I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[marplots]

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.

"Verified as fact" was a limiting condition I wasn't imposing on the materialists, since I'm not going to use it myself.

 

[Nonpareil]

But the question seems to be about whether our beliefs, in and of themselves, are justified.

It isn't.

In other words, if I react to something which does not exist, am I always foolish or mistaken to do so?

That's not "in other words". That's an entirely different question.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Verification applies to models, which is all that words , thoughts and theories are. All we have is approximations for the behavior of observed reality.

By your standard, nothing will ever be validated.

 

[MRC_Hans]

So all forms and categories of wrong are exactly the same?

• The moon is made of the dairy product green cheese
• 2+2=5
• Killing a newborn for the fun of it.

In effect you are saying there is a universal physical cause and effect which gives you the physical property of being wrong. How odd

That was not what he said. And you know it.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

Irrelevant for the existence of the triangle.

Which means that there's a possible universe where the Pythagoream Theorem exists in a universe with no conscious beings. That begs the obvious question: How does the Pythagream Theorem (SP) exist in a mindless universe? What is the materialist explanation for that?

The Pythagoream Theorem does not exist in a universe without minds, but the fact that it describes does.

A necessary condition for description is someone to do the describing. In a universe without minds, the mathematical descriptions still exist, but there are no describers. What is the material explanation for that?

The mathematical facts exist, even with nobody to decribe them. 2+2 equals four, even if nobody knows.

If the representations exist independent of any minds, then it seems it's a rather large problem for materialism

No.

Hans

 

[doronshadmi]

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.

1) You have no clue what my theorem is.

2) You use some another poster in spite of (1) in order to reject it (B.T.W who is exactly this another poster?)

In other words, you reject something even if you simply don't understand it.

There is no wonder that by using this weak reasoning you have no clue what is addressed, for example, in http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269301.

Say no more.

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.

It's really quite simple: multiplicity (the waves patterns) is derived from Unity (the unbounded and non-composed straight or non-straight 1-dimesional element) but not vise versa, as very simply addressed by the following diagram:

Moreover Unity exits even if it does not expressed as multiplicity (the waves patterns), as addressed by the unbounded and non-composed straight 1-dimesional element in this diagram.

Materialism\Idealism is some form of multiplicity that its existence depends on Unity, but not vise versa.

Once again, as long as someone count Unity as one_of_many thing, he\she actually misses the vary nature of Unity (which is invariant and unbounded by its expressions, as very simply addressed by the diagram above) 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.

 

[Nonpareil]

1) You have no clue what my theorem is.

Doron, I honestly don't believe that even you have any clue what your theorem is.

It's really quite simple: multiplicity (the waves patterns) is derived from Unity (the unbounded and non-composed straight or non-straight 1-dimesional element) but not vise versa, as very simply addressed by the following diagram:

[qimg]https://c4.staticflickr.com/4/3296/5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg[/qimg]

Moreover Unity exits even if it does not expressed as multiplicity (the waves patterns), as addressed by the unbounded and non-composed straight 1-dimesional element in this diagram

Translation, for those who don't feel like putting on their waders to get through the gibberish:

The pretty semicircles ("multiplicity", "waves patterns") are drawn by dividing the line ("unity", "unbounded and non-composed straight one-dimensional element") into halves over and over.

It still means nothing in support of his earlier assertions, and his uses of "multiplicity" and "unity" are still gibberish even using the definitions he gives here (which are hardly definitions at all).

 

[doronshadmi]

The pretty semicircles ("multiplicity", "waves patterns") are drawn by dividing the line ("unity", "unbounded and non-composed straight one-dimensional element") into halves over and over.

This is an actual example of a person that gets the diagram only in terms of one_of_many thing.

The "value" of its replies about Natural monism, is demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543.

Nonpareil, you have no clue what my Natural monist model of Unity is.

 

[Nonpareil]

This is an actual example of a person that gets the diagram only in terms of one_of_many thing.

The "value" of its replies about Natural monism, is demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543.

No.

No, it isn't.

 

[tsig]

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.

The future doesn't exist til you get there, then it becomes the past.

 

[tsig]

Doron, I honestly don't believe that even you have any clue what your theorem is.



.

His theorem seems to exist merely so he can ridicule those who don't understand it.

 

[doronshadmi]

No.

No, it isn't.

This reply is "very convincing", what I can say, I'm just overwhelmed by it.

 

[Nonpareil]

This reply is "very convincing", what I can say, I'm just overwhelmed by it.

Thank you. I myself am often staggered by how clear and concise I can be when making it clear that something is just plainly, self-evidently wrong.

Are you done making up nonsense phrases yet?

 

[doronshadmi]

His theorem seems to exist merely so he can ridicule those who don't understand it.

Wrong tsig, my replies use very simple demonstrations of my Nuatral monist model of Unity.

 

[Nonpareil]

Wrong tsig, my replies use very simple demonstrations of my Nuatral monist model of Unity.

...he says immediately after substituting an eight-word phrase for "line".

 

[doronshadmi]

Thank you. I myself am often staggered by how clear and concise I can be when making it clear that something is just plainly, self-evidently wrong.

Really?

For example, please clearly demonstrate what is wrong in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543?

 

[Nonpareil]

Really?

For example, please clearly demonstrate what is wrong in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543?

This is at least the third time that you have demanded responses to questions that have already been dealt with.

Pay attention.

 

[doronshadmi]

...he says immediately after substituting an eight-word phrase for "line".

My Neutral monist model Unity uses an unbounded non-composed straight or non-straight 1-dimnsional element as an analogy of Unity (where any given analogy is not the discussed thing itself).

 

[Nonpareil]

Natural monist

Neutral. Neutral monist.

Unless you've given up pretending that you know what that means, and are using this new term to give yourself another un-definition to hide behind.

an unbounded non-composed straight or non-straight 1-dimnsional element

A line.

Unless it's non-straight, in which case it is not one-dimensional.

as an analogy of Unity (where any given analogy is not the discussed thing itself).

So you still don't have a definition, then.

Glad we could clear that up.

 

[Belz...]

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.

I don't think that's relevant. Even if god exists, your actions based on the belief in him have nothing to do with the actual god.