I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[doronshadmi]

Dear Belz...

Your "words salad" loop-reply is your way to avoid any real discussion on the considered subject:

both is a form of multiplicity.

Moreover, you reject Idealism exactly because you compare it with Materialism, so how you are able to reject Idealism without first compare both of them with each other?

...

But Unity does not need multiplicity in order to be, as addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566.

As for your used signatures that you don't agree with, mein kampf is somehow missing, or maybe Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ISIS manifests ...

 

[doronshadmi]

Dear Belz...

Your "words salad" loop-reply is your way to avoid any real discussion on the considered subject:

both is a form of multiplicity.

Moreover, you reject Idealism exactly because you compare it with Materialism, so how you are able to reject Idealism without first compare both of them with each other?

...

But Unity does not need multiplicity in order to be, as addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566.

----

It's called a signature. And of course it appears at the end of each of my posts. How does it follow that I agree with it ?

As for your used signatures that you don't agree with, mein kampf is somehow missing, or maybe Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ISIS manifests ...

 

[Belz...]

My point is that you are not analysing the material (of the body) to determine if the subject prefers country music. You are observing their response to it.

Isn't that the same thing ? The body's response IS the material doing things.

Now if brain states and thoughts can be understood physically one should in principle be able to determine by analysis of the physical material of the body which style of music they prefer.

Yes, and we will.

Quite, now who is contradicting themselves?

Not me, unless you can somehow explain the contradiction. I presume that you will only highlight your lack of comprehension.

Ah, you feign anger

No, again you are a terrible reader. There was no anger in my post. In fact, you just proved my point.

I am referring to the meaning of magic. The definition of magic is something which is not understood and appears to defy the laws of nature.

I'll agree to the second part but not the first. Plenty of people claim to understand magic.

Now it cannot be determined if it is defying the laws of nature, or if it follows them and merely appears not to, due to our incomplete understanding of the laws of nature.

That is incorrect. You can tell that it defies the laws you currently have.

This is an unfounded claim.

Unfounded ? Every single thing we have ever observed and/or studied has always been physical. Anything not physical is forever beyond our ability to observe it in any way. How is it unfounded ?

No it is not logically contradictory at all. Due to humanity's limited understanding of nature, logic would have to consider that there may be something in existence in nature of which we are likely to have no understanding. This could include materials, or other existent things (X), which are (from our perspective) independent of physical matter and impinge on its state and change of state in some way(unknown to us).

The contradiction is that you are saying that something interacts but cannot be detected. As explained to you several times, that is impossible. If it interacts then by definition it can be detected, in principle.

Nice try, but it has not been established that every thing is composed of particles*.

Yes it has.

Well for starters, there may be a common substrate between our known physical matter(a)and another form of matter(X), allowing an influence in the state of (a), of a state in (X). This would necessarily be a mechanism external to our instance of timespace.

Irrelevant. They would thus both be physical. You are having a hard time following the fundamentals, here.

I have no beliefs, why won't you believe me?

Because your actions betray you.

Correction, mind is not an abstraction, the contents of mind are an abstraction.

Correction ? I'm asking you what it means.

 

[Belz...]

Dear Belz...

Your "words salad" loop-reply is your way to avoid any real discussion on the considered subject:

No, it's pointing out that you again and again post nonsense that you can't even clarify to others.

As for your used signatures that you don't agree with, mein kampf is somehow missing, or maybe Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ISIS manifests ...

Ad hominem. You do not understand the point of my signature, you think you can mind-read me (probably some power granted by unity), and are unable to accept that you are wrong.

You also cannot explain your ideas in a coherent way.

 

[marplots]

Especially if its not even wrong!

That remains to be determined.

I'm doubly handicapped. First, I'm a materialist, so arguing the other side doesn't come naturally. Second, I think others in the discussion have traveled the road before and know the arguments I am likely just discovering for myself.

Where it stands now is a brand of solipsism. If I grant that the contents of mind are material - as in electro-chemistry/biology - then every thought becomes bound to materialism too. But I think there's a bit of a dodge going on, because, like other solipsistic arguments, it fails to connect the contents of mind with outside facts - the very thing an objective materialist wants to do.

But I'm stuck for a good way to express my objection. And I don't understand a word of that "monist/unity/vibration" argument.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, it's pointing out that you again and again post nonsense that you can't even clarify to others.

It's pointing out that you can't explain how you reject Idealism, without first compare it to Materialism, or in other words, at the basis of your logic there are two things that exclude each other (you are using XOR logical connective between Idealism=0 | Materialism=1, as follows:

 p XOR q        
---------       
 0     0  --> 0 
                
 0     1  --> 1 
                
 1     0  --> 1 
                
 1     1  --> 0

--------------

Ad hominem.

This signature

"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." - Starship Troopers

is Ad hominem, and yet it is used by you as a signature for your posts.

Why is that?

 

[turingtest]

...

This signature

"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." - Starship Troopers

is Ad hominem, and yet it is used by you as a signature for your posts.

Why is that?

You don't really know what "ad hominem" means, do you?

 

[punshhh]

That remains to be determined.

Agreed.
It was in reference to "Not even wrong", as used by PixyMisa, when he states that it is incoherent.

I'm doubly handicapped. First, I'm a materialist, so arguing the other side doesn't come naturally. Second, I think others in the discussion have traveled the road before and know the arguments I am likely just discovering for myself.

Yes, it would help if they engaged your ideas a bit, for the purposes of discussion. I barely get the opportunity to go over the arguments as I see them.

Where it stands now is a brand of solipsism. If I grant that the contents of mind are material - as in electro-chemistry/biology - then every thought becomes bound to materialism too. But I think there's a bit of a dodge going on, because, like other solipsistic arguments, it fails to connect the contents of mind with outside facts - the very thing an objective materialist wants to do.

yes, on both points. Hopefully I am opening this out with Belz.

But I'm stuck for a good way to express my objection. And I don't understand a word of that "monist/unity/vibration" argument.

I know the unity philosophy well. Perhaps if we discuss it a bit and perhaps with Doron, it might be more fruitful.

 

[punshhh]

And our point is that, while in the vast majority of situations, simply asking is more than ample evidence, you could actually verify it with a brain scanner.

If we are discussing an entirely physical material universe, then the sentiment "I prefer country music to classical", will in theory be represented in a combination of atoms in the brain and if the brain is dissected sufficiently this configuration of atoms can be compared with the configuration of atoms representing the sentiment "I prefer classical music to country" and indeed, "however I am undecided about the relative merits of Dolly Parton and Chopin" for relaxation", along with a myriad of other sentiments. Enabling the scientist to read the thoughts and sentiments of the subject.

 

[MRC_Hans]

If we are discussing an entirely physical material universe, then the sentiment "I prefer country music to classical", will in theory be represented in a combination of atoms in the brain and if the brain is dissected sufficiently this configuration of atoms can be compared with the configuration of atoms representing the sentiment "I prefer classical music to country" and indeed, "however I am undecided about the relative merits of Dolly Parton and Chopin" for relaxation", along with a myriad of other sentiments. Enabling the scientist to read the thoughts and sentiments of the subject.

Yes, that is correct.

Hans

 

[pagetheoracle]

Well we have opinion about whether something should exist or not (positive and negative emotion). Then we have subjective reality and objective reality. I see clouds that exist outside in the physical world but receive signals in my head that like a camera displays them on an internal screen (analogy).

Does this mean the outside world doesn't exist because I receive pictures in my head, just like a TV does or would it make the TV egotistical (if it ad a personality), if it thought so? I think we transmit and receive ideas and that we make them real in the outside world through the creation of physical forms as inside our head they exist as thought forms or ideas only (or memories of what did exist in the past but may not be present now.

I hope this is as clear as mud, m'lud!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well we have opinion about whether something should exist or not (positive and negative emotion). Then we have subjective reality and objective reality. I see clouds that exist outside in the physical world but receive signals in my head that like a camera displays them on an internal screen (analogy).

You are perceiving the outside world through your senses, but that is all physical: Light from the clouds form a projection on your retina where it is converted to electrical signals that go to your brain, which processes them. Much like a camara, yes.

Does this mean the outside world doesn't exist because I receive pictures in my head,

No, the opposite: It means the outside world exists, since it can form pictures in your head.

I think we transmit and receive ideas and that we make them real in the outside world through the creation of physical forms as inside our head they exist as thought forms or ideas only (or memories of what did exist in the past but may not be present now.

The outside world is real whether you perceive it or not.

Hans

 

[Belz...]

It's pointing out that you can't explain how you reject Idealism, without first compare it to Materialism

I do compare it to materialism. I have done so in this thread. How could you have missed it ?

or in other words, at the basis of your logic there are two things that exclude each other

Oh, this is where you are wrong. They are not exclusive. They just cannot interact. If they interact, then they are of the same stuff.

This signature

[...]

is Ad hominem

What ? Do you even know what "ad hominem" means ? It's an argument based on a personal attack. How is my signature a personal attack ? It's a quote from a movie. A quote I disagree with morally but which is often true historically. That has nothing to do with the current topic, by the way.

 

[doronshadmi]

I do compare it to materialism. I have done so in this thread. How could you have missed it ?

I did not miss it. You need both Materialism and Idealism in order to compare between them, so you are actually using multiplicity reasoning.

Oh, this is where you are wrong. They are not exclusive. They just cannot interact. If they interact, then they are of the same stuff.

They interact during your comparison between them, you simply can't avoid it, and no, they are not of the same stuff and yet they are interact by XOR logical connective, such that Materialism excludes Idealism by your Materialist point of view, which is derived from multiplicity reasoning.

This is not the case of Unity, since Unity is the substance of all 16 logical connectives (including XOR), but not vise versa as very simply addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10381545&postcount=645.

What ? Do you even know what "ad hominem" means ? It's an argument based on a personal attack. How is my signature a personal attack ? It's a quote from a movie. A quote I disagree with morally but which is often true historically. That has nothing to do with the current topic, by the way.

force=violence is the mother of personal ad hominem attacks, exactly because you let this equation to be at the heart of the democratic system, when persons like you are using it as their signature.

Morality is at the essence of this thread, and your Materialism-only view is exactly where force=violence is flourishing.

 

[Belz...]

I did not miss it. You need both Materialism and Idealism in order to compare between them, so you are actually using multiplicity reasoning.

You are all over the place. On the one hand you ask me to compare them, and then you seem to be saying that doing so is the wrong way to think. Which is it ?

They interact during your comparison between them, you simply can't avoid it, and no, they are not of the same stuff and yet they are interact by XOR logical connective

You are confused. Things do not interact by thinking about them. If I think about a battle between Darth Vader and Bruce Lee, they do not interact because none of them exist right now. And even if they did, the only thing interacting would be the particles in my brain.

Materialism excludes Idealism by your Materialist point of view

Again, you are incorrect. You are simply not reading what I write: materialism does not exclude idealism. They just cannot interact.

which is derived from multiplicity reasoning.

You can't even explain what that is.

This is not the case of Unity, since Unity is the substance of all 16 logical connectives (including XOR), but not vise versa as very simply addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10381545&postcount=645.

We're talking about reality, not some fiction you can dream up.

force=violence is the mother of personal ad hominem attacks

Again: I have just explained to you what an ad hominem attack is: it's an insult. How is that an insult ?

exactly because you let this equation to be at the heart of the democratic system, when persons like you are using it as their signature.

At this point you are back to talking nonsense. The quote is about human history.

Morality is at the essence of this thread, and your Materialism-only view is exactly where force=violence is flourishing.

Now it seems fully obvious that you are just picking stuff you see left and right and trying to fit them into a single narrative even when nothing of the sort is warranted.

And, tell me, what is political force if not violence or the threat thereof ?

 

[doronshadmi]

You are all over the place. On the one hand you ask me to compare them, and then you seem to be saying that doing so is the wrong way to think. Which is it ?

Multiplicity reasoning is not wrong, it is simply limited to the expressed level of multiple and bounded things that exclude the unbounded and non-composed substance, which they are derived from (the substance that enables multiple and bounded things to interact with each other, in the first place).

Materialism or Idealism are definitely no more than an aggregation of bounded things that exclude the unbounded and non-composed substance, which they are derived from, where in this multiplicity-only media is marked as Unity.

You are confused. Things do not interact by thinking about them.

You are simply wrong, please read more about placebo, nocebo, phantom pain, etc.

Again, you are incorrect. You are simply not reading what I write: materialism does not exclude idealism. They just cannot interact.

Wrong, they are interact by mutually exclude each other.

If Materialism was really the only substance, Idealism even can't be imagined, in the first place.

You can't even explain what that is.

Wrong, it is very simply explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10379299&postcount=619, where again, any explanation is only about Unity and not Unity in itself.

Once again, speaking about silence is not silence in itself.

We're talking about reality, not some fiction you can dream up.

What you call reality is the bounded, composed and ever changed multiple expressions of Unity,where Unity is the unbounded non-composed and invariant substance of multiplicity, which naturally enables the harmony among multiplicity.

Again: I have just explained to you what an ad hominem attack is: it's an insult. How is that an insult ?

Insult is no more than a tip of an iceberg of force=violence equation, that is used as the signature of your posts.

At this point you are back to talking nonsense. The quote is about human history.

No, the quote is about your filter about human history, and the following quote actually supports my argument about you, in this case:

And, tell me, what is political force if not violence or the threat thereof ?

Real political force is the ability to use it in order to develop win-win strategy among us, without eliminate our diversity, materially or spiritually.

So real political force is definitely not "violence or the threat thereof".

Once again, Materialism-only XOR Idealism-only, are no more than particular case at the level of multiplicity, that simply prevent the fruitful harmonious and diverse interactions among them, and indeed lead to rationality without emotions (Materialism) or emotions without rationality (Idealism), where both cases unfortunately lead to "political force as an act of violence".

The history can be changed if people are opened to the unbounded and non-composed substance, where multiplicity is derived from, such that no sum of infinitely many things is their unbounded and non-composed substance (reality is non-entropic, and therefore an ever creative).

 

[Belz...]

Materialism or Idealism are definitely no more than an aggregation of bounded things

I'm going to stop you before you get further into the salad thing: how do you even know either of those things is even true ?

You are simply wrong, please read more about placebo, nocebo, phantom pain, etc.

And again you are horribly confused. You seem to be under the impression that thoughts are not physical. They ARE, which is why they interact with the rest of reality. I think this is your fundamental mistake.

Wrong, they are interact by mutually exclude each other.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

If Materialism was really the only substance, Idealism even can't be imagined, in the first place.

Again, nonsense. There is literally no rhyme or reason to what you just posted.

Wrong, it is very simply explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10379299&postcount=619, where again, any explanation is only about Unity and not Unity in itself.

Nowhere in that post does it talk about "multiplicity reasoning". So not only is it not simply explained, it's not explained at all. Want to try again ?

What you call reality is the bounded, composed and ever changed multiple expressions of Unity,where Unity is the unbounded non-composed and invariant substance of multiplicity, which naturally enables the harmony among multiplicity.

Wow, that sounds great, doesn't it ? What does it mean ?

Insult is no more than a tip of an iceberg of force=violence equation

No, actually, it has nothing to do with it. Insult is "you're an idiot". Saying that force is violence is not an insult, because it's not about a person anyway.

No, the quote is about your filter about human history

No, I'm pretty sure we can agree that violence has been one of the prime movers of human civilization since the beginning.

So real political force is definitely not "violence or the threat thereof".

No ? What happens to you if you break the law and resist arrest ?

Once again, Materialism-only XOR Idealism-only, are no more than particular case at the level of multiplicity, that simply prevent the fruitful harmonious and diverse interactions among them, and indeed lead to rationality without emotions (Materialism) or emotions without rationality (Idealism), where both cases unfortunately lead to "political force as an act of violence".

The history can be changed if people are opened to the unbounded and non-composed substance, where multiplicity is derived from, such that no sum of infinitely many things is their unbounded and non-composed substance (reality is non-entropic, and therefore an ever creative).

Word salad. You cannot explain how that quote, from a movie, has anything to do with the topic at hand. You are off-topic.

 

[abaddon]

Doron seems entirely unaware of the nature of the movie and the intent of the quotation. He also seems not to understand what signatures are for nor what ad hom actually means. I don't hold that against him, however. What I find odd is the refusal to countenance any and all explanations of that which everyone else regards as normal.

 

[doronshadmi]

I'm going to stop you before you get further into the salad thing: how do you even know either of those things is even true ?

The material and the spiritual are both changeable.

Unity is the invariant substance of the changeable.

And again you are horribly confused. You seem to be under the impression that thoughts are not physical. They ARE, which is why they interact with the rest of reality. I think this is your fundamental mistake.

You are still confused, the changeable can't be the substance of anything.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

You are unable to comprehend the 16 logical connectives, and how these connectives are no more than expressions of Unity.

Again, nonsense. There is literally no rhyme or reason to what you just posted.

Materialism is changeable and therefore you have no basis to your woo Materialist substance of reality.

Nowhere in that post does it talk about "multiplicity reasoning". So not only is it not simply explained, it's not explained at all. Want to try again ?

Find the word "multiplicity" in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10379299&postcount=619 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566 and continue from there, it is very simple (but not to a person that forces the changeable as the substance of reality).

Wow, that sounds great, doesn't it ? What does it mean ?

It is a fundamental question that you forgot to ask yourself, when you decided to use the changeable as the substance of reality.

No, actually, it has nothing to do with it. Insult is "you're an idiot". Saying that force is violence is not an insult, because it's not about a person anyway.

Insult is a "soft" case of being ad hominem where murder is the "hard" case of being ad hominem. Both of them are forms of violence, therefore force=violence is an ad hominem equation.

No, I'm pretty sure we can agree that violence has been one of the prime movers of human civilization since the beginning.

This is exactly the reason why we very quickly have to do our best in order to enliven force=harmony among us, before force=violence will totally fulfill itself on this planet.

No ? What happens to you if you break the law and resist arrest ?

Simply do not break the law, and avoid violence of any kind.

Word salad. You cannot explain how that quote, from a movie, has anything to do with the topic at hand. You are off-topic.

You are using the changeable as the substance of reality, so don't be surprised that the best you can get is no more than word salad (or more comprehensively worlds salad).

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron seems entirely unaware of the nature of the movie and the intent of the quotation. He also seems not to understand what signatures are for nor what ad hom actually means. I don't hold that against him, however. What I find odd is the refusal to countenance any and all explanations of that which everyone else regards as normal.

I am sorry, but I disagree that force=violence is normal, nor to the very narrow view of ad hom as insults.