I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Nonpareil]

What do you mean by that ?

Prior to heliocentrism being formally proven, geocentrism was considered the accepted alternative (mostly; let's put aside historical quibbles for the moment). But it was never rational, because there was no evidence supporting it. There were things put forth as evidence, but they were demonstrably flawed.

Clumsy example, really, but my point is that not knowing the truth is not an excuse for believing idiocy.

We know we (can be) stupid in dream state because we can evaluate dream state from the deemed superior waking state. How do we know we aren't also stupid in waking state unless we evaluate waking state from yet a more superior state . . . unless we decree human waking state as special and beyond reproach regarding the determining of what is physical.

You are repeating yourself. See my previous post, particularly regarding the definition of "is".

 

[LarryS]

As Nonpareil pointed out, this line of questioning leads to a total denial of the possibility of knowledge. That's why materialism is the superior ontology.

(this line of reasoning) doesn't deny the possibility of knowledge, only admits that knowledge is modulated by our current state of consciousness. In this regard, we can agree, that Materialism appears true from the POV of human waking state. And, if it helps to get a good night sleep, the inquiry can end right there.

 

[abaddon]

(this line of reasoning) doesn't deny the possibility of knowledge, only admits that knowledge is modulated by our current state of consciousness. In this regard, we can agree, that Materialism appears true from the POV of human waking state. And, if it helps to get a good night sleep, the inquiry can end right there.

Please feel free to elaborate on ANY other state you think might exist. So far, in this thread, that has been lacking. At best, "other stuff" has been referred to without being specified.

 

[LarryS]

Please feel free to elaborate on ANY other state you think might exist. So far, in this thread, that has been lacking. At best, "other stuff" has been referred to without being specified.

such speculations are not a necessary component of remaining skeptical

 

[Nonpareil]

(this line of reasoning) doesn't deny the possibility of knowledge, only admits that knowledge is modulated by our current state of consciousness. In this regard, we can agree, that Materialism appears true from the POV of human waking state. And, if it helps to get a good night sleep, the inquiry can end right there.

This is just repeating yourself again. Allow me to clarify.

There are two possibilities when arguing for an idealistic universe. The first and most common is to argue that the universe only appears material, but is "truly" ideal. This, however, runs up against the Iissue of being incoherent. By its own admission, the universe is in every respect material. There is no way to detect, even in theory, its ideal nature. Thus, by the definition of "is", it is material. Thus, this form of idealism is not rational because, like the p-zombie, its definition contradicts itself. The only way to argue for it is to reject all notions of coherency, rationality, and evidence.

The second option is to argue that there may be states in which the universe does behave as though it is ideal - moments when we "wake up". The response to that is very simple: show one. Until you do, there is no evidence supporting the assertion, and thus idealism is not rational.

Neither position is tenable, and so idealism is rejected.

 

[Belz...]

Prior to heliocentrism being formally proven, geocentrism was considered the accepted alternative (mostly; let's put aside historical quibbles for the moment). But it was never rational, because there was no evidence supporting it. There were things put forth as evidence, but they were demonstrably flawed.

I don't agree. It was the best explanation at the time, although it had problems with orbital anomalies. It certainly seemed like the Earth was in the center. As such I think it was rational, given the knowledge they had at the time. Otherwise our own (current) conception of the universe is irrational because future developments will change it.

 

[Belz...]

(this line of reasoning) doesn't deny the possibility of knowledge

Yes it does. You can't know that reality isn't an illusion or a simulation or a dream. Therefore what ? If you stop at that, you cannot have knowledge because any observation or experiment you make is suspect. Treating reality as objective and as consistent as it appears to be is the only to allow for inquiry to procees.

 

[Belz...]

such speculations are not a necessary component of remaining skeptical

Actually, yes it is. Skepticism is about evidence, or the lack thereof. Currently the ENTIRE set of evidence we have, and have accumulated over the millenia, points to materialism. It is therefore irrational to remain skeptical of that ontology, or to consider unevidenced alternatives.

 

[Nonpareil]

I don't agree. It was the best explanation at the time, although it had problems with orbital anomalies. It certainly seemed like the Earth was in the center. As such I think it was rational, given the knowledge they had at the time. Otherwise our own (current) conception of the universe is irrational because future developments will change it.

We're talking past one another. You're talking about "rational" in the sense that it makes sense given X information - common sense, essentially. I'm talking about rational in the sense that you can construct a coherent, demonstrably true chain of logic that results in that conclusion - rational by the most rigorous sense.

Yes, in that sense anything that we believe today that is later proven wrong is not rational. We just think it is because we haven't yet noticed the flaws in our logic. In the same way, the information required to establish geocentrism as irrational was always there. People just didn't notice it.

Pedantic, perhaps, but again, clumsy example, and it's not my main point anyway.

 

[Belz...]

We're talking past one another. You're talking about "rational" in the sense that it makes sense given X information - common sense, essentially. I'm talking about rational in the sense that you can construct a coherent, demonstrably true chain of logic that results in that conclusion - rational by the most rigorous sense.

Yes, in that sense anything that we believe today that is later proven wrong is not rational. We just think it is because we haven't yet noticed the flaws in our logic.

Couldn't we say by that second sense that _nothing_ is rational, reducing the word to meaninglesness ? I just don't think the definition is useful, and I am not even sure I understand your definition.

 

[Nonpareil]

Couldn't we say by that second sense that _nothing_ is rational, reducing the word to meaninglesness ? I just don't think the definition is useful, and I am not even sure I understand your definition.

I don't really understand what you mean either. Let me try again.

When you say "rational", you mean "looks right given current information".

When I say "rational", I mean "a hypothetical entity with perfect information and flawless logic would come to this conclusion".

This does not mean that you can't reach the same conclusion if you aren't such an entity. It just means that you will occasionally be wrong and irrational because you didn't notice something or committed a fallacy, but can correct yourself if you notice this.

 

[Belz...]

When I say "rational", I mean "a hypothetical entity with perfect information and flawless logic would come to this conclusion".

Well, we can't have perfect logic or information so we cannot know what this hypothetical entity would conclude, right ? So why posit it at all ?

 

[Nonpareil]

Well, we can't have perfect logic or information so we cannot know what this hypothetical entity would conclude, right ? So why posit it at all ?

It doesn't matter whether or not we cknow what such an entity would conclude. It is a stand-in for the concept of perfectly logical thinking.

The point is that, if we are wrong about something, then we were necessarily irrational in some way, because perfectly rational thinking will always arrive at the correct conclusion given all the necessary information.

But dude. Seriously. This is turning into a ridiculous derail about something that I have admitted was a clumsy example and which is not my main point. If you want to continue this, let's take it to another thread, because it is burying the actual discussion in hand here.

 

[tsig]

We know we (can be) stupid in dream state because we can evaluate dream state from the deemed superior waking state. How do we know we aren't also stupid in waking state unless we evaluate waking state from yet a more superior state . . . unless we decree human waking state as special and beyond reproach regarding the determining of what is physical.

We would then have to have a superior state to evaluate the more superior state and so on ad infinitum.

 

[The Man]

Turtles, all the way up and down.

 

[tsig]

Turtles, all the way up and down.

Turtles as far as the eye can see.

 

[Aepervius]

Turtles as far as the eye can see.

Nope. turtle as far as you dream them : You guys are too material. Be a bit more ideal .

 

[punshhh]

Apologies for multiple posts. I usually try to avoid even double-posting, but I missed this one earlier and don't want to leave it hanging.

There was also one about the TV analogy, I will probably return to that anyway.

By this I assume you mean that there is as of yet no concrete understanding of the mechanism that produces a "me".

Yes, I can work with a "me" for now.

This is true. However, we do know that this mechanism is material in nature. Earlier in this thread, PixyMisa posted links to studies which have shown that certain chemical alterations to the brain can result in the eradication of that "me". We know that the process is material in nature. We just don't yet know exactly what it is or which part of the brain does it.

Yes, although lack of "me" may only be due to a small malfunction resulting in a lack of a picture, returning to the TV analogy. This rationale doesn't negate a "soul" directly.

No. Conclusion, based on the fact that, aside from the great strides we've been making in neuroscience and the lack of any sort of evidence for qualia turning up, there isn't even anything approaching a coherent definition for them.

[aside, I have to agree, in terms of emphasis, with Belz on your use of rational and likewise coherent. I know what you mean in your useage but they may turn out to be a sledge hammer to crack a nut and I wouldn't want it to be my nut(or nuts) under the hammer, when it happens]

I am not addressing qualia, I see not requirement for them(indeed I don't know what all the fuss is about). I am addressing "experience" and "subject", both requiring a me.

It's a figure of speech, albeit an appropriate one.

Ok, I take it you are referring to the special ingredient in the mix requiring idealism. As I have pointed out, the physical situation on the ground, including its effects such as intelligence, consciousness, mind etc would be identical in either case, materialism, or idealism.

In my opinion, idealism and other alternatives are functionally equivalent to magic - but that's a discussion for another time.

Agreed.

Slight quibble: all known instances of brains sophisticated enough to produce something that most people would acknowledge as a mind are the result of metabolic evolution.

Again, minds come from brains. There is nothing in the definition of "brain" that means it has to be made of squishy meat bits.

The squishy bit provides the life, the animus, the me.

My mistake. Can you repost your definition of "consciousness" so that I better understand you in future?

Consciousness = The experience of living. By experience, I am referring to a more metabolic form of experience than a mental, or intellectual form.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that materialism can and does provide a - in fact, the only - functional description of anything, geocentrism was never a rational choice, even before heliocentrism was put forth.

Yes, I am not defining the reality out there by human intellect, I realise that it is likely to be beyond our understanding, at least for now. Also that human rationality is probably not in a position to address the issue in any "coherent" way, due to its limited knowledge.

Perhaps that is the proof you use. It does not change the fact that the one I gave is the only one that functions in all situations.

Are you saying that we know other people are conscious because they exhibit intelligence?

Because that's what "is" means.

I think you are referring here to your comments on PZ's.

The difference is that, in an idealistic universe, there is no reason for anything to behave in any given way, let alone one that matches so perfectly to a materialistic universe.

This does not follow, the perfection we experience might only be a local phenomena.

To argue for idealism in this circumstance is special pleading.

I don't see the relevance.

P-zombies are an incoherent concept. An entity which behaves in all situations exactly as though it is conscious is conscious. Again, that is the definition of "is". To say "a p-zombie behaves in all situations indistinguishably from a conscious entity, but is not a conscious entity" is gibberish. You might as well say "it's blue, but it's not blue".

There is an assumption in there, this line is irrelevant given my definition of consciousness.

They're really not. See my responses to LarryS.

Well, I am no expert on western idealism, but it strikes me as obvious that all circumstances in this world including human thinking and its results fail to negate the possibility of idealism.

 

[realpaladin]

OK, taking one for the team, the first two are from a series (part 2 and 3) from the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Open University and the third is an instructional about how TM is a simple technique yet you must pay us money to learn it.

Unless you are into self abuse, it is pointless to watch them and I recommend nobody watch this unsupported drek.

I have had the full instructions and am, as opposed to Doron, a 'certified' Yogic Flyer. (The reasons for me having had all of this education go beyond the scope of this forum).
However, I am not affiliated to nor am I still practicing TM. I do get the newsletters though...

I even have been to the MOU in Fairfield Iowa. So I know exactly what goes on there.

And I have been to Vlodrop where they still employed slaves(!) (That became a good news item on Dutch Television...)

And finally, I personally know the current Minister of Peace (i.e. the current head honcho).

Whilst they are all nice and forthcoming people, not a single one could show me anything that I could not do or think of.

The Maharishi was quite unknown and unpopular in India until the Beatles came and smoked some Ganja with him; then his movement took off.

The practices in TM are nothing special when compared to any other meditation technique, not even at the most advanced stage.

The so-called personal mantra's are just age-based and can be found on the Internet anyway (just look up your age when you are at the point that you become 'initiated' and you have your mantra).

The whole idea of TM is that the 'everything' is just a manifestation of the one single thing 'existence' and that by transcending you can become one again with all the other things (which are just manifestations of the same unified 'thing').

Transcending in TM is 'achieved' by switching off or removing all artefacts of your specific manifestation, thereby reducing yourself to the core 'existence' and leaving behind all the cumbersome interactions that your manifestation needs to have with other manifestations.

This is about as short as I can make the explanation.

Now, in *all* of my discussions, nobody could ever show me *anything* someone(!) could achieve that could not have been achieved without TM. But, and here is where the cultist aspect comes into play, most people say they achieve things they(!) themselves never could have achieved without TM.

As for science in TM. That's laughable; every single mistake and every kind of Diederik Stapel style fraud that you can think of is employed to give it some semblance of science.

But then again, cults are just like spam (there is an awesome research paper by Microsoft on spam that explains the psychology behind the spam content); they are not even trying to convince intelligent people, in fact they try to keep those away. Cults try to get people that are broken in some respect and use just enough 'sciency' talk and 'facts and figures' that nobody can or wants to verify to get their victims to confabulate themselves into supporting the cult.

Having said that, TM is a rather benign cult in that it teaches people to be happy one must work hard (and give 10% of your income to the Maharishi's family), be nice, live healthy and become wealthy (and give 10% of your savings to the Maharishi's family). So most TM practicioners I know are doing pretty well in their lives and are quite happy.

But not one (1) person, and that includes the Maharishi (and all his predecessors, because Mahesh was just a follow-up guy) have been able to demonstrate transcendence or extraordinary knowledge.

But maybe someone can repeat this to Doron, because he 'ignores' me:

Doron, if you really think TM will enable you to get to unity... why not enlist and practice it? In the whole of 7 years, you only talked *about* it, but never tried it.

 

[realpaladin]

Turtles as far as the eye can see.

And what lies beyond the edge of vision?