I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[doronshadmi]

What is the set of possible transformations?

Any non-empty set.

 

[ctamblyn]

Any non-empty set.

That doesn't make sense. The set of possible transformations must be some particular set.

 

[doronshadmi]

It would be more accurate to say they are latent in the Higgs field.

Hidden in the space\time fabric of the universe is the general description, where one of its possible cases is Higgs bosons that are latent in the Higgs field.

 

[doronshadmi]

That doesn't make sense. The set of possible transformations must be some particular set.

No. It is any possible non-empty set.

 

[ctamblyn]

No. It is any possible non-empty set.

You seem to be misunderstanding my question.

You hypothesise that there are some transformations which can act on the "form of existence". Let's label the nth transformation by T_n, where n need not be restricted to integers (e.g. if there are uncountably many possible transformations).

Now consider the set A of all the T_n, i.e. A = { T₀, T₁, ... }.

My question was: what explicitly is the set A? It cannot simply be "anything you like", it must be some particular set.

If you like, I can rephrase my question to the following, equivalent form: what explicitly are all the transformations which can act on the "form of existence"?

 

[doronshadmi]

I'm going to anticipate a little here...
"Obviously, the set of possible transformations is the vice-versa of the set of one which is composed only of the simplest form of existence which is exactly that which is invariant."

Doron's definitions deal only in opposites, which he still manages to mangle into an imprecision that you wouldn't have thought such black-and-white thinking could achieve.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10392351&postcount=719

 

[doronshadmi]

You seem to be misunderstanding my question.

You hypothesise that there are some transformations which can act on the "form of existence". Let's label the nth transformation by T_n, where n need not be restricted to integers (e.g. if there are uncountably many possible transformations).

Now consider the set A of all the T_n, i.e. A = { T₀, T₁, ... }.

My question was: what explicitly is the set A? It cannot simply be "anything you like", it must be some particular set.

If you like, I can rephrase my question to the following, equivalent form: what explicitly are all the transformations which can act on the "form of existence"?

Again, it is any set that is not {}.

Please look, for example, at http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823&p=269245#p269052.

 

[ctamblyn]

Again, it is any set that is not {}.

OK, well thanks anyway.

 

[ctamblyn]

I'm going to anticipate a little here...
"Obviously, the set of possible transformations is the vice-versa of the set of one which is composed only of the simplest form of existence which is exactly that which is invariant."

Doron's definitions deal only in opposites, which he still manages to mangle into an imprecision that you wouldn't have thought such black-and-white thinking could achieve.

Partial credit. The wording wasn't the same, but it was equally coherent.

 

[dlorde]

Well, you can define absolute symmetry as the property of the simplest state of existence, which is the substance of all possibles expressions since it is invariant under their all possible transformations.

Yeah, but absolute symmetry is still a property; the 'simplest state of existence' would be the substance. Do you see?

 

[dlorde]

Hidden in the space\time fabric of the universe is the general description, where one of its possible cases is Higgs bosons that are latent in the Higgs field.

That's right - latent, not, "actually existing right now", as you claimed.

<sigh> it's like talking to a small child...

 

[Belz...]

Techniques like Transcendental Meditation use a thought which has no meaning, known as mantra. By using the fact that the thoughts process is a natural effortless phenomena that is naturally derived from and returns to its substance, one's brain is naturally aware of calmer vibration's levels of the mantra, until one is directly aware of the simplest state of existence, which is totally calm and naturally free of any process.

How does the brain get from being aware of the mantra to being aware of the simplest state of existence. You are continuing to dodge the question.

As long as you do not actually practice techniques like Transcendental Meditation you can't systematically train your brain to directly aware of its calm substance, which is exactly the simplest state of existence.

Even if I don't fly planes, I can understand the principles and techniques. You should be able to explain it, but you can't, because you don't understand it yourself.

 

[Belz...]

OK, well thanks anyway.

You are wasting your time. Doron has no understanding of logic or reason or math or science or anything, not even his own hypothesis. He feels something, and that's all that matters to him.

 

[punshhh]

You are wasting your time. Doron has no understanding of logic or reason or math or science or anything, not even his own hypothesis. He feels something, and that's all that matters to him.

you shouldn't throw stones in glass houses.

 

[punshhh]

I think you just confused "mind" with "social mores". Yet another poster who makes no effort to understand the issues at hand.

Oh contrair, it is you who is failing to grasp the nettle. Did you not comprehend the use of the word contents in the sentence you are replying to?

What is a mind without its contents?

Actually, that would BE physicalism.

I suggest you now look up the word physicalism. In spite of your vague use of these philosophical terms, a material of mind would be physical in a sense, the distinction being (between materialism and idealism), that it would be a subtle material. One not as yet comprehended by scientists.

You are ridiculous. Find me a single thing that isn't covered by pragmatism.

pragmatism is an intellectual perspective*, it can only apply to things and issues within the human sphere. We're back to those blinkers again, I can here the phrase ringing in my ears, "there is nothing beyond the human sphere".

*you know, one of the contents of the mind.

Really, it would be nice to get up to speed on this topic. For example can you answer this question for me.

I happened to watch the TV last night, I have the phrase "Je suis Charlie" ringing in my ears (indeed, I'm sharing it on facebook with many others). Where in my brain did this phrase originate? And what in my brain distinguishes it from any other phrase, subject, or thought?

 

[Belz...]

you shouldn't throw stones in glass houses.

Oh, you're saying that I have no understanding of these things, either ?

Prove it.

Oh contrair, it is you who is failing to grasp the nettle. Did you not comprehend the use of the word contents in the sentence you are replying to?

What is a mind without its contents?

"Content" ? What are you babbling about ? Minds are action, not substance.

I suggest you now look up the word physicalism.

I know what it is. Just because you don't doesn't mean we all share that weakness.

In spite of your vague use of these philosophical terms, a material of mind would be physical in a sense, the distinction being (between materialism and idealism), that it would be a subtle material.

What in the blue hell is that supposed to mean ?

Really, it would be nice to get up to speed on this topic.

Punshhh, just using the rhetoric of your opponents doesn't mean you suddenly get "debate points". It's obvious at this point that you think that rhetoric IS evidence. It isn't. Stop wasting my time.

 

[punshhh]

Oh, you're saying that I have no understanding of these things, either ?

No, I'm saying you're not acknowledging that minds include large amounts of information which originates outside the brain and which shapes the mind.

"Content" ? What are you babbling about ? Minds are action, not substance.

So a set of contents can only be substance? What about strategies and perspectives?

Answer the question, what is a mind without its contents? Contents which originated through the experience of the person.

I know what it is. Just because you don't doesn't mean we all share that weakness.

This tactic of accusations about the misunderstanding of easily definable terms is a distraction.

What in the blue hell is that supposed to mean ?

An extension of materialism to include a potential unknown material.

Punshhh, just using the rhetoric of your opponents doesn't mean you suddenly get "debate points". It's obvious at this point that you think that rhetoric IS evidence. It isn't. Stop wasting my time.

The repeated requests for evidence in philosophical debates like this is irrelevant, as this is a discussion of rational positions.

Now perhaps you will answer the question about "Je suis Charlie" and we can get back on topic.

 

[ehcks]

No, I'm saying you're not acknowledging that minds include large amounts of information which originates outside the brain and which shapes the mind.

Where is this information contained, if it's included in the mind but not the brain?

 

[punshhh]

Where is this information contained, if it's included in the mind but not the brain?

The information is contained in the brain, rather like in my analogy, the programmes can be stored by a digital TV in its memory. The brain, presumably, includes a storage system for mental activity and contents, so that it can be retrieved at a later time.

But for the purposes of my point, the subjective content of the mental activity is not stored in any physical way. The subjective content can only be known and can only be known by a person. Hence the requirement in idealism for a conscious entity, independent from the physical body.

 

[Belz...]

No, I'm saying you're not acknowledging that minds include large amounts of information which originates outside the brain and which shapes the mind.

You mean, like the stuff we see and hear ? That isn't the mind, it's data that the mind uses. You are playing around with words instead of having a discussion, and it's getting tedious and boring fast.

Answer the question, what is a mind without its contents?

What contents ?

This tactic of accusations about the misunderstanding of easily definable terms is a distraction.

You have demonstrated that you don't understand this issue except in philosophical terms. It follows that you don't understand the science.

An extension of materialism to include a potential unknown material.

Do you have any evidence for said material ? If not, why even bother supposing its existence since we don't need it to understand the mind ? Aside from lingering idealism, that is.

The repeated requests for evidence in philosophical debates like this is irrelevant, as this is a discussion of rational positions.

Ideas are worthless unless they can be put into practice. Philosophy is about the idea. I want to know if it applies to reality, hence the request for evidence, and it's not surprising that no one has any against materialism.