I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[doronshadmi]

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

A AND B are material by your all-material theory, so after all some meterial process, called thought (for example "E=mc²") have found its way outside of Einstein's brain (A, in this example) and can be found in The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) (which is B, in this example), which is an agent of the "E=mc²" thought that were in Einstein's brain.

Humans. Really, you didn't understand that ?

How Humans are aware of themselves and what you call "all of reality"?

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.

Who observes all of reality, and why "all of reality" is only a clue?

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.

If all is matter, then what is exactly the difference between bricks of a given house and a given house?

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

Here is what you said:

Read it again: all of reality is material.

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

Please be aware of the fact that if the material is the evidence of itself, you are using a circular reasoning.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

This seems to assume that a thought read by two people is the same thought.

You haven't provided evidence that is the case.

 

[Dancing David]

Why, exactly?

What predictions does it make, I see a lot of allusions.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Yes my thoughts are different than yours, the burden of proof is for you to show that a thought is the same between two people.

 

[Dancing David]

A AND B are material by your all-material theory, so after all some meterial process, called thought (for example "E=mc2") have found its way outside of Einstein's brain (A, in this example) and can be found in The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) (which is B, in this example).

Not even wrong.

Excuse me doronshadmi, where exactly is the thought "E=MC^2" in the LHC, and how exactly does the LHC show evidence of that thought?

Are you saying that the LHC is sentient?

 

[doronshadmi]

This seems to assume that a thought read by two people is the same thought.

Not at all, thoughts are subjectively never the same, but only very roughly are considered as the same by using formalism (like mathematics, for example).

Also please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10394095&postcount=727.

 

[doronshadmi]

Are you saying that the LHC is sentient?

No, I say that LHC is an agent of thoughts.

 

[Dancing David]

No, I say that LHC is an agent of thoughts.

But how is it the agent of the though "E=MC^2" ?

 

[realpaladin]

I preaching to no one.

An empty choir is a ridiculous name for maybe the longest tread in this forum.

How would you know what this is about unless you read my post?

And longest thread in this forum? I looked it up... not by a pretty long shot Doron.

 

[realpaladin]

It is full of posters, so your analogy does not hold.

Except for JSFisher, Apathia and yours truly, they all ran away screaming...

 

[realpaladin]

I must say, in this thread Doron provides a lot more slapstick comedy. In the thread that is not to be mentioned he can always resort to contortion of symbols and definitions.

 

[Belz...]

A AND B are material by your all-material theory, so after all some meterial process, called thought (for example "E=mc²") have found its way outside of Einstein's brain (A, in this example) and can be found in The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) (which is B, in this example), which is an agent of the "E=mc²" thought that were in Einstein's brain.

Yes, but I still don't follow where you're going with this. I suspect you don't, either.

How Humans are aware of themselves and what you call "all of reality"?

Observation.

Who observes all of reality, and why "all of reality" is only a clue?

Humans. Because you can't ever be 100% sure of anything. Pay attention.

If all is matter, then what is exactly the difference between bricks of a given house and a given house?

No, you are failing to follow the argument again. If you live in a house, can you say you live in bricks ? That's the point. Saying that matter is aware of itself is misleading and awkward language, not to mention useless. It's only true in the broadest sense of the word. _BRAINS_ are aware of themselves.

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

Really, if you're not going to put ANY effort into understanding any of this, why should I bother ? Matter is everything that exists, and there is no evidence of anything else. That's the evidence. It's called matter and not thought because we know thought depends on matter, and because the difference between materialism and idealism is that in the former, reality is independant of the observer, whereas in the latter, it isn't. NEITHER of them explain what reality is made of. It's irrelevant to both hypotheses. But your hypothesis assumes that thought is of a different stuff than matter, so you need a third, more basic "stuff" to explain them. But thought IS matter, so your entire edifice crumbles.

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes, but I still don't follow where you're going with this. I suspect you don't, either.



Observation.



Humans. Because you can't ever be 100% sure of anything. Pay attention.



No, you are failing to follow the argument again. If you live in a house, can you say you live in bricks ? That's the point. Saying that matter is aware of itself is misleading and awkward language, not to mention useless. It's only true in the broadest sense of the word. _BRAINS_ are aware of themselves.



Really, if you're not going to put ANY effort into understanding any of this, why should I bother ? Matter is everything that exists, and there is no evidence of anything else. That's the evidence. It's called matter and not thought because we know thought depends on matter, and because the difference between materialism and idealism is that in the former, reality is independant of the observer, whereas in the latter, it isn't. NEITHER of them explain what reality is made of. It's irrelevant to both hypotheses. But your hypothesis assumes that thought is of a different stuff than matter, so you need a third, more basic "stuff" to explain them. But thought IS matter, so your entire edifice crumbles.

Now you pay attention dear Belz...,

"you can't ever be 100% sure of anything" is the substance of all your posts here, or in other words, Materialism(or in your case, Materialism as behavior), Idealism, Neutral Monism or whatever, are all speculations, and we as human beings can't do better than speculating.

Moreover, the content of the following quote is a lie according to your own reasoning

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.

if you are 100% sure what is matter ("behaviour", in your case).

 

[Belz...]

"you can't ever be 100% sure of anything" is the substance of all your posts here, or in other words, Materialism(or in your case, Materialism as behavior), Idealism, Neutral Monism or whatever, are all speculations, and we as human beings can't do better than speculating.

False dichotomy. Just because you're not 100% sure doesn't mean you're 0% sure. They are not speculations: they are hypotheses, and one of them is better evidenced than the other.

There are things we know for all intents and purposes, and there is nonsensical ramblings like your neutral monism idea.

I notice you've ignored any and all attempts at educating you. If you're not here to discuss and learn, why are you here at all ?

 

[Jango]

There's a thread that is quite active I challenge you: your best argument for materialism that is - as you can probably guess - all about the best arguments for why materialism is "correct". There have been several members that have posted who have argued by assertion that there is an alternate to materialism that is as successful (or more so) at predicting and describing the reality we exist in.

Rather than derailing that thread I'd thought I'd start this one so they can put forward their alternate (or alternates).

Anyone willing to kick this thread off?

Evolution and transcendence.

 

[doronshadmi]

False dichotomy. Just because you're not 100% sure doesn't mean you're 0% sure. They are not speculations: they are hypotheses, and one of them is better evidenced than the other.

The reliability of any evidence (including the reliability of the invention of % as a measurement unit) depends on the reliability of your brain, so what you call Matter's behavior is actually the reliability of the behavior of your brain.

Your brain tells you that "you can't ever be 100% sure of anything", and then you take your subjective experience and use it as a must have conclusion for the entire reality.

Actually your brain tells you that Matter's behavior is no more than some bounded expression of the substance of reality, but you ignore your brain by using your "not 100% sure" paradigm as the substance of your hypothesis.

Your brain is actually the key that enables to unfold the substance of reality in daily life, but instead of doing this you are only observe the naturally ever changed Matter's behavior and missing day by day the full potential of your brain.

But your hypothesis assumes that thought is of a different stuff than matter, so you need a third, more basic "stuff" to explain them.

My hypothesis assumes that the substance of reality is simpler than all possible expressions of it, whether these expressions are described as material, spiritual or whatever.

The fact that you count the simplest state of existence as one_of_many thing, clearly demonstrates that you are still trying to comprehend my hypothesis in terms of multiplicity, which is no more than the composed expression of the simplest state of existence (which is non-composed).

No wonder that http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10383108&postcount=654 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10383153&postcount=656 is beyond the Matter's behavior of your brain.

 

[Belz...]

The reliability of any evidence (including the reliability of the invention of % as a measurement unit) depends on the reliability of your brain

Not in materialism it doesn't.

See, you don't even understand the topic being discussed.

My hypothesis assumes that the substance of reality is simpler than all possible expressions of it

There is only one expression of it, and it's pretty damn simple, so your hypothesis is an answer to a question no one is asking. You are simply assuming duality, a mistake I am not making.

 

[doronshadmi]

Not in materialism it doesn't.

There is only one expression of it, and it's pretty damn simple

As for materialism, please at least learn about dark matter and dark energy, as it is currently known by the most updated mainstream science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter):

As you can see, it's not pretty damn simple.

you can't ever be 100% sure of anything

So is the case about any evidence, according to your own reasoning.

In other words, you, by principle put bounds to our abilities to know reality.

On the contrary, I do not put any bounds to our abilities to know reality.

So stay as much as you like in your own bounds, but you will not find me there.

End of the discussion between us, and I wish you the best.

 

[doronshadmi]

Evolution and transcendence.

Hey Jango,

I agree with your direction, please provide more details.

 

[realpaladin]

As for materialism, please at least learn about dark matter and dark energy, as it is currently known by the most updated mainstream science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter):

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Matter_Distribution.JPG[/qimg]

As you can see, it's not pretty damn simple.


So is the case about any evidence, according to your own reasoning.

In other words, you, by principle put bounds to our abilities to know reality.

On the contrary, I do not put any bounds to our abilities to know reality.

So stay as much as you like in your own bounds, but you will not find me there.

End of the discussion between us, and I wish you the best.

I think I once described this tactic as:

D: "Explain what you mean."
P: "Well, it is in this context quite easy to see that A does not equal B."
D: "It is not easy! Because the rapuctor was not factored in!"
P: "Rapuctor? But we were talking about A and B..."
D: "See, you don't even get it! Unless you understand how the Foomfargle obladies the Rapuctor in the ootbloid section, nothing you say stands up to the scrutiny of Science! So sayeth the spirits of Woowoowoo!"
P: "?"
D: "You impertinent mental midget! We now stop communicating! I command this! Peace and Unity!"

But in other words. Really, Doron is all about kibitzing and bickering; in 7 years I have not seen one (1) single attempt to understand someone else.

I also have not seen one (1) single shred of evidence for *anything* he is talking about.