I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Dancing David]

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.

Oh my, a unicorn upon stepping in dog poop claims that the dog poop must exist in the meta poop space.

 

[doronshadmi]

Belz' statements were "reality is material in nature" and "we can't be absolutely certain of anything".

Wrong, it is:

(reality is 100% material in nature) AND (we can't be 100% certain of anything).

Since he uses "anything" it is actually symbolized by one and only one symbol, for example, A.

So (reality is 100% material in nature) AND (we can't be 100% certain of anything) is the same as A AND ~A.

 

[doronshadmi]

Moonbeams and lollipops when fed to a unicorn of good breeding produce warp drive farts.

Please be careful, you are slowly but surly drifting out of reality.

 

[Nonpareil]

Wrong, it is:

(reality is 100% material in nature) AND (we can't be 100% certain of anything)

Since he uses "anything" it is actually symbolized by one and only one symbol, for example, A.

So (reality is 100% material in nature) AND (we can't be 100% certain of anything) is the same as A AND ~A.

No.

No, it isn't.

 

[Belz...]

In that case "The totality of observation" is not total at all, but at its best it depends on our current abilities to observe reality only in terms of your hypothesis, called materialism.

Yes, that was implied. Did you think I was talking about the totality of observation in the future ? Or theoretically ?

The problem is that you simply unconditionally reject anything (the last one is http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10419612&postcount=982) that does not fit to your materialist hypothesis, even if you are aware of the fact that it is no more than "the current state of observation".

Again, all you expose here is your lack of understanding. I don't reject anything unconditionally. I reject everything on the condition that it has no supporting evidence and goes against the evidence we already have. Provide evidence for your hypothesis, and I will consider it. Provide only rhetoric, and I will reject it. That YOU are gullible has no bearing on what I should do with your ideas.

 

[Belz...]

It does not take a profound "wake up" to claim there is no evidence of matter outside of our awareness of it - it is everyone's daily experience. To prove Materialism, one needs to find this stuff called matter that lies outside of our being aware of it

Absolutely not. Our demonstrations need only explain what we currently observe. If they predict future observations, so much the better.

But of course, your requirement is a logical impossibility, as you well know.

 

[Belz...]

I used to think reading comprehension really was a problem, but I am gradually going over to thinking it is a mechanism to frustrate people into giving up.

He's bound to be dissapointed.

 

[doronshadmi]

No.

No, it isn't.

Yes, you also said:

Like I said, the values of p and q in this example are arbitrary

in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10379354&postcount=623 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10381545&postcount=645 exposes you failure.

 

[Belz...]

Wrong, it is:

(reality is 100% material in nature) AND (we can't be 100% certain of anything).

Since he uses "anything" it is actually symbolized by one and only one symbol, for example, A.

So (reality is 100% material in nature) AND (we can't be 100% certain of anything) is the same as A AND ~A.

No, Doron. It really isn't. You have no clue how logic works.

First of all, I didn't say the first part. You are making that up. I said that all of our observations so far point to materialism. That is, 100% of our observations support materialism. That does NOT mean that I am 100% certain of either that, or that reality is material. Therefore your very premise fails.

 

[Nonpareil]

Yes, you also said:
in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10379354&postcount=623 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10381545&postcount=645 exposes you failure.

A short while ago, someone - I believe it was Belz - pointed out that you fail to understand what is said and then blame that on the speaker.

They were right.

The values were arbitrary because the tree was arbitrary. All you did was construct a binary tree that had one result per bitwise operator. It doesn't mean anything.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No.

No, it isn't.

Well, if there is no absolute knowledge, then it can't be absolute knowledge that reality is material.

Never get drawn into a game of absolute knowledge, keep it practical and keep it at materialism works in practice better than any other claim.

Absolute knowledge is as meaningful in practice as I know nothing and I don't even know that. Or if you like theoretical philosophy is nothing but mind games. Knowledge in the foundational sense of one or more true premises to start from and than you attain perfect knowledge has never worked.

When facing claims of that you need absolute knowledge simply answer no and you have refuted it - either it is true, that you don't need absolute knowledge or if false, you have just given evidence that something false works and thus there is no absolute knowledge, because false knowledge works.

Even "I think, therefore I exist" is not absolute knowledge.

 

[doronshadmi]

I reject everything on the condition that it has no supporting evidence and goes against the evidence we already have.

Please explicitly show how http://www.dejanrakovicfund.org/radovi/1999-INFORMATICA.pdf or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10419612&postcount=982 has no supporting evidence and goes against the evidence we already have.

I am waiting to your detailed professional critics, including references to each one of your claims about the contents of the articles.

 

[Nonpareil]

Well, if there is no absolute knowledge, then it can't be absolute knowledge that reality is material.

Nobody said there was.

Doronshadmi does not understand what is said to him.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well, if there is no absolute knowledge, then it can't be absolute knowledge that reality is material.

Never get drawn into a game of absolute knowledge, keep it practical and keep it at materialism works in practice better than any other claim.

Absolute knowledge is as meaningful in practice as I know nothing and I don't even know that. Or if you like theoretical philosophy is nothing but mind games. Knowledge in the foundational sense of one or more true premises to start from and than you attain perfect knowledge has never worked.

When facing claims of that you need absolute knowledge simply answer no and you have refuted it - either it is true, that you don't need absolute knowledge or if false, you have just given evidence that something false works and thus there is no absolute knowledge, because false knowledge works.

Even "I think, therefore I exist" is not absolute knowledge.

Anything that is variant is not invariant, and materialism can't be but variant.

 

[Belz...]

Please explicitly show how http://www.dejanrakovicfund.org/radovi/1999-INFORMATICA.pdf or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10419612&postcount=982 has no supporting evidence and goes against the evidence we already have.

Where did I say that TM is a supernatural claim or process ?

I am waiting to your detailed professional critics, including references to each one of your claims about the contents of the articles.

Considering that you are unable to provide references or science behind your ideas, it is dishonest to expect others to do more work than you about your own claims.

 

[doronshadmi]

The values were arbitrary because the tree was arbitrary.

Not at all, the values of this binary tree are exactly 16 ordered logical connectives, starting by contradiction (0000) and ending by tautology (1111), as follows:

0000
0001
0010
0011
0100
0101
0110
0111
1000
1001
1010
1011
1100
1101
1110
1111

In other words, you have no understanding about this stuff.

 

[doronshadmi]

Where did I say that TM is a supernatural claim or process ?

Where did I say that TM is supernatural, and why do you refuse the look at the articles in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10419612&postcount=982 and http://www.dejanrakovicfund.org/radovi/1999-INFORMATICA.pdf and air your detailed view about their content (after all these are some of the material evidence that you are looking for)?

Considering that you are unable to provide references or science behind your ideas

My ideas are easily supported by TM view of reality.

 

[Nonpareil]

Not at all, the values of this binary tree are exactly 16 ordered logical connectives, starting by contradiction (0000) and ending by tautology (1111), as follows:

0000
0001
0010
0011
0100
0101
0110
0111
1000
1001
1010
1011
1100
1101
1110
1111

In other words, you have no understanding about this stuff.

No, doron, that's binary addition, adding one each time.

Slapping the words "contradiction" and "tautology" on values of 0000 and 1111 does not actually mean anything.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doronshadmi does not understand what is said to him.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10420624&postcount=1036 clearly shows that you have no clue about the discussed subject.

 

[Belz...]

Where did I say that TM is supernatural

Not you, ME. You are simplying that I require evidence that TM is scientifically sound. I never said anything about that, so why even bring it up ?

why do you refuse the look at the articles in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10419612&postcount=982 and http://www.dejanrakovicfund.org/radovi/1999-INFORMATICA.pdf and air your detailed view about their content (after all these are some of the material evidence that you are looking for)?

I don't refuse to look at them. They are simply irrelevant to my question.

My ideas are easily supported by TM view of reality.

There is no "TM view" of reality.