I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Belz...]

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

You are moving the goalposts. Dark matter is still matter: that's only ONE type of thing. Next thing you know you'll be talking about the four food groups and saying matter is a lot of different things, as if that's what we're talking about.

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.

In other words, you are making things up.

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

You sure won't find it by just thinking about it. Sophists thought they could, but they were wrong.

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

How convenient that you exit all this, having not defined or supported your claims.

 

[doronshadmi]

Before the 20th century, the term matter included ordinary matter composed of atoms and excluded other energy phenomena such as light or sound. This concept of matter may be generalized from atoms to include any objects having mass even when at rest, but this is ill-defined because an object's mass can arise from its (possibly massless) constituents' motion and interaction energies. Thus, matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept in physics today. Matter is also used loosely as a general term for the substance that makes up all observable physical objects.

...

It is fair to say that in physics, there is no broad consensus as to a general definition of matter, and the term "matter" usually is used in conjunction with a specifying modifier.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter)


So, a materialist or an idealist can't avoid the conclusion that we can't ever be 100% sure of anything exactly because the very nature of expressions, behaviors etc. is their inability to be the simplest state of existence, which does not need any expression, behavior etc. or sum of expressions, behaviors etc. (finite or infinite) in order to simply be.

In other words, our brain actually directs us in order to be aware of the simplest state of reality, which is the actual substance of all possible expressions, behaviors etc.

By being tuned with the actual substance of all possible expressions during daily life, expressions, behaviors etc. interact harmonically and mutual destructive phenomena are no longer one of the characters of reality.

The main goal of our scientific development is to enliven the actual substance of all possible expressions, behaviors etc. in our daily life, and if we are going to fail in this finest mission (after we achieved the technology that enables to destroy us, and we are very close in achieving it) natural evolution will find other living creatures that will actually be able to fulfill this finest mission.

Thoughts (whether they are considered as material or ideal) are no more than expressions so we won't find the simplest state of reality by just thinking about it, and this is exactly where techniques like Transcendental Meditation get on stage and we have to do our best in order scientifically develop them into Unity consciousness in our daily life.

More details are found in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10336151&postcount=170, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10336522&postcount=173 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10397700&postcount=756.

 

[Belz...]

When are we getting the evidence for neutral monism, Doron ?

 

[doronshadmi]

When are we getting the evidence for neutral monism, Doron ?

It is at the substance of your brain right now, all you have to do is to use an effortless technique that enables you to be aware of finer levels of your thoughts until you are directly aware of the finest state of awareness which is actually the simplest state of existence and the substance of all possible expressions, behaviors etc.

Any evidence at the level of expressions, behaviors etc. is not the one that you are looking for.

 

[Belz...]

It is at the substance of your brain right now, all you have to do is to use an effortless technique that enables you to be aware of finer levels of your thoughts until you are directly aware of the finest state of awareness which is actually the simplest state of existence and the substance of all possible expressions, behaviors etc.

Any evidence at the level of expressions, behaviors etc. is not the one that you are looking for.

I asked you for evidence, not rhetoric. If all this neutral monism is is just you making stuff up because you think it fits, just say so.

 

[abaddon]

It is at the substance of your brain right now, all you have to do is to use an effortless technique that enables you to be aware of finer levels of your thoughts until you are directly aware of the finest state of awareness which is actually the simplest state of existence and the substance of all possible expressions, behaviors etc.

Any evidence at the level of expressions, behaviors etc. is not the one that you are looking for.

Evidence? Of course not.

That particular contention is obvious baloney. The techniques are simple self delusion.

Feel free to demonstrate them if they have any validity, but bear in mind that I have investigated them and I know for a fact that it is BS.

Of course, you will now proceed to say I didn't do it right, the go to excuse for every woo fail. Please do not bother with such vacuous arguments. I am well familiar with that rubbish.

As things stand, you have nothing that even approaches anything scientific, let alone fails to approach "vaguely spooky".

If you have some concrete evidence, sure, I would be willing to look, but none has been presented, ever, so you have an evidential mountain to climb.

 

[punshhh]

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

It is equivalent in that a reference to the person is necessary to reach the correct conclusion.
By person I mean the conscious being, that which is in an idealistic universe, part of the universal conscious being.

I find it hard to acknowledge that you are not aware that this distinction is the point of argument here. I.e.

You and other posters are saying that the sentiment " I prefer country to classical music", is encoded in some way chemically in the brain (correct me if I am wrong). This can then in theory be read by some kind of scanning device which pinpoints the atomic configuration in the brain, signifying the musical preference.

Your argument fails because you fail to exclude the necessary input of the person somewhere in the process, or to acknowledge that this is a requirement in order for you to negate an idealist universe in the mix.

That very person is the point in which the conscious mind of the universal consciousness of an idealist universe is manifest, resulting in the world we find around us. As such your argument must explain how the sentiment of musical preference is physically, chemically, or atomically manifest in the brain, in the absence of the input of the person (the point of idealist expression) who holds the preference.

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.

Behaviour is an expression of the person and must be screened out of the analysis. See my point above.

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.

Again you fail to realise the distinction between the chemical composition of the brain and the personal preference of the person. This distinction is critical to your claim.

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 ?

Subjective experience is something which happens to a person. Take away the person and there is no subjective experience. Philosophically the personal experience of being is the primary knowledge of a being, all other knowledge including that of physical material is secondary and might only have the appearance it does, while actually being something else entirely. It can only be relied upon to conform to previous experience, subjective and objective.

 

[Belz...]

It is equivalent in that a reference to the person is necessary to reach the correct conclusion.

But not necessarily by asking them. I can watch someone at a restaurant and tell if they like their meal or not.

You and other posters are saying that the sentiment " I prefer country to classical music", is encoded in some way chemically in the brain (correct me if I am wrong).

Where the hell else would it be encoded ? In the foot ?

Your argument fails because you fail to exclude the necessary input of the person somewhere in the process, or to acknowledge that this is a requirement in order for you to negate an idealist universe in the mix.

I don't need to negate idealism. Idealism is not proven or in fact supported in any way. I don't need to prove a negative. Materialism works fine without any need for something extra. Not that it wouldn't be fascinating. It just isn't required.

That very person is the point in which the conscious mind of the universal consciousness of an idealist universe is manifest, resulting in the world we find around us. As such your argument must explain how the sentiment of musical preference is physically, chemically, or atomically manifest in the brain, in the absence of the input of the person (the point of idealist expression) who holds the preference.

No, I really don't. We know from observation that mind, emotion, memory and consciousness itself is wholly brain-based. This alone negates the need for the soul and whatever hypothesis seeks to either include or explain it. We can see that thoughts are electrochemical in nature. At this point there is simply no possible discussion on this. The deal is done.

Again you fail to realise the distinction between the chemical composition of the brain and the personal preference of the person. This distinction is critical to your claim.

No it isn't. The two are one and the same.

Subjective experience is something which happens to a person. Take away the person and there is no subjective experience. Philosophically the personal experience of being is the primary knowledge of a being, all other knowledge including that of physical material is secondary and might only have the appearance it does, while actually being something else entirely. It can only be relied upon to conform to previous experience, subjective and objective.

I don't deal in philosophy. I deal in reality.

 

[doronshadmi]

I asked you for evidence, not rhetoric. If all this neutral monism is is just you making stuff up because you think it fits, just say so.

No, you ask for evidence about the simplest state of existence.

As long as you do not actually practice an effortless technique that transcends thoughts' process and directly become aware of the simplest state of existence (which is unbounded by any expression including thoughts, rhetoric that is derived from thoughts, or any kind of behavior what so ever) you will not find the evidence that you are looking for.

I don't deal in philosophy. I deal in reality.

As long as you deal only in the expressed level of reality, the best you can get is an evidence about the simplest state of existence, so your Matter's behavior is no more than a philosophy that has no ability to deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10400915&postcount=762.

 

[punshhh]

But not necessarily by asking them. I can watch someone at a restaurant and tell if they like their meal or not.

Yes, ok.

Where the hell else would it be encoded ? In the foot ?

In the mind, not specifically in the atomic configuration of the brain. This is my entire point. The brain is the foundation stone of the mind in this world, but not the entire activity of the mind. Some is subjective and some is reasoned.

I don't need to negate idealism. Idealism is not proven or in fact supported in any way. I don't need to prove a negative. Materialism works fine without any need for something extra. Not that it wouldn't be fascinating. It just isn't required.

You do if you are using it as a justification for dismissing idealism.
There's that practicality again, it's not needed. Yes you're right, but as I've already pointed out we are not discussing utility or practicality here. We are discussing ontology, alternate philosophies

No, I really don't. We know from observation that mind, emotion, memory and consciousness itself is wholly brain-based. This alone negates the need for the soul and whatever hypothesis seeks to either include or explain it. We can see that thoughts are electrochemical in nature. At this point there is simply no possible discussion on this. The deal is done.

Yes I see that, there are some assumptions contingent in this conclusion though.

No it isn't. The two are one and the same.

This is one of the assumptions just referred to. That the subjective experience of living is just a chemical activity, effect of the physical brain. It remains an assumption until either it is demonstrated artificially, or subjective experience, or sentiment, can be identified in, or explained through the activity of, the structure of the brain.

I know this is a subtle distinction, but this is where the issue I am presenting lies.

I don't deal in philosophy. I deal in reality.

Materialism is a philosophy.
Your position is perfectly justified until you, or others in the same position, attack or attempt to explain away philosophically justified ontologies such as idealism.

As I repeatedly point out in such threads, all you have is parsimony(practicality).

 

[doronshadmi]

I have investigated them and I know for a fact that it is BS.

Did you ever actually practiced an effortless technique that transcended thoughts' process and directly became aware of the simplest state of existence, or your investigations were all done at the level of your thoughts' process?

If your answer is NO for the first part of the question and YES for the second part of the question, then what know for a fact is indeed BS.

As about the TM movement please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10336522&postcount=173.

As about science please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10391642&postcount=716.

 

[doronshadmi]

But not necessarily by asking them. I can watch someone at a restaurant and tell if they like their meal or not.

Whether you ask them or watch them, your ability to know anything about them totally depends on the abilities of your brain, and currently you know your brain only at the expressed level of thoughts, which is never the simplest state of existence, which is the substance of all expressed aspect of reality, including your thoughts, the restaurant, the meal that is served in that restaurant, and the persons that react to that meal.

Once again what you understand as evidence is no more than the expressed aspect of the simplest state of existence, and without directly know the simplest state of existence, you actually unable to fully know reality.

The beautiful fact of the simplest state of existence is that it is naturally free of woos, but you can't know that exactly because your brain is tuned only to the expressed level of reality, where many woos are involved, including your Matter's behavior woo, as very clearly addressed in

Before the 20th century, the term matter included ordinary matter composed of atoms and excluded other energy phenomena such as light or sound. This concept of matter may be generalized from atoms to include any objects having mass even when at rest, but this is ill-defined because an object's mass can arise from its (possibly massless) constituents' motion and interaction energies. Thus, matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept in physics today. Matter is also used loosely as a general term for the substance that makes up all observable physical objects.

...

It is fair to say that in physics, there is no broad consensus as to a general definition of matter, and the term "matter" usually is used in conjunction with a specifying modifier.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter)

and you simply ignore it.

 

[Belz...]

No, you ask for evidence about the simplest state of existence.

Yes, and you did not provide it.

As long as you do not actually practice an effortless technique that transcends thoughts' process and directly become aware of the simplest state of existence (which is unbounded by any expression including thoughts, rhetoric that is derived from thoughts, or any kind of behavior what so ever) you will not find the evidence that you are looking for.

So introspection ? That's where your problem lies. Introspections has NEVER given us answers about objective reality. That's why we invented science.

As long as you deal only in the expressed level of reality, the best you can get is an evidence about the simplest state of existence, so your Matter's behavior is no more than a philosophy that has no ability to deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10400915&postcount=762.

Begging the question.

 

[Belz...]

In the mind, not specifically in the atomic configuration of the brain. This is my entire point. The brain is the foundation stone of the mind in this world, but not the entire activity of the mind.

You have no basis for this statement. I said before: ALL of the mind is brain-based. We know this. If you have any evidence that some of it isn't, present it.

You do if you are using it as a justification for dismissing idealism.

No, I don't. Again this is a fundamental misunderstanding of reason and science. ALL ideas are wrong until proven right, not the other way around.

This is one of the assumptions just referred to. That the subjective experience of living is just a chemical activity, effect of the physical brain.

Read this carefully, Punshhh: it's not an assumption. It's a CONCLUSION based on centuries of observation and evidence and science. At this point there is no other possible conclusion that fits the facts. Idealism makes an assumption; namely that there's something else that we can't detect, for no reason whatsoever.

Materialism is a philosophy.

Again, no. It's a conclusion. Re-labeling it doesn't change the facts.

As I repeatedly point out in such threads, all you have is parsimony(practicality).

All I have ? Parsimony is the most useful and compelling thing I could possibly have. What do you have ? Satisfaction -- the fact that your ideas are soothing to you because you have an immortal soul.

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes, and you did not provide it.

You and only you are able to provide the needed evidence by directly aware of the simplest state of existence, which is naturally free of any thoughts' process. So what you are actually do in order to unfold the simplest state of existence as the substance of your brain?

Introspections has NEVER given us answers about objective reality. That's why we invented science.

Knowledge about reality is not reality in itself, where reality in itself is exactly the simplest state of existence as the substance of all possible expressions, whether they are experienced from inside out as subjective or from outside in as objective.

As long as you are bounded by subjective\objective multiplicity, your best knowledge is only an about reality knowledge.

Introspections are thoughts about the simplest state of existence, so thank you for reinforce my argument on your Matter's behavior philosophy.

As for science, it was invented\discovered in order to unfold the simplest state of existence in daily life, and this goal definitely can't be achieved by brains that are floating at the level of subjective\objective multiplicity, which is naturally ever changing.

Once again you completely ignored the undated mainstream knowledge about Matter, as addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10401703&postcount=772.

This is exactly the reason of why your brain tells you that we can't be 100% sure of anything, but you simply ignore your own brain and continue to run after the naturally ever changing, which are also the inside out subjective introspections of your brain.

Begging the question.

This is indeed the value of your question for evidence, as long as your evidence is no more than some expression of the simplest state of existence.

In general http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10400915&postcount=762 is not in your scope.

 

[Belz...]

You and only you are able to provide the needed evidence by directly aware of the simplest state of existence, which is naturally free of any thoughts' process.

See, if I do what you propose, I might arrive at a totally different conclusion. What then ? How could we determine which one of us, if any, is correct ? Evidence is objective. Therefore it must be available and presentable.

The rest of your post is word salad again. Show your evidence or admit that you are making things up.

 

[doronshadmi]

See, if I do what you propose, I might arrive at a totally different conclusion.

The simplest state of existence is the substance of any expression including conclusions and presentations. If you and me are directly aware of it there is no difference between you and me, and this is exactly what Unity consciousness is that is naturally unbounded by any particular expression of it. Since both of us are derived from the same unbounded substance, which is the foundation of all possible expressions, this is the first step for harmony among us subjectively and objectively, exactly because the simplest state of existence is the substance of any multiplicity including subjectivity\objectivity multiplicity.

We become unique expressions of the same source that are no longer harm each other, exactly as two organs of the same healthy organism are in harmony with each other, which enables the entire organism to be developed in direct proportionality with the harmony among its organs.

This harmony is spread among the entire universe, and it is turned into an harmonious phenomena that is naturally non-entropic, exactly because no sum of phenomena is the simplest state of existence (http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269007 is an analogy of such ever developed harmonious organism).

 

[Belz...]

The simplest state of existence is the substance of any expression including conclusions and presentations. If you and me are directly aware of it there is no difference between you and me

I have no awareness of it, so it couldn't be more different. Don't tell me to look within myself: give me concrete, objective evidence. At this point it seems certain that you have no idea what evidence is, or how to establish a hypothesis.

Since both of us are derived from the same unbounded substance, which is the foundation of all possible expressions, this is the first step for harmony among us subjectively and objectively, exactly because the simplest state of existence is the substance of any multiplicity including subjectivity\objectivity multiplicity.

It does not follow that being made of something allows one to be aware of that thing.

Provide the evidence, or retract your claim.

 

[doronshadmi]

Don't tell me to look within myself: give me concrete, objective evidence.

In that case you will never get the concrete evidence that you are looking for, which is actually beyond the subjective\objective multiplicity, which is no more than some bounded expression of the simplest state of existence.

I have no awareness of it,

Of course you have an awareness of it and it clearly tells you that you can't be 100% sure of anything as long as you try to be aware of it (the simplest state of existence) in terms of its expressions.

You are still do not comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10400915&postcount=762 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10401703&postcount=772.

It's a CONCLUSION based on centuries of observation and evidence and science.

It is a conclusion based on centuries of observation and evidence and science that were all done only at the expressed level of the simplest state of existence, which can't actually be known by its expressions, because they are naturally more complex than it.

The actual goal of science was, is, and always will be to unfold the simplest state of existence as the substance of daily life.

 

[Belz...]

In that case you will never get the concrete evidence that you are looking for, which is actually beyond the subjective\objective multiplicity, which is no more than some bounded expression of the simplest state of existence.

That's your way of telling me you have no evidence and that your neutral monism idea is therefore disproven. Took you long enough.

The actual goal of science was, is, and always will be to unfold the simplest state of existence as the substance of daily life.

Stop redefining things to fit your own desires. Science is about understanding and using the world around us to our benefit.