I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[punshhh]

Under an informational universe there would be nothing to regress to other than information.

Looks like we're back at the monad in another guise. Is it transcendent?


By the way thanks for putting down your ideas about information, I will read through and reply.

 

[punshhh]

Pixy's answer, as far as I understand, is that even idealists can't say.

I'm not an idealist, so might misrepresent them, but I can suggest one or two ideas about this.

Material is a vehicle for the residing, manifestation or expression of thought. The origin or basis for the vehicle is a different question.

Thought is evoked by the monad.

 

[Belz...]

Material is a vehicle for the residing, manifestation or expression of thought.

This adds an unknown and unnecessary entity that can be ignored.

 

[punshhh]

This adds an unknown and unnecessary entity that can be ignored.

But thought can be just another material of another frequency, likewise the monad. Not an extra entity.

 

[Belz...]

But thought can be just another material of another frequency, likewise the monad. Not an extra entity.

Of course it is an extra entity. You said so in your post right there: another material of another frequency. There is no reason to assume or to hypothesize the existence of this other, undetected and needless thing. If we instead assume that thought is a function of the brain, the problem dissapears.

 

[punshhh]

Of course it is an extra entity. You said so in your post right there: another material of another frequency. There is no reason to assume or to hypothesize the existence of this other, undetected and needless thing. If we instead assume that thought is a function of the brain, the problem dissapears.

Yes I know, if one is happy to take a materialist view. I was presenting an idealist view.
Now your only reason for not entertaining the extra entity is that it is not currently known. It does not follow that it (X) doesn't exist regardless.

What we have is the experience of thought going on. Philosophically either it is entirely a result of the chemistry of the brain. Or alternatively it also requires an additional entity(X). I can't see anyway of ruling out X in the absence of supreme knowledge of the existence resulting in our existence. Whatever reasoning is presented, it can always be a result of a limited understanding of existence and incorrect if viewed from the bigger picture.

You can of course say it is not important or useful etc, to consider either X or existence. But this does not address the existence or not of X.

 

[Belz...]

Now your only reason for not entertaining the extra entity is that it is not currently known.

No, I quite clearly and twice indicated that it was also unnecessary. It is irrational to posit the existence of entities that are both unnecessary and unevidenced.

What we have is the experience of thought going on. Philosophically either it is entirely a result of the chemistry of the brain. Or alternatively it also requires an additional entity(X).

No. Our current scientific knowledge makes this additional entity unnecessary, as we can alter any and all aspects of consciousness by manipulating the brain, either chemically or physically.

I can't see anyway of ruling out X in the absence of supreme knowledge of the existence resulting in our existence.

Irrelevant.

Whatever reasoning is presented, it can always be a result of a limited understanding of existence and incorrect if viewed from the bigger picture.

Yes, this is known as unfalsifiability, and is usually a strong indicator that the hypothesis is incorrect.

 

[tsig]

I'm not an idealist, so might misrepresent them, but I can suggest one or two ideas about this.

Material is a vehicle for the residing, manifestation or expression of thought. The origin or basis for the vehicle is a different question.

Thought is evoked by the monad.

Yes I know, if one is happy to take a materialist view. I was presenting an idealist view. Now your only reason for not entertaining the extra entity is that it is not currently known. It does not follow that it (X) doesn't exist regardless.

What we have is the experience of thought going on. Philosophically either it is entirely a result of the chemistry of the brain. Or alternatively it also requires an additional entity(X). I can't see anyway of ruling out X in the absence of supreme knowledge of the existence resulting in our existence. Whatever reasoning is presented, it can always be a result of a limited understanding of existence and incorrect if viewed from the bigger picture.

You can of course say it is not important or useful etc, to consider either X or existence. But this does not address the existence or not of X.

I always use X to mark where I buried the bodies. Ideally.

 

[The Man]

Looks like we're back at the monad in another guise. Is it transcendent?

I recall reading some references to the information being transcendent (in idealistic approaches), but can't remember where and a quick search doesn't turn them up. Sorry.

 

[punshhh]

No, I quite clearly and twice indicated that it was also unnecessary. It is irrational to posit the existence of entities that are both unnecessary and unevidenced.

I didn't think that unnecessary was of any importance, as it is only from the view point of a human, which is unfortunately limited. Fatally limited on this question, because we cannot see beyond the physical matter by which we are enthralled. Likewise with unevidenced.

It certainly isn't irrational in principle, although it may be pie in the sky, in the absence of some kind of evidence. However we do have some evidence, our personal experience of existence. This experience exists, as such the rational mind is free to question the nature of this existence. Unfortunately due to its limitations, the mind has not come up with a comprehensive explanation.

It has with the development of rational ideas (philosophy) explored the various rational possibilities of explanation and materialism is one of these, along with idealism, among others. Unfortunately as these are intellectual interpretations of the evidence, there is no measure of which is the most likely to be the case.

There is an indication due to scientific experiment that the experience of existing has a physical basis, but rationally this is little more than an explanation of the local, or immediate, phenomena of that experience. It does not provide any foundational explanation of existence at all and as such leaves materialism impotent, or at least no better an explanation than the alternatives.

No. Our current scientific knowledge makes this additional entity unnecessary, as we can alter any and all aspects of consciousness by manipulating the brain, either chemically or physically.

Yes, but this circumstance may be identical in either materialism or idealism and as we don't know which we are experiencing, we can't begin to compare the reality of each. Or that what we experience is not something else entirely.

Irrelevant.

Ruling it out is irrelevant.

Yes, this is known as unfalsifiability, and is usually a strong indicator that the hypothesis is incorrect.

This may be a useful rule of thumb in experimentation, but is impossible once we look beyond our immediate physical circumstances.

 

[punshhh]

I recall reading some references to the information being transcendent (in idealistic approaches), but can't remember where and a quick search doesn't turn them up. Sorry.

Interesting, I brought transcendence up as it provides an alternative to a full stop in the regression. As such the information would regress into more fundamental, or symmetrically precise information dimensionally, ad infinitum*.

* I don't like to use infinity as it is an invention of the mind and might not exist other than as an artefact of mind. Perhaps a better phrase is "forever", or "eternity".

 

[Darat]

Interesting, I brought transcendence up as it provides an alternative to a full stop in the regression. As such the information would regress into more fundamental, or symmetrically precise information dimensionally, ad infinitum*.

* I don't like to use infinity as it is an invention of the mind and might not exist other than as an artefact of mind. Perhaps a better phrase is "forever", or eternity

Sorry to be blunt that that is just gobbledygook - it means absolutely nothing.

 

[Belz...]

I didn't think that unnecessary was of any importance, as it is only from the view point of a human, which is unfortunately limited.

Please stop handwaving good arguments just because they come from humans and humans are limited. First, you can do that with all of them, and second, it's a diversionary tactic.

It is unnecessary because we don't need it to have a functional theory about the universe. It's that simple.

Fatally limited on this question, because we cannot see beyond the physical matter by which we are enthralled.

Then it is irrelevant to us, either way.

It certainly isn't irrational in principle

I repeat: it is irrational to posit entities that are unevidenced and unnecessary.

However we do have some evidence, our personal experience of existence. This experience exists, as such the rational mind is free to question the nature of this existence. Unfortunately due to its limitations, the mind has not come up with a comprehensive explanation.

Correction: due to its biases, the mind is not satisfied with the right answer.

Yes, but this circumstance may be identical in either materialism or idealism and as we don't know which we are experiencing, we can't begin to compare the reality of each.

If they are identical, then it is materialism. Idealism must be distinguishable from the other in order to be an alternative.

Ruling it out is irrelevant.

Syntax error.

This may be a useful rule of thumb in experimentation, but is impossible once we look beyond our immediate physical circumstances.

Meaningless.

 

[punshhh]

Sorry to be blunt that that is just gobbledygook - it means absolutely nothing.

Sorry, I did fly off the handle a bit there. There is an idea behind it though, I just didn't express it very well.

I was thinking of the principle that in an informational universe, information originates ultimately from a more fundamental, or broad underlying information. One which transcends dimensions, perhaps. This is how I understood it anyhow.

Also that this underlying information is symmetrical, or more direct in its relation to other underlying information and ultimately in our universe derives from the "symmetry breaking" of energy shortly after the Big Bang, forming into physical particles etc.

 

[punshhh]

Please stop handwaving good arguments just because they come from humans and humans are limited. First, you can do that with all of them, and second, it's a diversionary tactic.

It does have a bearing, as we are speculating about something beyond our current understanding.

It is unnecessary because we don't need it to have a functional theory about the universe. It's that simple.

When it comes to need, there is a lot which is unnecessary, which people indulge in. However when it comes to need, I bring you back to my question you didn't answer a few posts back in the other thread. Are we merely concerned with our short term interests? Or should we look further a field?

Then it is irrelevant to us, either way.

It depends on what your goal is, if it is to show that there is no alternative to materialism in our origins, presumably you are required to consider the alternative, whether it is a necessary consideration or not.

I repeat: it is irrational to posit entities that are unevidenced and unnecessary.

It is not irrational, it may however be unnecessary.

Correction: due to its biases, the mind is not satisfied with the right answer.

Here is the rub, the mind is not to be trusted, does this include reason?

Whether the mind is satisfied or not is irrelevant, the rational possibilities can be considered.

If they are identical, then it is materialism. Idealism must be distinguishable from the other in order to be an alternative.

They are only identical from our perspective, ie physical phenomena. To an onlooker they might be quite different.

Meaningless.

So anything unfalsifiable is irrelevant? Nice.

 

[ehcks]

So anything unfalsifiable is irrelevant? Nice.

Yes. Something that is unfalsifiable not only has no evidence for it, and can have no evidence for it, but also has no evidence against it because there can be no evidence against it.

The whole dragon in the garage thing explains that pretty well. Should I go over that again?

A claim that can not be falsified is usually false.

 

[tsig]

Interesting, I brought transcendence up as it provides an alternative to a full stop in the regression. As such the information would regress into more fundamental, or symmetrically precise information dimensionally, ad infinitum*.

* I don't like to use infinity as it is an invention of the mind and might not exist other than as an artefact of mind. Perhaps a better phrase is "forever", or "eternity".

Big fleas have little fleas to bite 'em

An so on ad infinitum.

 

[Belz...]

It does have a bearing, as we are speculating about something beyond our current understanding.

We are not in agreement about that.

When it comes to need, there is a lot which is unnecessary, which people indulge in.

That is a dodge. I am talking about necessary components to a theory, not necessary ingredients in a pie or movements in a dance routine.

Are we merely concerned with our short term interests? Or should we look further a field?

I do not understand the scope, meaning or relevance of that question.

It depends on what your goal is

No. I say again: if something cannot be interacted with, it is irrelevant in all cases, always.

It is not irrational, it may however be unnecessary.

You cannot escape this fact: it is irrational to posit entities that are unnecessary and unevidenced. You do not seem to understand the meaning of that sentence.

Here is the rub, the mind is not to be trusted, does this include reason?

Yes.

They are only identical from our perspective, ie physical phenomena.

There is no other perspective.

So anything unfalsifiable is irrelevant? Nice.

Perhaps you should stop substituting your words for mine and instead focus on what I actually post.

 

[punshhh]

We are not in agreement about that.

It appears so.

That is a dodge. I am talking about necessary components to a theory, not necessary ingredients in a pie or movements in a dance routine.

It looks as though we are not thinking of the same definition of necessary. It may require more exploration. I agree that the theory of materialism appears to explain the personal experience of existing and that some kind of idealism doesn't seem necessary. But this does not negate the wider philosophical considerations, or inform us about the reality out there, further than what we can as yet detect.

I do not understand the scope, meaning or relevance of that question.

It may be a diversion, but when you mention needs, goals, requirements, advantage, purposes etc.. There are wider philosophical issues.

No. I say again: if something cannot be interacted with, it is irrelevant in all cases, always.

Who said anything about something not being interactive?
We may well be interacting with numerous phenomena, about which we are unaware.

You cannot escape this fact: it is irrational to posit entities that are unnecessary and unevidenced. You do not seem to understand the meaning of that sentence.

I explained in my last response that there is evidence of conscious experience or what appears as conscious experience, as primary. Whether or not there may be an alternative explanation.

Yes.

This presumably includes the analysis of data by the mind and the development of philosophical stances like materialism.

There is no other perspective.

You are not in a position to make this claim, or do you have supreme knowledge?

Perhaps you should stop substituting your words for mine and instead focus on what I actually post.

We are addressing issues beyond the possibilities of falsifiability.

 

[punshhh]

Yes. Something that is unfalsifiable not only has no evidence for it, and can have no evidence for it, but also has no evidence against it because there can be no evidence against it.

So for anything to exist even in theory it must be falsifiable?

The whole dragon in the garage thing explains that pretty well. Should I go over that again?

That argument is a fallacy, it only addresses assertions and beliefs. Not rational thought.

A claim that can not be falsified is usually false.

I would not advise anyone to make claims regarding the nature of existence.