference for classical or country music.

No one said you should. Asking them is usually more than enough, but if you want to see it for yourself, you would need a rather advanced brain scanner, not a knife.

But there is no knowing, there is no proven ontology, only speculation.

"There is no proven ontology" is only true if you play some very serious word games with the definition of "proven".

The universe behaves in all instances exactly as if materialism is true. It is proven, by any reasonable standard. The only thing that prevents it from being absolutely ironclad is that rational skepticism - the system that bears it out - demands that we always be open to future evidence, which may (but probably won't) contradict it.

With speculation all rationally derived avenues should be considered.

There is only one rationally-derived ontology.

It is not idealism.

The one with the strongest basis is idealism as it is extrapolated from the personal experience of existing.

This is a childishly shallow view of rationality, and completely ignores literally everything that has ever happened in the history of the universe, ever.

Yes, I know what "literally" means, and yes, it applies here.

I don't see a hypothesis from materialism.
I am more concerned with truth than hypothesis or belief.

Then what's the problem with materialism not having one?

Nitpicks aside, materialism's "hypothesis" - which, again, is actually a conclusion - is that the universe is material in nature and that consciousness, including the observer's, is a product of matter behaving in certain ways.

It isn't complicated, and literally everything that has ever happened, ever, acts as evidence in its support. Idealism, on the other hand, must seek refuge in solipsism if it wants to have any basis at all, and solipsism collapses as soon as you have any functional definition of "exists".

 

[Nonpareil]

Hi Nonpareil
How does "I like the color green" look like? What kind of observation as through sight can you give for something you like?
Now the words - "the real world" - what does real look like and do you observe real?

Come on - what does "I like" look like - how do you see "I like"?

Brain scanner.

This has been talked about in countless other threads. I am not a neurologist and don't pretend to be one, but we are already at the point where we can read basic thoughts given advanced enough equipment. We can determine what colors someone is thinking of, what emotions certain images give rise to, whose face a subject is imagining. There is absolutely no reason to believe that, given enough time and resources, we can't completely map the brain and produce a scanner which has perfect fidelity.

Thought processes are not easily described or quantified by laymen.

This does not mean that they cannot be quantified.

 

[doronshadmi]

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.

As you can see Apathia, the moderators of this forum have their own view of the discussed subject, which actually does not allow to provide an alternative that actually shows that materiel\mental objective\subjective etc. are naturally bounded, changeable and multiple aspects of a common foundation that is naturally invariant, unbounded and non-composed, as very simply was demonstrated by my unbounded 1-dimesional element diagram, which is naturally remains unchanged among its expressions, which are expressed in this diagram as wave forms of the 1-dimesional unbounded and non-composed element, such that the martial aspect is simply the convex aspect of a given wave, where the mental aspect is simply the concave aspect of that given wave, where both acpects are totally depend on the Unity of the 1-dimesional unbounded and non-composed element.

I suggest an harmonious solution to the materialism\idealism multiplicity that is naturally derived from the Unity among them, where, again, Unity by its vary own nature, is not one_of_many thing.

As long as someone count Unity as one_of_many thing, he\she actually misses the vary nature of Unity, and can't use it as the invariant foundation among the naturally changeable multiplicity, where materiel\mental objective\subjective etc. are some example of the naturally changeable and bounded multiplicity.

 

[Belz...]

Brain scanner.

This has been talked about in countless other threads. I am not a neurologist and don't pretend to be one, but we are already at the point where we can read basic thoughts given advanced enough equipment. We can determine what colors someone is thinking of, what emotions certain images give rise to, whose face a subject is imagining. There is absolutely no reason to believe that, given enough time and resources, we can't completely map the brain and produce a scanner which has perfect fidelity.

Thought processes are not easily described or quantified by laymen.

This does not mean that they cannot be quantified.

But they feel special to me !

 

[Belz...]

As you can see Apathia, the moderators of this forum have their own view of the discussed subject, which actually does not allow to provide an alternative

Stop right there. If that's true then ALL of your posts should be in AAH. They are not, therefore you are wrong. Or is that just "my" logic ?

 

[Nonpareil]

As you can see Apathia, the moderators of this forum have their own view of the discussed subject, which actually does not allow to provide an alternative that actually shows that materiel\mental objective\subjective etc. are naturally bounded, changeable and multiple aspects of a common foundation that is naturally invariant, unbounded and non-composed, as very simply was demonstrated by my unbounded 1-dimesional element diagram, which is naturally remains unchanged among its expressions, which are expressed in this diagram as wave forms of the 1-dimesional unbounded and non-composed element, such that the martial aspect is simply the convex aspect of a given wave, where the mental aspect is simply the concave aspect of that given wave, where both acpects are totally depend on the Unity of the 1-dimesional unbounded and non-composed element.

I suggest an harmonious solution to the materialism\idealism multiplicity that is naturally derived from the Unity among them, where, again, Unity by its vary own nature, is not one_of_many thing.

As long as someone count Unity as one_of_many thing, he\she actually misses the vary nature of Unity, and can't use it as the invariant foundation among the naturally changeable multiplicity, where materiel\mental objective\subjective etc. are some example of the naturally changeable and bounded multiplicity.

For those who have come in late, quite a lot of posts were just moved to AAH. They were not exclusively doronshadmi's posts.

That aside, this new post is gibberish.