I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[LarryS]

I do.

I don't experience all of reality through objective observation and objective testing. In fact, I don't experience anything that way. I experience everything by experiencing it, subjectively.

But objective testing and objective observation (which includes observation of others' accounts of what they have observed and tested) is the only way to understand any of the things I'm experiencing. "Pure experiencing" can have value but by itself it does not lead to understanding.

Experiencing thunder results in something like, "Loud noise! Danger! Run away!" which might have some survival value under primitive conditions.

With a small amount of understanding, we learn, "Thunder means danger of lightning. Hide away in places less exposed to lightning." That's more valuable knowledge, but you can only get there via objective testing of questions such as "Is the occurrence of lightning correlated to the occurrence of thunder?" and "Does thunder ever cause harm in the absence of nearby lightning?"

More advanced objective testing and observation leads to the deeper understanding that thunder is the sound generated by lightning, lightning is atmospheric electrical discharges, and structures can be protected from lightning using pointy metal rods.

There are experiences we don't yet understand, such as the experience of the divine. "Divine presence! Awesome! Worship!" But in that case, all attempts at objective observation and testing (e.g. the entirety of theology) have failed to produce any consistent understanding (hence, a million different religions), probably because we've been observing and testing the wrong things (e.g. the nature and wishes of the entity-that-is-present in the divine-presence experience, which will not be productive if there is no such entity). At that point, we can either denigrate understanding and be satisfied with the non-understanding of the pure experience (putting a good face on cowering from thunder), or engage yet deeper and more advanced objective testing and observation (such as brain scans).

You are expressing the dangers in the analysis of the contents of experience as there are plenty of opportunities to misdiagnose (ie a shadow for a ghost or a toy gun for a real gun), and opportunities to add value to an experience that may not be there (ie Divine). However, it is possible to look to the mechanics of "pure experience", even the non thunderous mundane experience like holding a pencil, and inquiring into that experience. For example, I pick up a pen, and figuratively putting that pen (content) aside, I ask What is the substance I am experiencing? I then pick up a banana, and again figuratively putting that content aside, What is the substance of my experience? I look to the trees outside . . . it's all the same substance and that substance is in awareness. I must confess Materialism is the most rational explanation for experience, but it is totally counter-intuitive.

 

[doronshadmi]

And that's you in a nutshell: style over substance; rhetoric over content. Instead of actually addressing my point, such as agreeing with it or countering with a logical, rational response, you go with nice-sounding platitudes.

Since your 0\1 excluded-middle reasoning gets anything that is not 0\1 excluded-middle as non-rational response, I'll give you a 0\1 reasoning example, that supports my claim about the moderators of this thread.

As you can see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10372026&postcount=424 was not moved to AHH where my answer to it was moved to AHH.

Let's look at the following part:

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.

In this part Nonpareil clearly demonstrates how he uses multiplicity as his fundamental substance in order to air his view of Neutral monism and Unity, as follows:

According to his Neutral monism view, Unity is a third thing in addition to Materialism and Idealism (which is exactly the multiplicity view that wrongly takes Unity as one_of_many thing, but Unity by its vary own nature is not one_of_many thing, otherwise it can't be considered as Unity, in the first place).

Moreover, according to Nonpareil multiplicity view of Neutral monism

materialism and idealism are both false

Well, according my view of Neutral monism Materialism and Idealism are definitely not false, they are simply the complement bounded and naturally changeable multiple aspects of Unity that are derived from the invariance nature of Unity, but not vise versa (as very simply explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10373669&postcount=457)

Moreover, the moderators moved also my reply to Apathia (the one with the diagram), which very simply demonstrates how multiplicity (where Materialism and Idealism are some aspects of it) is derived form Unity, but not vise versa.

Furthermore, the moderators did not move http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10372026&postcount=424 to AHH, in spite of the fact the it contains Nonpareil's remarks about my math abilities, but they did move to AHH my reply to Nonpareil, which clearly shows that his remarks about my math abilities have no basis what so ever, exactly because he used Dessi as his example of a person that understands the discussed subject about cardinality in the other thread.

In other words, the moderators of this forum have their own view of the discussed subject, which actually does not allow to provide an alternative that is based on Neutral monism and Unity as its substance.

There's a thread that is quite active I challenge you: your best argument for materialism that is - as you can probably guess - all about the best arguments for why materialism is "correct". There have been several members that have posted who have argued by assertion that there is an alternate to materialism that is as successful (or more so) at predicting and describing the reality we exist in.

Rather than derailing that thread I'd thought I'd start this one so they can put forward their alternate (or alternates).

Anyone willing to kick this thread off?

Darat, the moderators of this thread do not allow Neutral monism and Unity as its substance to air its view as an alternative to materialism.

 

[Belz...]

Since your 0\1 excluded-middle reasoning gets anything that is not 0\1 excluded-middle as non-rational response, I'll give you a 0\1 reasoning example, that supports my claim about the moderators of this thread.

What in the blue hell are you talking about ? I am addressing your claim that you are being prevented from speaking out against the mainstream view, which is patently ridiculous since you've been here for 6 years doing nothing but that, and you are allowed to stay.

That some of your posts are sent to AAH is not evidence that you are being silenced, and the best evidence that you are NOT being silenced is that you are, actually, not being silenced.

 

[Nonpareil]

In this part Nonpareil clearly demonstrates how he uses multiplicity as his fundamental substance in order to air his view of Neutral monism and Unity, as follows:

According to his Neutral monism view

"My view" of neutral monism is literally just the definition of neutral monism.

I even linked to a source that gives the same definition. You're just making things up now.

Unity is a third thing in addition to Materialism and Idealism (which is exactly the multiplicity view that wrongly takes Unity as one_of_many thing, but Unity by its vary own nature is not one_of_many thing, otherwise it can't be considered as Unity, in the first place).

Meaningless waffle.

Moreover, according to Nonpareil multiplicity view of Neutral monism

Well, according my view of Neutral monism Materialism and Idealism are definitely not false, they are simply the complement bounded and naturally changeable multiple aspects of Unity that are derived from the invariance nature of Unity, but not vise versa (as very simply explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10373669&postcount=457)

Which is nonsensical, self-contradictory, more undefined, meaningless waffle, and, perhaps most hilariously, not neutral monism.

You really need to define your terms.

 

[doronshadmi]

What in the blue hell are you talking about ?

I am talking about the fact that my Natural monist view of Unity was definitely silenced in this thread, as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10374107&postcount=482, which you simply ignore.

In does not mean that things can't be chanced for better from now on.

 

[doronshadmi]

"My view" of neutral monism is literally just the definition of neutral monism.

I even linked to a source that gives the same definition. You're just making things up now.

There is more than one version of Neutral monism according to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/ , so you have no case.

Moreover, here is the conclusion of this article:

The best strategy may be to disregard this tradition and to focus on the minimalist but very flexible framework afforded by the core claims of neutral monism. Falling far short of embodying a theory, these core claims provide only theory schema—a schema that can be filled in in quite diverse and unanticipated ways. Viewed from this perspective, neutral monism may still hold some promise, even if it should be true that the mainstream versions of the doctrine have been justly forgotten.

 

[Nonpareil]

There is more than one version of Neutral monism according to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/ , so you have no case.

No. No, there isn't.

There are different formulations of neutral monism. There are differing schools of thought on what the substance it indicates is or how that conclusion is reached. But neutral monism is still defined as the metaphysical stance that reality is of one nature which is neither material nor idealistic.

You do not understand the philosophy you claim to espouse.

EDIT: There are many types of triangles. Some may be isoceles; some equilateral; some right. No one can deny that they are all fine triangles indeed.

But if you come to me with a square and try to pretend it's a triangle too, I will be forced to tell you otherwise.

 

[Belz...]

I am talking about the fact that my Natural monist view of Unity was definitely silenced in this thread, as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10374107&postcount=482, which you simply ignore.

Again, you are not making any sort of sense, since the post you linked to is still availabled. How are you being silenced if you are free to post whatever crazy idea you want ?

That we are not accepting your crazy idea isn't the same thing.

 

[PixyMisa]

No, but the point was to show that immaterial things (concepts) have material consequences, not that there was any "truth" in the mix.

But that's not true either. Instantiations of concepts - which are material things - have material consequences.

Concepts in and of themselves don't exist and have no effect on anything.

 

[punshhh]

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.

The only way to do that is to ask the person, which was my point.That the information "I like country music" is a subjective state of a conscious entity. The physical body of that entity is non the wiser.

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.

Some may do so unknowingly, remember i said magic is straw, so it is a meaningless distinction anyway.
I don't know why you repeat the notion of something which both interacts and doesn't. Again, this is not problematic as a subtle material may interact, while being undetectable by humanity.

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.

Philosophically it is irrelevant, as we are concerned with what can and cannot be said about existence intellectually. Physical material is unimportant in this, as it is a product of that existence, whatever that existence may be.

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

But philosophical stances on existence are useless in the wider world, because the world resulting from them would be identical in either case.

No, you're not.

You are mistaken, you have no idea where I am coming from, or of the basis of mysticism.

Let me enlighten you, mysticism is concerned with the truth of what exists, nothing else. You may come across people saying they are mystics and then coming out with all kinds of theories about the world and existence, this is little more than theorising, or religious dogma and is not actually mysticism. Mysticism leaves the mind and ego at the door and concerns itself with experience itself and what exists.

 

[punshhh]

As idealism, yes. As materialism, no.

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

I would appreciate it if we focus on only one or two points at a time as
I am pressed for time at the moment.

The only conclusion in materialism is what is dictated to it by science, as such you are delivering Scientism. To take materialism any further than this, i.e. Into the realms of a discussion on ontologies and broader philosophical questions is an assertion.

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.

No idealism is the most rational*, materialism is the most practical and yet if it is based on Scientism, it is blinkered and is not a rounded philosophy anyway. It doesn't address the broader philosophical questions.

I do not ignore this.

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

The subjective content of the mind may be dependent on the physical action of the brain, but it is an emergent individual phenomena with a subjective life of its own, so to speak. What you are suggesting is equivalent to studying the world of television by tabulating the transistors, diodes, capacitors etc to be found in the Television, rather than discussing the programmes shown on it.

*Idealism is the most rational because it only assumes the most direct aspect of existence, our personal experience of existing. While recognising that all else is peripheral phenomena of some kind, which we may not be in a position to fully understand.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

But that's not true either. Instantiations of concepts - which are material things - have material consequences.

Concepts in and of themselves don't exist and have no effect on anything.

No.

"Objective" means "true from every frame of reference". "Subjective" means "not true from every frame of reference". Talking about processes in brains being subjective is nonsensical; these processes have objective reality. The ideas that these processes represent might be only subjectively true, but that's all.

"Blue is a nice color for interior decorating", as a process within the brain, has objective reality. Given enough understanding of the brain, we can trace this idea from conception as it travels through the neural processors. From every frame of reference, this thought exists. It is objective.

The actual statement, however, is only subjectively true, as "blue is nice" is a normative statement. It is not true from every frame of reference.

Here is how this works - no word what so ever has meaning in itself - all words are as words work as place-holders for nothing but physical processes in a given brain or brains.
So for "The actual statement, however, is only subjectively true, as "blue is nice" is a normative statement. It is not true from every frame of reference."; we then get in combination for the 2 quotes that all the words are nothing but objective physical processes in a brain including the words subjectively true. Subjectively true is an objective, physical process and true from every point of reference. I.e. in effect subjectively true is and is not true from every frame of reference.

With regards

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Now I am not going to be nice or what ever.
So here is is for two different categories of words exemplified by the words "the yellow cat" and "the real world".
You can if you know do to do it trace yellow through natural science all the way to an international scientific measurement standard for yellow as a form of wavelength and how you calibrate relevant measurement devices for measuring wavelength. That connects to the words you, I, we and replicate.

So would you please explain to me what international scientific measurement standard and which relevant measurement devices I should use for the word real to I can replicate according to science the objective observation of a real world.

With regards

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Let us play brain scanner - a scanner is a measurement device and the brain works a measurement device in part. I get that - now can some please explain objectively how I objectively according to a scientific measurement standard calibrate my brain.

We are playing nothing but in part this:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras.

So in practice for one of you as this we in "We fight for the truth", I can repeat/replicate that statement so it makes sense. The problem is that the statement is subjective, it is a normative statement and not a objective and scientific statement.
So all of this "we, objectively" is nothing but in part a physical, biological, cultural and so on statement within the population of Homo Sapiens Sapiens and if you really have to reduce this "we" down to biology it is a we versus them for the replication of the fittest genome as in part for the 4 F's - feed, fornication, fight and flight.
"We, the scientists" are not outside evolution and you don't an objective point of view, when it comes to being inside evolution.

In other words I get the you for "I don't like philosophy". Fair enough, but that is a feeling and I don't accept that your feelings are special, just because they are yours. I try to apply that to all humans including myself and I don't really care for your subjective individual feelings if you try to make them into a universal and normative rule for how we ought to think.

 

[Belz...]

The only way to do that is to ask the person, which was my point.

But I just told you that it isn't. Why do you just ignore reality ? You keep saying that you're open-minded but you're not: you've already made up your mind long ago.

Some may do so unknowingly, remember i said magic is straw, so it is a meaningless distinction anyway.

No, that does not follow.

I don't know why you repeat the notion of something which both interacts and doesn't.

Because that's what you propose, silly. Otherwise there is no point to the distinction.

Again, this is not problematic as a subtle material may interact, while being undetectable by humanity.

See, you're doing it again ! It interacts but in a way that doesn't move any particle. That's nonsense, Punshhh. That's magic.

Philosophically it is irrelevant, as we are concerned with what can and cannot be said about existence intellectually.

Yeah, and that's philosophy.

Physical material is unimportant in this, as it is a product of that existence, whatever that existence may be.

Wouldn't that make it relevant, then, since that's what the topic is ?

You are mistaken, you have no idea where I am coming from, or of the basis of mysticism.

I know this: you do not listen to reason or evidence or logic. You stick to mystic belief and yet deny that it's magic. You pretend to be open-minded and not a dualist but every post you make proves otherwise. It's clear that you are not interested in truth (i.e. reality), but confirmation of your own beliefs.

Let me enlighten you, mysticism is concerned with the truth of what exists

And that doesn't even mean anything. "The truth of what exists" ?

Mysticism leaves the mind and ego at the door and concerns itself with experience itself and what exists.

That's why it fails.

 

[Belz...]

Let us play brain scanner - a scanner is a measurement device and the brain works a measurement device in part. I get that - now can some please explain objectively how I objectively according to a scientific measurement standard calibrate my brain.

We are playing nothing but in part this:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras.

So in practice for one of you as this we in "We fight for the truth", I can repeat/replicate that statement so it makes sense. The problem is that the statement is subjective, it is a normative statement and not a objective and scientific statement.
So all of this "we, objectively" is nothing but in part a physical, biological, cultural and so on statement within the population of Homo Sapiens Sapiens and if you really have to reduce this "we" down to biology it is a we versus them for the replication of the fittest genome as in part for the 4 F's - feed, fornication, fight and flight.
"We, the scientists" are not outside evolution and you don't an objective point of view, when it comes to being inside evolution.

In other words I get the you for "I don't like philosophy". Fair enough, but that is a feeling and I don't accept that your feelings are special, just because they are yours. I try to apply that to all humans including myself and I don't really care for your subjective individual feelings if you try to make them into a universal and normative rule for how we ought to think.

Feelings are irrelevant.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

BTW truth is not reality as such. Truth is a short cut to different cognitive and emotional states about how a given person understand the relationship humans as humans and/or humans and the rest of reality. I.e. truth has everything to do with the ability to think, because we wouldn't have word truth without brains.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Feelings are irrelevant.

Yes, I know - that is a subjective feeling in part and a normative claim, because you confuse irrelevant to you with irrelevant to how reality in toto works.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, I know - that is a subjective feeling in part and a normative claim, because you confuse irrelevant to you with irrelevant to how reality in toto works.

No, it's irrelevant: your feelings do not give you information about anything other than themselves. They cannot be used to conclude anything about the world about you. For instance, if you're afraid of tuna sandwitched, it doesn't tell you anything about the nature of tuna.

This isn't a matter of opinion.

 

[pagetheoracle]

What if matter is effect and energy is undefined by its very existence? By this I mean maybe this is the real difference between Newtonian Physics, which works on common sense reality (hard, physical fact - time-wise, the certain past as opposed to Quantum mechanics and the uncertain future: If this latter subject confuses you, it did me until an excellent BBC TV show recently made me realize why I hadn't got it...but then, maybe I'm fooling myself that I've got it now?).