I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[doronshadmi]

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

No, that is your way to stay limited at the expressed level of the simplest state of existence, by doing your best in order to save your "we can't be 100% sure of anything" paradigm.

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

Nothing was redefined. Your "we can't be 100% sure of anything" paradigm is exactly the way of how not really understanding and using the world around us (and within us) to our benefit.

Moreover "our benefit" is really fulfilled if it is harmoniums with the rest of the universe, exactly as the benefit of a given organ is really fulfilled only if it is in harmony with the entire organism.

By your "we can't be 100% sure of anything" paradigm, reality is no more than fragmented pieces of knowledge that are never organs of a one cohesive reality.

Both believers and skeptics fail to transform reality into one cohesive organism, because both of them know reality only at its expressed level, which is never the simplest state of existence as the substance of its expressions, where any expression is composed w.r.t the simplest state of existence.

 

[Belz...]

No, that is your way to stay limited at the expressed level of the simplest state of existence, by doing your best in order to save your "we can't be 100% sure of anything" paradigm.

Sorry, Doron, but you have lost. You have admitted that you cannot provide any evidence or support. Your theory is rejected. Thanks for playing.

 

[doronshadmi]

Sorry, Doron, but you have lost. You have admitted that you cannot provide any evidence or support. Your theory is rejected. Thanks for playing.

On the contrary, your "we can't be 100% sure of anything" paradigm fails by its own reasoning.

Your theory is rejected by its own "we can't be 100% sure of anything" paradigm.

You are an hopeless skeptic (Skepticism is actually your religion) and there is no chance to communicate with fanatic religious persons.

 

[punshhh]

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.

I do not dispute that the mind is brain based. Remember my analogy with the Television, all subjective content of the programmes aired on the TV is dependent on the electrical components of the TV for their existence. However that same subjective content is not evident in the components in any way. Indeed there is no subjective meaning of any kind in any aspect of a TV. Subjects are language devices employed between people.

Likewise, the components of the brain are necessary for a person to have knowledge of subjects, but none of those subjects are provided by the activity of the brain, they are only enabled by the brain. The subjects along with the personal subjective experience are generated and experienced by the person, not the brain.

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.

Perhaps this is a description of scientific thinking. The trouble with living your life with scientific thinking is that it is blinkered to that which is not yet understood.

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.

Provisional conclusion I presume, because we know from history that most scientific understanding is superseded and found to be wrong later. Again, this is blinkered.

Idealism makes an assumption; namely that there's something else that we can't detect, for no reason whatsoever.

This is a caricature of idealism.

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

I suggest you look up the definition of materialism.

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.

Parsimony is usefull when considering practicality. It is of little use when discussing philosophical positions, because philosophical positions can include rational alternatives to empiricism.

 

[tsig]

I do not dispute that the mind is brain based. Remember my analogy with the Television, all subjective content of the programmes aired on the TV is dependent on the electrical components of the TV for their existence. However that same subjective content is not evident in the components in any way. Indeed there is no subjective meaning of any kind in any aspect of a TV. Subjects are language devices employed between people.

Likewise, the components of the brain are necessary for a person to have knowledge of subjects, but none of those subjects are provided by the activity of the brain, they are only enabled by the brain. The subjects along with the personal subjective experience are generated and experienced by the person, not the brain.



Perhaps this is a description of scientific thinking. The trouble with living your life with scientific thinking is that it is blinkered to that which is not yet understood.

Provisional conclusion I presume, because we know from history that most scientific understanding is superseded and found to be wrong later. Again, this is blinkered.
This is a caricature of idealism.
I suggest you look up the definition of materialism.

Parsimony is usefull when considering practicality. It is of little use when discussing philosophical positions, because philosophical positions can include rational alternatives to empiricism.

That's why philosophy is totally useless when discussing anything rational.

 

[Belz...]

On the contrary, your "we can't be 100% sure of anything" paradigm fails by its own reasoning.

Anyone who thinks you can be 100% certain of something is lying. You have not explained WHY such reasoning is wrong. You have simply, as you always do, simply asserted it.

You have no evidence. You lose.

You are an hopeless skeptic (Skepticism is actually your religion)

Don't try to project your weaknesses onto me. And learn the definition of the words you use.

You lose.

 

[dlorde]

I do not dispute that the mind is brain based.
...
Subjects are language devices employed between people.
...
the components of the brain are necessary for a person to have knowledge of subjects, but none of those subjects are provided by the activity of the brain, they are only enabled by the brain. The subjects along with the personal subjective experience are generated and experienced by the person, not the brain.

Huh? This makes no sense to me. You think the language devices employed between people are not provided by the mind (activity of the brain)? Please explain.

If personal subjective experience is generated and experienced by the person, not the mind (i.e. brain activity), can you be more specific about what you mean by 'person', and what you think the mind does, if not subjective experience?

 

[Belz...]

I do not dispute that the mind is brain based. Remember my analogy with the Television, all subjective content of the programmes aired on the TV is dependent on the electrical components of the TV for their existence. However that same subjective content is not evident in the components in any way.

That's a stupid analogy, because in the analogy the program is NOT TV-based. So you _are_ in fact disputing that the mind is brain-based.

Perhaps this is a description of scientific thinking. The trouble with living your life with scientific thinking is that it is blinkered to that which is not yet understood.

No. That is completely wrong. It is actually what prevents us from accepting things that are untrue. Science IS the method by which we determine objective truths. There are no others.

Provisional conclusion I presume, because we know from history that most scientific understanding is superseded and found to be wrong later.

Although this is true, it doesn't help you.

Again, this is blinkered.

I apologise if I'm not sufficiently open-minded so that my brain falls out of my head. You're welcome to believe in any nonsense you wish.

This is a caricature of idealism.

No it isn't. Idealism is the belief that things are all mind. This is demonstratably false, and even if it weren't so, it would still be a useless distinction from materialism.

I suggest you look up the definition of materialism.

Follow your own advice. Your inability to understand reason and science is not my problem.

Parsimony is usefull when considering practicality.

...which covers 100% of reality.

It is of little use when discussing philosophical positions, because philosophical positions can include rational alternatives to empiricism.

So can fiction, but we don't consider it when dealing with reality.

Your entire behaviour here is that of one who WANTS there to be something else. Sorry bud, that's not how it works.

 

[doronshadmi]

Anyone who thinks you can be 100% certain of something is lying. You have not explained WHY such reasoning is wrong. You have simply, as you always do, simply asserted it.

EDITED:

Wrong, you are simply refusing to 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).

In other words, your "we can't be 100% sure of anything" paradigm is indeed your fanatic belief, called Skepticism, where by your fanatic belief you actually lying first of all to yourself.

Actually it is worse than just lying to yourself, you actually contradict yourself as follows:

You are so fanatic with your Matter's behavior theory until you contradict yourself by including your Matter's behavior theory as 100% certain (evidence is 100% certain by your "Not in materialism it doesn't" reply as found in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10398882&postcount=757) as a part of your "Anyone who thinks you can be 100% certain of something is lying" paradigm.

Furthermore, you actually totally ignore the most updated scientific knowledge about Matter (which according to it "there is no broad consensus as to a general definition of matter", or in other words, anything that is related to Matter, including Matter's behavior, is not 100% certain by the most updated scientific knowledge about Matter) as addressed here:

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)

 

[Belz...]

Wrong

No. Entirely right. You have not presented any evidence, and have only hinted that I could "somehow" find the evidence myself either. That is a clear admission that you have no evidence to present and therefore that your claim is rejected even by you.

In other words, your "we can't be 100% sure of anything" paradigm is indeed your fanatic belief, called Skepticism, where by your fanatic belief you actually lying first of all to yourself.

That makes no sense whatsoever, unless you claim that you can be 100% certain of anything.

 

[doronshadmi]

No.

Please refresh your screen, re-read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10403346&postcount=789 and then please reply in details to every part of it.

Your last reply does not really deal at all with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10403346&postcount=789.

 

[doronshadmi]

Dark matter is still matter

Wrong, the use of the word "dark" about matter and energy means that by our current best scientific methods we have no clue of what the most of the universe actually is, exactly as illustrated here:

In other words, you are simply do not understand with what you are actually dealing.

 

[zengirl]

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” ---Neils Bohr

 

[doronshadmi]

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” ---Neils Bohr

This is exactly why expressions, behaviors etc. are not the substance of reality.

 

[Belz...]

Please refresh your screen, re-read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10403346&postcount=789 and then please reply in details to every part of it.

You have no control over what I post. You have not provided a means through which to gather the evidence that we require to establish your wishful thinking hypothesis as true, nor have you provided evidence. Therefore we can conclude that your hypothesis is false until further evidence is provided.

Wrong, the use of the word "dark" about matter and energy means that by our current best scientific methods we have no clue of what the most of the universe actually is

Which changes nothing to the fact that is remains matter. Otherwise it would have no gravitational influence on the universe and we wouldn't know about it. That is a fundamental issue you keep ignoring. Please reply in details to every part of it.

 

[Belz...]

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” ---Neils Bohr

Wow. A quote. I guess this somehow counts as evidence against millenia of hard science.

Why don't you make an effort to understand what he meant, instead ?

 

[doronshadmi]

You have no control over what I post. You have not provided a means through which to gather the evidence that we require to establish your wishful thinking hypothesis as true, nor have you provided evidence. Therefore we can conclude that your hypothesis is false until further evidence is provided.

You can't conclude anything until you 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).

Moreover, you did not reply in details to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10403346&postcount=789 exactly because you are afraid to deal with your contradictory hypothesis.

Which changes nothing to the fact that is remains matter. Otherwise it would have no gravitational influence on the universe and we wouldn't know about it. That is a fundamental issue you keep ignoring. Please reply in details to every part of it.

It changes a lot. For example, gravity is currently understood as an expansion or contraction force and we currently have no clue why the same force works in opposite directions all over the observed universe.

Moreover, why are you using the term Matter, where the more general term is actually Energy?

 

[Belz...]

You can't conclude anything

Of course I can. Just like I can conclude that unicorns don't exist without having to look for them myself: just show me a damn unicorn and it'll help with me believing you.

until you actually practice an effortless technique that transcends thoughts' process and directly become aware of the simplest state of existence

A technique you have not described.

Moreover, you did not reply in details to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10403346&postcount=789 exactly because you are afraid to deal with your contradictory hypothesis.

Don't pretend to be a mind-reader. Your post does NOT provide the evidence I requested. Why would I bother with your request since you ignore mine ?

It changes a lot. For example, gravity is currently understood as an expansion or contraction force and we currently have no clue why the same force works in opposite directions all over the observed universe.

And what does this have to do with the fact that dark matter is matter ? You don't even know what you're talking about.

 

[Myriad]

A technique you have not described.

Perhaps he means drinking oneself into unconsciousness. After all, in that state, one experiences no awareness of ones surroundings, awareness of the passage of time, introspection, emotion, thought, memory, or volitional action. As opposed to normal waking existence which does involve all those complexities.

What cosmologists and biologists describe as the past evolution of the universe could just be the Universal All gradually sobering up after a cosmic bender (also known as "the Big Gulp").

 

[doronshadmi]

Of course I can.

No, you can't conclude anything about the simplest state of existence, until you directly know it. your unicorn nonsense has nothing to do with it.

A technique you have not described.

Currently the best technique is Transcendental Meditation.

Don't pretend to be a mind-reader. Your post does NOT provide the evidence I requested. Why would I bother with your request since you ignore mine ?

1) No mind-reading is needed in order to expose your contradictory hypothesis, as clearly analyzed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10403346&postcount=789.

2) You are the one that actually ignore himself by not actually practicing any technique that enables to directly know the simplest state of existence.

And what does this have to do with the fact that dark matter is matter ? You don't even know what you're talking about.

The fact is that what is called "dark matter" or "dark energy" means that we currently do not know what they are.

More details are given in http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/