I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Belz...]

My point is that it could not. See my post to myriad before this one.

You mean the one where you expose your ignorance of neurology ? Sure. But it remains that thoughts are a particular behaviour of the nervous system. By observing the behaviour, you can know the thought without asking the person.

Perhaps you are not treating subjective phenomena as an emergent property.

Why would I ?

 

[doronshadmi]

Think about building a house ? Won't build itself, but you can build it if you want to, which is what I'm talking about.

Great, so thoughts after all have the ability to impact reality beyond the borders of their brain.

Moreover peace and war start and end in peoples' thoughts, so the key for peace on earth is found right now within each one of us, and it can't be achieved unless the simplest state of existence is used as the substance of our thoughts in daily life.

 

[Belz...]

Great, so thoughts after all have the ability to impact reality beyond the borders of their brain.

No, they don't. Not directly. Did you even read the post you just replied to, or did you just look for something easy to reply to ?

Seems to me like you have a lot of work to do to even be able to hold a conversation on a forum, let alone proving your crackpot theories.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, they don't. Not directly.

It does not matter. The fact is that they after all have an impact on the reality beyond the borders of the brain.

Once again, peace and war start and end in peoples' thoughts, so the key for peace on earth is found right now within each one of us, and it can't be achieved unless the simplest state of existence is used as the substance of our thoughts in daily life.

Your material-only theory can't be used in order to use the simplest state of existence as the substance of our thoughts in daily life, because the material is a composed expression of the simplest state of existence.

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

Please tell me what is matter, exactly, and how exactly it became aware of itself?

 

[abaddon]

It does not matter. The fact is that they after all have an impact on the reality beyond the borders of the brain.

Once again, peace and war start and end in peoples' thoughts, so the key for peace on earth is found right now within each one of us, and it can't be achieved unless the simplest state of existence is used as the substance of our thoughts in daily life.

Your material-only theory can't be used in order to use the simplest state of existence as the substance of our thoughts in daily life, because the material is a composed expression of the simplest state of existence.

What you are engaged in is what is generally called a "retrograde action" as a euphemism.

It means full out retreat.

You are trying to squeeze your particular flavour of the "woo of the gaps" into ever decreasing gaps which, to the discomfiture of the many woo peddlers is shrinking under their feet at an ever accelerating rate. I must warn you in advance. There are a great many woo peddlers attempting to fit their particular woo into those ever shrinking gaps, and they cannot all fit since they all conflict with each other.

This is, of course, a bitter bag of weasels which I am content to observe from the sidelines, but have no great desire to participate in at all.

 

[punshhh]

You mean the one where you expose your ignorance of neurology ? Sure. But it remains that thoughts are a particular behaviour of the nervous system. By observing the behaviour, you can know the thought without asking the person.

What you describe here is equivalent to asking the person again. You are observing the behaviour of the person and concluding that a certain behaviour indicates that the person is enjoying country music. Any detail of neurology is irrelevant, other than showing what parts of the brain light up when there is enjoyment.

Yes I know that this kind of science is going on, but it fails to demonstrate that any kind of musical preference can be determined through an analysis of the material structure of the brain. It always relies on either an observation of the behaviour of the person, or asking that person. You need to take the person (as opposed the brain) out of the analysis to demonstrate the physical basis of the musical preference. Because it fails to exclude any idealist conscious aspect of the person.

Why would I ?

Because you deny any kind of a subjective knowledge independent of the physical material of the brain.

 

[doronshadmi]

it remains that thoughts are a particular behaviour of the nervous system. By observing the behaviour, you can know the thought without asking the person.

Not correct, first you have to ask the person about the thoughts, and only then you are able to define the correspondence between these particular thoughts and the particular behavior of the nervous system, that is given to you by your martial agents, which are always external to the original experience of the thinker within itself.

Only at the seconded time, after you have got the needed knowledge from the thinker, you are able very roughly to know the thought without asking the person.

In other words, you have no chance to know up to the last detail what one really thinks, and your martial tools are no more than your external agents w.r.t to the original experience of the thinker within itself.

Furthermore, finer you go more your material agents are influenced by QM uncertainty principle.

So even if thoughts are material-only by your theory, no material phenomena can fully be another material phenomena, and this is exactly the reason of subjective experience.

 

[Belz...]

It does not matter.

Of course it does, since the thoughts (brain processes) are what are affecting the brain, which in turns affects the body, which in turn affects the world beyond. But Darth Vader isn't affecting anything; the thought of Vader is. That is the crucial distinction that you fail to make.

Your material-only theory can't be used in order to use the simplest state of existence as the substance of our thoughts in daily life, because the material is a composed expression of the simplest state of existence.

I don't need to explain something that doesn't exist. If you think this simplest state exists, you need to show it.

Please tell me what is matter, exactly, and how exactly it became aware of itself?

I don't give two Japanese yen about what it is: I only care about what it does. And "awareness" is part of what it does. No magic or extra substance required. The problem is that you don't understand that.

 

[Belz...]

What you describe here is equivalent to asking the person again.

Only in the sense that it will provide the same answer.

You are observing the behaviour of the person and concluding that a certain behaviour indicates that the person is enjoying country music. Any detail of neurology is irrelevant, other than showing what parts of the brain light up when there is enjoyment.

And what's the difference ? If enjoyment of music has the same behaviour in all brains, you can tell that someone is enjoying a particular piece of music with the machine. It's the same thing with strata in geology: you don't need to radiodate a stratum every time, because you know this particular stratum is from X million years ago. I don't see your objection.

Yes I know that this kind of science is going on, but it fails to demonstrate that any kind of musical preference can be determined through an analysis of the material structure of the brain.

That is a contradictory sentence.

It always relies on either an observation of the behaviour of the person, or asking that person.

And ? All of science relies on observation. How would we know that exoplanets exist in star system X without knowing what planets are and what they do first ? You seem to be objecting to prior knowledge.

Because you deny any kind of a subjective knowledge independent of the physical material of the brain.

And ? Subjective experience is just a subset of objective reality, by definition. Are you saying that my version of it isn't magical enough for your tastes ?

 

[doronshadmi]

Of course it does, since the thoughts (brain processes) are what are affecting the brain, which in turns affects the body, which in turn affects the world beyond

Well this is exactly my point. The impact of thoughts is spread beyond the borders of a give brain.

For example the impact of the thought "E=mc²" is definitely beyond the thought itself and actually enables to determine if we are going to survive on this planet, or not.

I don't need to explain something that doesn't exist. If you think this simplest state exists, you need to show it.

It is known if you are actually enable to be aware of yourself without thoughts (which is the simplest state of awareness).

This is exactly how reality is developed from the simplest state of existence, where the simplest is by its very own nature is not extra w.r.t its composed expressions (where matter is such composed expression).

I don't give two Japanese yen about what it is: I only care about what it does. And "awareness" is part of what it does. No magic or extra substance required. The problem is that you don't understand that.

By knowing what reality is, you are able to influence on what it does.

So I'll ask you again, what is matter, exactly, and how exactly it became aware of itself (and please define it according to your non-magical standards)?

If this time you are going to escape once again from this question, it will be very clear that you are using Matter without actually know what it is, exactly.

 

[turingtest]

Well this is exactly my point. The impact of thoughts is spread beyond the borders of a give brain.

For example the impact of the thought "E=mc²" is definitely beyond the thought itself and actually enables to determine if we are going to survive on this planet, or not.


It is known if you are actually enable to be aware of yourself without thoughts (which is the simplest state of awareness).

This is exactly how reality is developed from the simplest state of existence, where the simplest is by its very own nature is not extra w.r.t its composed expressions (where matter is such composed expression).


By knowing what reality is, you are able to influence on what it does.

So I'll ask you again, what is matter, exactly, and how exactly it became aware of itself (and please define it according to your non-magical standards)?
If this time you are going to escape once again from this question, it will be very clear that you are using Matter without actually know what it is, exactly.

I'll take a stab at this (I'll try to make it in language you might appreciate, if not understand):

Matter is what matter does, no more and no less. If it's not self-aware, it's still matter, but it doesn't matter except when it does to that which is and therefore does. If it is self-aware matter, then that's all that matters- "how" doesn't.

(Wow, this woo stuff can be fun!)

 

[Belz...]

Well this is exactly my point. The impact of thoughts is spread beyond the borders of a give brain.

What part of the word "directly" causes you trouble ?

It is known if you are actually enable to be aware of yourself without thoughts (which is the simplest state of awareness).

Nice try, but knowledge comes from evidence, not introspective musings. You need to provide evidence, not just rhetoric. So where is it ?

So I'll ask you again, what is matter, exactly, and how exactly it became aware of itself (and please define it according to your non-magical standards)?

I have already told you: it is impossible, even in principle to know the nature of reality. You can only know how it behaves. Anyone trying to tell you what it is either is lying to you or is seriously deluded. "Matter" isn't a state, it's a behaviour, as has been pointed out to you before.

And about awareness, matter isn't aware of itself, the system that is aware is aware of itself. Think of a computer. Saying the computer is running a game and saying that matter is running games, or that a person is breathing and that matter is breathing, is very different -- dare I say misleading.

 

[Dancing David]

Once again, they are changeable because of the non-entropic principle that is derived from the fact that the sum of finitely or infinitely many bounded and composed things can't be unbounded and non-composed.

It isn't really an alternative to materialism, but it is entertaining.

 

[doronshadmi]

What part of the word "directly" causes you trouble ?

There are no parts here if everything is material. In the case of thoughts, some of them are spread beyond their brains and some of them are not yet spread beyond their brains,where the ability to be spread beyond a given brain, depends on the depth of thoughts with the rest of reality.

Nice try, but knowledge comes from evidence, not introspective musings. You need to provide evidence, not just rhetoric. So where is it ?

The deepest knowledge of reality is exactly the simplest state of it that is the substance of any possible behavior, where this behavior is expressed by thoughts within a given brain or spread beyond the thoughts by talking about thoughts and also systematically use them in order to build some tools as the agents of thoughts, which enable to shape the reality beyond the given brains and beyond the rhetoric. You are doing your best in order to not become evident to your simplest sate of existence, which is exactly the substance of all possible behaviors.

I have already told you: it is impossible, even in principle to know the nature of reality. You can only know how it behaves. Anyone trying to tell you what it is either is lying to you or is seriously deluded. "Matter" isn't a state, it's a behaviour, as has been pointed out to you before.

Moreover, by your process-only principle you have no substance at all, all you have is behaviors that you have no clue from where they come and what they are actually do.

And about awareness, matter isn't aware of itself, the system that is aware is aware of itself. Think of a computer. Saying the computer is running a game and saying that matter is running games, or that a person is breathing and that matter is breathing, is very different -- dare I say misleading.

So suddenly your songs are changed, reality is not all-martial, but there are systems and persons that can't be defined in terms of matter, because, by your own evidence: "matter isn't aware of itself".

So all your

If something interacts with the material, it IS material. If something is not material, it CANNOT interact with the material.

has no basis anymore, by your own evidence.

 

[doronshadmi]

It isn't really an alternative to materialism

Why, exactly?

 

[doronshadmi]

I'll take a stab at this (I'll try to make it in language you might appreciate, if not understand):

Matter is what matter does, no more and no less. If it's not self-aware, it's still matter, but it doesn't matter except when it does to that which is and therefore does. If it is self-aware matter, then that's all that matters- "how" doesn't.

(Wow, this woo stuff can be fun!)

doronshadmi: "Why it is this or that?

turingtest: "It does not matter, and this is what is really matters."

 

[Belz...]

There are no parts here if everything is material. In the case of thoughts, some of them are spread beyond their brains and some of them are not yet spread beyond their brains,where the ability to be spread beyond a given brain, depends on the depth of thoughts with the rest of reality.

No. You are entirely wrong, as usual. Thoughts do not spread beyond the brain. They only have impact outside of it through the brain and the body. It's like saying that Obama killed Bin Laden personally.

The deepest knowledge of reality is exactly the simplest state of it that is the substance of any possible behavior, where this behavior is expressed by thoughts within a given brain or spread beyond the thoughts by talking about thoughts and also systematically use them in order to build some tools as the agents of thoughts, which enable to shape the reality beyond the given brains and beyond the rhetoric.

So where's your evidence for this ?

Moreover, by your process-only principle you have no substance at all, all you have is behaviors that you have no clue from where they come and what they are actually do.

That is the complete inverse of the truth: the behaviours tell us what they actually do, and we do have a clue of where it comes from because we don't waste time trying to pin some "substance" to it. At this point it's clear that you don't even understand the fundamentals of logic, science or even discussion.

So suddenly your songs are changed, reality is not all-martial, but there are systems and persons that can't be defined in terms of matter, because, by your own evidence: "matter isn't aware of itself".

No, that is not at all what I said. Read it again: all of reality is material. Systems of matter are aware of themselves.

So all your
has no basis anymore, by your own evidence.

You have no idea what that word means, then.

 

[turingtest]

doronshadmi: "Why it is this or that?

turingtest: "It does not matter, and this is what is really matters."

doronshadmi: "Irony? What's that?"

 

[doronshadmi]

No. You are entirely wrong, as usual. Thoughts do not spread beyond the brain. They only have impact outside of it through the brain and the body.

Since everything is material by your own evidence, the thoughts in the brain and their impact outside their brain are different (known as inside\outside) accepts of the same material realm, so your inside\outside dichotomy is no more than your interpretation of some process that starts at A and ends at B (know, in this case, as The Chain Of Command), where both A AND B are at the same realm.

That is the complete inverse of the truth: the behaviours tell us what they actually do, and we do have a clue of where it comes from because we don't waste time trying to pin some "substance" to it.

What is exactly, us and we?

Also what is exactly this clue, and from where exactly it comes?

No, that is not at all what I said. Read it again: all of reality is material. Systems of matter are aware of themselves.

What is the difference between "Systems of matter" and "matter", if all of reality is material?

You have no idea what that word means, then.

So, what is exactly evidence by your material-only theory?

 

[Belz...]

Since everything is material by your own evidence, the thoughts in the brain and their impact outside their brain are different (known as inside\outside) accepts of the same material realm, so your inside\outside dichotomy is no more than your interpretation of some process that starts at A ends at B, where both A AND B are at the same realm.

You are so confused that your sentence above makes zero sense. Thoughts are material, yes. So ?

What is exactly, us and we?

Humans. Really, you didn't understand that ?

Also what is exactly this clue, and from where exactly it comes?

The clue is all of reality; our observations of it; not your musings. Thinking about something isn't enough. No wonder you call a claim "evidence". Read up on science and big bang physics before you try to overturn everything.

What is the difference between "Systems of matter" and "matter", if all of reality is material?

Really, your inability to understand even the simplest concepts is astounding. Do you really not see the difference between bricks and a house ? Saying matter is aware of itself is like saying that matter is running or talking or running computer programs. It's only true in the broadest and most useless sense.

So, what is exactly evidence by your material-only theory?

Sorry, but I see no need to provide evidence for something that I never said. Clear your misconceptions, and we'll see.