I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[doronshadmi]

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

Pay attention.

Do you really ask me to pay attention to this reply?

Ah. I see the problem.

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

Forget it.

For the last time, please, by using detailed reply, air your view about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543 content.

 

[Belz...]

1) You have no clue what my theorem is.

YOU have no clue what your 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?)

It's not my fault if others express your own ideas better than you. Now, if you can get your stuff together and give me a sensible explanation of your theorem, we might be getting somewhere.

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

I understand at leass this: 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:

So they ARE all physical. Sounds like the Christian trinity: god is three people, but not really.

 

[Belz...]

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

Here's a useful diagram:

My Natural 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).

Word salad. Chassez le naturel et il revient au galop.

 

[Nonpareil]

Do you really ask me to pay attention to this reply?

I do. I just don't expect you to actually do so.

Forget it.

Correctly, as it turns out.

For the last time, please, by using detailed reply, air your view about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543 content.

Fine.

You do not understand the definition of materialism or idealism. You also don't understand the definition of neutral monism. You fail to differentiate between "mental and physical phenomena exist" and "(material/consciousness)[select one of preceding] is the underlying nature of reality". You fail to realize that materialism, idealism, and neutral monism are all mutually exclusive.

You don't.

Understand.

What you're talking about.

 

[doronshadmi]

Neutral. Neutral monist.

Thank you for the correction.

A line.

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

A line is defiantly not defined as "the unbounded and non-composed straight or non-straight 1-dimesional element", so no, it is not a line.

It is an analogy of Unity.

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

Definition, any given definition (whether it is defined by words or diagrams) exists only at the level of multiplicity.

Since multiplicity is derived from Unity, but not vise versa, Unity is defined only in terms of analogy, whether this analogy is words or a given diagram.

Since your reasoning is limited only to multiplicity, it does not have the needed abstraction in order to comprehend what Unity is.

 

[Nonpareil]

A line is defiantly not defined as "the unbounded and non-composed straight or non-straight 1-dimesional element", so no, it is not a line.

Well, you're right, but not for the reason you think. It's for the reason I pointed out before: a non-straight one-dimensional element is a contradiction. Also, because "non-composed" means nothing.

Other than that, yes, that is what a line is.

Definition, any given definition (whether it is defined by words or diagrams) exists only at the level of multiplicity.

Since multiplicity is derived from Unity, but not vise versa, Unity is defined only in terms of analogy, whether this analogy is words or a given diagram.

Since your reasoning is limited only to multiplicity, it does not have the needed abstraction in order to comprehend what Unity is.

Gibberish.

 

[doronshadmi]

Fine.

You do not understand the definition of materialism or idealism. You also don't understand the definition of neutral monism. You fail to differentiate between "mental and physical phenomena exist" and "(material/consciousness)[select one of preceding] is the underlying nature of reality". You fail to realize that materialism, idealism, and neutral monism are all mutually exclusive.

Your reply did not address http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543 at all.

This time please air your view by explicitly quoting what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543.

Thank you.

 

[doronshadmi]

a non-straight one-dimensional element is a contradiction. Also, because "non-composed" means nothing.

Only by your multiplicity reasoning (in that case you don't understand the meaning of "element").

Other than that, yes, that is what a line is.

Irrelevant, it has nothing to do with line.

Gibberish

Only by using your multiplicity reasoning.

Now it becomes very clear why you can't comprehend, for example, http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269301.

It is indeed can't be comprehended by using multiplicity reasoning.

 

[LarryS]

Only by your multiplicity reasoning (in that case you don't understand the meaning of "element").


Irrelevant, it has nothing to do with line.


Only by using your multiplicity reasoning.

Now it becomes very clear why you can't comprehend, for example, http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269301.

It is indeed can't be comprehended by using multiplicity reasoning.

I admit I have no idea what you are getting at, but for the moment I will be sympathetic to your cause and attempt to grasp it. Are you suggesting that:

the universal substrate is Unity
Unity is without distinction
Unity has the capacity to make a distinction
from a single distinction, multiplicity can be explained

 

[doronshadmi]

I admit I have no idea what you are getting at, but for the moment I will be sympathetic to your cause and attempt to grasp it. Are you suggesting that:

the universal substrate is Unity
Unity is without distinction
Unity has the capacity to make a distinction
from a single distinction, multiplicity can be explained

Hey LarryS,

Please pay attention that any communication between us in this media is done only in terms of analogy about Unity, which is not Unity in itself.

Before you and I continue the dialog, do you have anything to reply about that?

 

[Nonpareil]

Your reply did not address http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543 at all.

This time please air your view by explicitly quoting what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543.

Thank you.

I have no interest in playing games with you. Your question has been answered. Whether or not you like the answer is not my problem.

Only by your multiplicity reasoning (in that case you don't understand the meaning of "element").

Gibberish.

Let me know when your definition of "unity" or "multiplicity" begins to border on coherent.

Scratch that. Let me know when you have any definition at all.

 

[doronshadmi]

Your question has been answered.

As long as your answer is not explicitly based on the content of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543 (by quoting its content as an inseparable part of your answer) you did not answer to my question.

You fail to realize that materialism, idealism, and neutral monism are all mutually exclusive.

Simply wrong, Neutral monism claims that Materialism or Idealism are only phenomena that are derived from a common substance that can't be considered as one of its phenomenon.

At no point any of the phenomenon is considered as false, as you wrongly claim in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543.

 

[Nonpareil]

As long as your answer is not explicitly based on the content of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10376859&postcount=543 (by quoting its content as an inseparable part of your answer) you did not answer to my question.

See previous comment.

I also find it rather telling that your defense against being accused of not understanding a philosophical argument to the point of claiming two mutually exclusive things are both true, then making the same mkstake again with a third position, is to quibble with the way in which this problem is pointed out to you.

 

[LarryS]

Hey LarryS,

Please pay attention that any communication between us in this media is done only in terms of analogy about Unity, which is not Unity in itself.

Before you and I continue the dialog, do you have anything to reply about that?

If my assumption is correct, that Unity is without distinction, then no words of comparison or measurement will apply to Unity, neither would any tools of science, and we would be limited to analogy and parable. Will be also have to put logic and rationality aside? (BTW, I am not being sarcastic)

 

[doronshadmi]

If my assumption is correct, that Unity is without distinction, then no words of comparison or measurement will apply to Unity, neither would any tools of science, and we would be limited to analogy and parable. Will be also have to put logic and rationality aside? (BTW, I am not being sarcastic)

Unity in itself is simpler than any tool, mental or physical, which is used to measure it.

As for logic, please look at http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269007.

 

[doronshadmi]

See previous comment.

I also find it rather telling that your defense against being accused of not understanding a philosophical argument to the point of claiming two mutually exclusive things are both true, then making the same mkstake again with a third position, is to quibble with the way in which this problem is pointed out to you.

Please look at the edited version of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377870&postcount=592.

 

[LarryS]

Unity in itself is simpler than any tool, mental or physical, which is used to measure it.

As for logic, please look at http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269007.

You're going to have to speak like I'm in 4th grade - that web page makes no sense.

 

[doronshadmi]

to the point of claiming two mutually exclusive things are both true,

This is no more than your materiel aspect of your multiplicity reasoning, that wrongly gets Unity as one_of_many thing.

 

[doronshadmi]

You're going to have to speak like I'm in 4th grade - that web page makes no sense.

If Unity is the unbounded source of all bounded forms, it is naturally unbounded by contradiction or tautology, which are clearly the bounds of logic at the level of multiplicity.

So is the case about mental or physical phenomena, which are some bounded forms at the multiplicity level that is derived from Unity, but not vice versa.

Please look also at http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269301 and http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269052.

Thank you.

 

[Nonpareil]

Unity in itself is simpler than any tool, mental or physical, which is used to measure it.

As for logic, please look at http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269007.

This is no more than your materiel aspect of your multiplicity reasoning, that wrongly gets Unity as one_of_many thing.

If Unity is the unbounded source of all bounded forms, it is naturally unbounded by contradiction or tautology, which are clearly the bounds of logic at the level of multiplicity.

So is the case about mental or physical phenomena, which are some bounded forms at the multiplicity level that is derived from Unity, but not vice versa.

Please look also at http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269301.

Yes, yes, we know all of this. But you're ignoring the bigger question.

Has anyone even been so far as even to decide to use even to go look more like?