I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[ctamblyn]

Dude...(I presume)... you just have given him a new tangent to go off on again.

Mwahahaha

 

[Belz...]

You are right

Yes.........

but c has different values in different mediums

...and no.

I don't know why it's so hard to understand the concept. Photons always travel at 300,000 km per second. However as they journey through stuff they will be caught by other particles, slowing them down because they dissapear and are created again. The photon never slows down. It just ceases to be.

Do agree with Belz..., which claims that light and photons are two different things

And, no again. Photons _are_ light. But when we talk about "light" being slower in a non-vaccuum, you can assume that we include in "light" the time during which the photon doesn't exist. That's the distinction I was making.

It does not change the fact that this photon can be slower if the medium is changed (it is not vacuum).

A "medium" is just vaccum with atoms here and there. Between the atoms, so long as it's not absorbed, a photon is at c.

And I am talking about light which is also not in vacuo.

See above: a photon is _always_ in a vaccuum. It's not in an electron at any time.

 

[dlorde]

Just incidentally, here's an interesting article on p-zombies, including a philosophical taxonomy.

To me, they remain an incoherent concept.

 

[Belz...]

You asked for something invariant

Moreover, by invariant he and I meant "does not change with the observer" i.e. objective. The fact that Stalin is dead currently is objective.

 

[doronshadmi]

He changes definitions on a whim, so even if there were a coherent idea behind it all, no one else can ever be exactly sure of what it is he's saying.

Wrong, I am consistent all along this thread with what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10417706&postcount=936 about absolute symmetry, which is, by definition, not a space\time phenomena, but it is the absolute invariant substance of it.

 

[doronshadmi]

Moreover, by invariant he and I meant "does not change with the observer" i.e. objective. The fact that Stalin is dead currently is objective.

If Stalin is forgotten, then say bye bye to this objectivity.

 

[doronshadmi]

See above: a photon is _always_ in a vaccuum. It's not in an electron at any time.

It does not matter, the fact that it moves means that it is variant.

Actually all space\time phenomena are, by definition, variant, because this is exactly the very nature of space\time.

 

[Nonpareil]

Just incidentally, here's an interesting article on p-zombies, including a philosophical taxonomy.

To me, they remain an incoherent concept.

It's always interesting to read how people attempt to justify things like that.

In this case, they straw man and attempt to claim that saying p-zombies are impossible is a materialist issue rather than one of simple definition.

 

[Nonpareil]

If Stalin is forgotten, then say bye bye to this objectivity.

That is not what "objective" means.

 

[doronshadmi]

The coin I just tossed came up heads.

That measurement is absolutely invariant. It will never retroactively turn into tails.

Unless you take the coin and play with it again.

Also the coin is rotating in space\time because our planet and galaxy are rotating, so head can be changed to tail according to your relative point of view.

 

[Nonpareil]

Unless you take the coin and play with it again.

Also the coin is rotating in space\time because our planet and galaxy are rotating, so head can be changed to tail according to your relative point of view.

And it's option B, folks. We have our answer.

Doron, lay out your definitions for the following words: "variant", "invariant", "objective", "subjective". We'd all very much like to know.

 

[doronshadmi]

That is not what "objective" means.

This is exactly what it means:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10425315&postcount=1170

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10425615&postcount=1183

and it is limited to space\time phenomena exactly as the subjective is limited to space\time phenomena.

 

[Nonpareil]

This is exactly what it means:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10425315&postcount=1170

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10425615&postcount=1183

Repeating incorrect definitions does not make them correct.

 

[doronshadmi]

Repeating incorrect definitions does not make them correct.

Your definitions are relative-only.

 

[Nonpareil]

Your definitions are relative-only.

Unfortunately, even if you had a coherent definition for the phrase "relative-only", you would still be wrong.

For those who are following along from the peanut gallery, people not understanding the definitions of "objective" and "subjective" is kind of a running theme in this subforum.

 

[abaddon]

I predict you either:

A) will be ignored for giving an example that can not be kibitzed about
B) will get a reply along the line that it is 'also tails' if you look at it from the other side. (at the same time).

Unless you take the coin and play with it again.

Also the coin is rotating in space\time because our planet and galaxy are rotating, so head can be changed to tail according to your relative point of view.

I nominate you for the MDC.

 

[gurugeorge]

Not really. Materialism isn't concerned with what things are, but how they behave, because it correctly surmises that you cannot, even in principle, determine what they are.

I said "how things come to be", not "what things are".

Materialism explains how whatever you are experiencing comes to be, i.e. its causes and conditions.

 

[gurugeorge]

The whole 'presence' is 'measuring' and 'analysis'; the fact that it is there means you have analysed the situation and determined it's presence.

The fact that you know what it is means you have measured it; you are able to discern a model car from a real car.

To me, what you are describing is an arbitrary dichotomy where none existed...

You don't have to measure and analyze to experience (you might say that the moist robot you are has to, but that's a measurement and analysis), experience is what's given to be (i.e. can be) measured and analyzed.

 

[gurugeorge]

Word games. Those "chunglings-about" - assuming by that you mean the processes observably taking place within your brain - are the thought.

No, the thought (the having of the thought, the living through it) is the thought; the observed processes are how a thought looks, not how it is. Your direct experience of it is how it is.

 

[Nonpareil]

I said "how things come to be", not "what things are".

Materialism explains how whatever you are experiencing comes to be, i.e. its causes and conditions.

No ontology explains how things come to be. Idealism, neutral monism, and all the alternatives are just kicking the can further down the road.

No, the thought (the having of the thought, the living through it) is the thought; the observed processes are how a thought looks, not how it is. Your direct experience of it is how it is.

You are imposing a distinction where there is none.