I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Nonpareil]

If a triangle can exist independent of the mind, who is there to give a "descriptor"?

If a fish is green, how much does my table weigh?

No, it's that mathematical concepts exist independent of the mind.

Concepts? No. Concepts require minds to exist. But mathematical realism talks about entities, not concepts. It speaks of triangles, not our description of triangles.

Those do exist independent of the mind, and I have never said otherwise.

I have just explained this. Mathematics is independent of the interpreter, because mathematics is an objective description of reality.

Which means that there's a possible universe where the Pythagoream Theorem exists in a universe with no conscious beings.

No, it means that there's a possible universe where the Pythagorean theorem applies with no conscious beings.

A theorem is a formulation of principles created by conscious beings. By definition, theorems do not exist without anyone to theorize.

A necessary condition for description is someone to do the describing. In a universe without minds, the mathematical descriptions still exist

No, they don't. Descriptions do not exist without minds.

The things being described still exist.

This is not complicated.

 

[punshhh]

But I just told you that it isn't. Why do you just ignore reality ?

Well perhaps you can use a brain scanner to observe the brain of a subject while listening to country music and then to classical music and compare which parts of the brain light up etc. But this is not determining that the subject prefers country, scientifically, it is merely an observation of the phenomena and is essentially the same as asking the subject directly which they prefer. Tell me how a brain is different in a person who likes country from a person who likes classical?

You keep saying that you're open-minded but you're not: you've already made up your mind long ago.

This is becoming repetitious. Are you getting angry? Your responses suggest it.

No, that does not follow.

Magic is phenomena not yet understood by humanity, which appear unnatural. It cannot be determined if these phenomena are natural but not yet understood, or truly supernatural. Supernatural suffers from the same short comings. It is little better than name calling, or hand waving to use either of these words.

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

No, it's you who bring it up. My position is it interacts, but appears not to, even to scientific investigation, because we cannot detect it.

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.

I see no requirement for it to move any particle. There are numerous alternative forms of interaction given a little thought.

Yeah, and that's philosophy.

When discussing practical affairs, I will consider the practicality of things.

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

The topic is about philosophical stances, we are working from the knowledge that the world is the way it is. So either of the alternative philosophies will treat the physical world as a given (as it is) and consider the foundational basis, I.e.the origin, the mechanisms of its existence, the nature of timespace, dimension, the nature of mind etc.

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.

That repetition again. You don't appear to have made a very good appraisal of my position.

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

The true state, of what it is that exists.

That's why it fails.

Mind is an abstraction, i.e. a computation. Personal experience is a different aspect of our lives and is a more direct understanding and route to the knowing, of what exists.

 

[doronshadmi]

No. No, there isn't.

Here is what http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/ actually says about mental and physical phenomena:

Most versions of neutral monism are versions of noneliminativist reductionism. Mental and physical phenomena are real but reducible to/constructible from the underlying neutral level.

And here is your definition of Natural monism that wrongly interprets what is actually written in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/:

Neutral monism is just the claim that materialism and idealism are both false

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.

Nonpareil, "you come to me with a square and try to pretend it's a triangle too" is exactly what you are doing about http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/.

So the exact address to your wrong claims about Natural monism is you and no one else but you.

 

[doronshadmi]

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 ?

1) You ignore the fact that significant replies of mine were actually removed to AHH, where http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10372026&postcount=424 was not moved to AHH, in spite of the fact that it definitely airs its view about my mathematical abilities, and in spite of the fact that my replies to such claims were moved to AHH.

2) You also ignore the second part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10374270&postcount=485 that clearly says that (I corrected some typo):

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

where this part is aimed to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10373669&postcount=457 from now on.

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

Those "we" are exactly the persons that wish to address reality only in terms of Materialism XOR Idealism, by unconditionally rejecting any view of reality that defines the harmony among these aspects, in terms of multiplicity that is derived from Unity, but not vise versa (whereUnity is not one_of many thing, as clearly addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10373669&postcount=457).

 

[marplots]

The terms 'material' and 'non material' are a problem semantically, more useful terms would be material=bound by time space or subject to modification and non material=unbounded and not subject to modification.

These terms would be employed 'in principle'

Then, if a concept, or arrangement or law of nature and etc are suggested, they can be shown to be material. For example, a geometric point, which occupies no space and only differentiates a location - is material. A law of nature, such as the speed of light, an arrangement, or a non existent unicorn - - are in principle subject to modification and or locatable in space/time and are therefore material. Ghosts, angels and any deity would also be material.

The only 'thing' that would be non material would be unbounded and changeless.

Otherwise we're doomed to a debate between gross material, and non material as whatever is currently too subtle to measure/know material.

Yes, that was the basis for my objection. The materialist camp is doing a bit of a dance so that everything worth discussing - even, lately, the conceptual - is going to be called material, in an effort to keep the immaterial out of play. I don't actually mind the ploy, but it kind of kills the discussion, when we can't even find an example of immaterial to look at. All of my suggestions of immaterial things have failed to sprout.

If everything I can possibly think about is material because it exists as electrochemical impulses in my noggin, then by definition I cannot even consider the ideas, save that those ideas are themselves material. My ability to reason is limited by the thing I'm reasoning with.

In my view, this way of treating materialism is over-broad and fails to make any useful distinction. "Everything is material. I win."

 

[Belz...]

Well perhaps you can use a brain scanner to observe the brain of a subject while listening to country music and then to classical music and compare which parts of the brain light up etc. But this is not determining that the subject prefers country, scientifically, it is merely an observation of the phenomena and is essentially the same as asking the subject directly which they prefer.

You are contradicting yourself. In the first part of that last sentence, you say it's not determining preference, but then you go on and say it's equivalent to asking the person what they prefer, which definitely DOES determine that preference. So which is it ?

Of course you can determine preference, as long as you know what "prefere" looks like in the brain.

Tell me how a brain is different in a person who likes country from a person who likes classical?

It will light up differently.

This is becoming repetitious. Are you getting angry? Your responses suggest it.

And apparently you also have no clue how to detect emotions in others. You are a terrible brain scanner.

Magic is phenomena not yet understood by humanity

No. No scientist will call anything they don't understand "magic". That is a fantasy of yours.

No, it's you who bring it up.

No, I keep saying that everything is physical. It is you who brings up things not in evidence.

My position is it interacts, but appears not to, even to scientific investigation, because we cannot detect it.

That is logically contradictory, as I have explained to you already several times. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I see no requirement for it to move any particle. There are numerous alternative forms of interaction given a little thought.

No, there aren't. Go on, try it: what other forms of interaction are there, since everything is composed of particles ?

When discussing practical affairs, I will consider the practicality of things.

No, you won't.

That repetition again. You don't appear to have made a very good appraisal of my position.

I have an excellent appraisal: you believe in magic.

The true state, of what it is that exists.

Word salad. What does it mean ?

Mind is an abstraction

No.

 

[Belz...]

1) You ignore the fact that significant replies of mine were actually removed to AHH

I do not. I am pointing out that MOST of your posts, which pertain to your ideas and beliefs, marginal as they are, are allowed to stand. That does not amount to silencing, and thus your claim is false.

Those "we" are exactly the persons that wish to address reality only in terms of Materialism XOR Idealism

That is a lie. We have explicitly addressed ALL of these alternatives including duality and your own nonsense ideas of unity. We do not reject these because we don't address them, we reject them AND tell you why. Since you know this, this claim of yours can only be a lie.

 

[doronshadmi]

I do not. I am pointing out that MOST of your posts, which pertain to your ideas and beliefs, marginal as they are, are allowed to stand. That does not amount to silencing, and thus your claim is false.

Again, this is no more than your 0/1 excluded middle reasoning, which ignores the contents of my replies to Nonpareil , that were moved to AHH, without removing also Nonpareil post. So you have no case.

We do not reject these because we don't address them, we reject them AND tell you why.

Really? Let's see exactly how you reject the following quote and also http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269050, http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p26900 and http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269301, AND tell me exactly (explicitly) why you reject them:

By my Natural monist view

... 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 [aspects] 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.

The stage is yours (and please do not ignore any of the links).

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, that was the basis for my objection. The materialist camp is doing a bit of a dance so that everything worth discussing - even, lately, the conceptual - is going to be called material, in an effort to keep the immaterial out of play.

Well, the immaterial doesn't exist, so it's much more of a dance to disagree.

I don't actually mind the ploy, but it kind of kills the discussion, when we can't even find an example of immaterial to look at.

Imagine our surprise.

All of my suggestions of immaterial things have failed to sprout.

Imagine our continuing surprise.

If everything I can possibly think about is material because it exists as electrochemical impulses in my noggin, then by definition I cannot even consider the ideas, save that those ideas are themselves material. My ability to reason is limited by the thing I'm reasoning with.

Yes.

In my view, this way of treating materialism is over-broad and fails to make any useful distinction. "Everything is material. I win."

Tough cheese, kid. Welcome to reality.

 

[marplots]

If everything I can possibly think about is material because it exists as electrochemical impulses in my noggin, then by definition I cannot even consider the ideas, save that those ideas are themselves material. My ability to reason is limited by the thing I'm reasoning with.

Yes.

In my view, this way of treating materialism is over-broad and fails to make any useful distinction. "Everything is material. I win."

Tough cheese, kid. Welcome to reality.

And, of course, with this over-broad brush, God and my lunch become equivalently real, since both are things I can think about in my head...

Claiming all the real estate means claiming the swamp along with the sunny meadow on the hillside.

 

[PixyMisa]

And, of course, with this over-broad brush, God and my lunch become equivalently real, since both are things I can think about in my head...

The instantiated concepts of God and lunch are equally real, since they're both brain processes. So?

Claiming all the real estate means claiming the swamp along with the sunny meadow on the hillside.

If both the swamp and the meadow are imaginary, then yes.

 

[Belz...]

Again, this is no more than your 0/1 excluded middle reasoning

Actually, it is the exact opposite. You simply cannot accept that you are wrong. You are NOT being silenced.

So you have no case.

Well, it's YOUR case, so what does that say about you ?

Really? Let's see exactly how you reject the following quote and also http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269050, http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p26900 and http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269301, AND tell me exactly (explicitly) why you reject them:

I've already told you: it's nonsense. It makes no sense. There are words there but no meaning. Perhaps someone can put some effort at clarifying it, but it won't be you. Until it's clarified, it's hard to address it. However, based on the earlier clarification given by another poster, your idea is inconsistent with observation, and self-contradictory. That's why I reject it.

It's really quite simple: if things interact, then they share some characteristic in common that puts them in the same ontological category. And if they interact, they affect each other and that can be detected in principle. There's no way around this.

 

[Belz...]

And, of course, with this over-broad brush, God and my lunch become equivalently real, since both are things I can think about in my head...

No. "God" doesn't exist. The house you imagine in your head doesn't exist, even if houses exist. It's just a process between your neurons.

 

[marplots]

No. "God" doesn't exist. The house you imagine in your head doesn't exist, even if houses exist. It's just a process between your neurons.

We haven't made much progress then by making thoughts themselves real things - if the subject of those thoughts may yet be imaginary. For once again, the imaginary is intruding on reality - a thing I am told isn't supposed to happen, since the real and the unreal cannot touch.

 

[Nonpareil]

Well perhaps you can use a brain scanner to observe the brain of a subject while listening to country music and then to classical music and compare which parts of the brain light up etc. But this is not determining that the subject prefers country, scientifically, it is merely an observation of the phenomena

...Which prove that the subject prefers country music over classical...

and is essentially the same as asking the subject directly which they prefer.

So does it get you an answer or not? You don't seem to be able to decide.

Tell me how a brain is different in a person who likes country from a person who likes classical?

They respond with different levels of enjoyment when exposed to each genre.

This is becoming repetitious.

Yes.

Are you getting angry? Your responses suggest it.

No idea where this came from, and no.

Here is what http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/ actually says about mental and physical phenomena:

And here is your definition of Natural monism that wrongly interprets what is actually written in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/:



Nonpareil, "you come to me with a square and try to pretend it's a triangle too" is exactly what you are doing about http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/.

So the exact address to your wrong claims about Natural monism is you and no one else but you.

Ah. I see the problem.

You don't understand what materialism or idealism is, either.

 

[Belz...]

We haven't made much progress then by making thoughts themselves real things - if the subject of those thoughts may yet be imaginary. For once again, the imaginary is intruding on reality - a thing I am told isn't supposed to happen, since the real and the unreal cannot touch.

I'm having a lot of difficulty parsing this. The unreal doesn't exist, so obviously it cannot affect reality. You are confusing the unreal with the belief in the unreal. You are confusing the effects of that belief with the effects of the thing being believed in.

 

[Nonpareil]

We haven't made much progress then by making thoughts themselves real things - if the subject of those thoughts may yet be imaginary. For once again, the imaginary is intruding on reality - a thing I am told isn't supposed to happen, since the real and the unreal cannot touch.

Imagining unreal things is not impossible. It is also not "the imaginary intruding on reality"; it's just your brain doing what your brain does.

Saying that imagining unreal things somehow makes those have an effect on reality is interesting - it forms the basis of several of my favorite short stories, for example - but it's not actually true in any meaningful sense.

 

[tsig]

And, of course, with this over-broad brush, God and my lunch become equivalently real, since both are things I can think about in my head...

Claiming all the real estate means claiming the swamp along with the sunny meadow on the hillside.

Your thoughts about god are reality, god not so much.

 

[marplots]

I'm having a lot of difficulty parsing this. The unreal doesn't exist, so obviously it cannot affect reality. You are confusing the unreal with the belief in the unreal. You are confusing the effects of that belief with the effects of the thing being believed in.

I do get the difficulty, but I'm not sure how to pierce it. I think we agree that our beliefs about things that do not exist can affect our behavior and hence reality. But the question seems to be about whether our beliefs, in and of themselves, are justified. In other words, if I react to something which does not exist, am I always foolish or mistaken to do so? I'd say not at all.

Consider a common enough occurrence. You and I are discussing whether or not to go to the movies this coming Saturday night. They will be showing a movie we both want to see and we can go at 4:30pm and eat after or go at 9:00pm and eat before. We need to purchase tickets for one showing or the other online today to get a discount - something we both agree about.

I'm arguing for the earlier time, because I think the cinema will be crowded for the later show, and I prefer not to see the movie with a rowdy crowd. You, on the other hand, point out the restaurant will be crowded if we eat later on, and we should eat first to avoid having to wait for a table.

Common enough situation. But consider what's going on here. By deciding on one course of action over another, we are eliminating one possible future. In fact, both "futures" do not exist at the time we are discussing the choices. And yet, our beliefs - justified beliefs, since we are familiar with crowds, restaurants, and movies - about these non-existent situations influence our current behavior: which tickets to buy.

And, to make things even more interesting, our choice, based on our belief about something that doesn't exist, actually creates (or tends to) what eventually does exist. But no matter which we choose, one of our future states will never exist at all. Somewhere in that mix I propose that the imaginary, the non-existent, touches reality and influences it thereby.

 

[LarryS]

And, of course, with this over-broad brush, God and my lunch become equivalently real, since both are things I can think about in my head...

Claiming all the real estate means claiming the swamp along with the sunny meadow on the hillside.

Yes, but stuff that 'is subject to modification', whether it be your lunch or God or pick any photon - these are not real. How can a thing subject to modification be verified as fact? It can be verified only in a practical way, and 'practical' means in the context of the lifespan or attention span of the observer. The material is not real, only the non material has a chance of being real.