I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[tsig]

On further review

delete

 

[Belz...]

It looks as though we are not thinking of the same definition of necessary.

I suggest you consult a dictionary.

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.

It does negate, it because it is not necessary. You appear to be making an argument from personal satisfaction i.e. that the final theory must not only be correct but also that it must also answer all your questions. You do not seem to consider it probable that several of your queries are meaningless.

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

I still do not understand your question. What are those "wider issues" ?

Who said anything about something not being interactive?

Perhaps you have not followed this thread closely. The question is whether this universal consciousness or whatever idealism is concerned with is detectable in principle. In other words, whether it is distinguishable from materialism. In the negative, then there is no interaction between it and us, and thus it can be ignored from any and all theories. The issue of interaction has been discussed several times here.

We may well be interacting with numerous phenomena, about which we are unaware.

But those would be detectable in theory, unlike what you are proposing.

I explained in my last response that there is evidence of conscious experience or what appears as conscious experience, as primary.

What do you mean by primary ? I have already explained to you that the evidence we have is that consciousness is altered along with the brain. The most logical explanation is that consciousness is generated wholly by the brain. That the alternate cannot be ruled out completely is irrelevant.

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

There cannot be perspective beyond observation. That is a consequence of the definition of the word. If knowing the meaning of words is supreme knowledge, then I definitely have it.

We are addressing issues beyond the possibilities of falsifiability.

This statement is meaningless.

 

[Belz...]

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

Yes. Something must be able to be proven wrong in order to have a change to be right. Ignorance of this principle is one of your fundamental failings.

 

[The Man]

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".

Actually I think the point in those idealistic approaches (if I remember correctly) is that it transcends human consciousness to some higher consciousness.

You seem to be talking more about transcendental numbers. However, more precise information is still just information. Also there is at least the possibility that space time is discrete. Finally their also seems to be a limit on the amount of information a reign of space can contain if its energy is finite.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

 

[annnnoid]

Yes. Something must be able to be proven wrong in order to have a change to be right. Ignorance of this principle is one of your fundamental failings.

There are an all-but infinite number of events that occur in the lives of each and every human being (including yours) that no ‘science’ can even begin to falsify (and quite possibly will never be able to). So are you going to argue that the veracity of every single one of these events is suspect?

…not to mention…that you cannot even begin to falsify the events that generate the ‘axioms’ upon which logic and reason (and therefore the entirety of science and the process of falsification) depend.

So are you going to argue that they are also all fundamentally flawed?

Ignorance of these facts are more evidence of your fundamental failings.

…but of course…according to your absurd-theory-of-everything the omniscient scientist of the 8,384rd century will doubtless have acquired these skills…just because that’s what happens in the religion of science (got the thread right anyway).

…yeah…what was that thing called again…the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Belz...]

There are an all-but infinite number of events that occur in the lives of each and every human being (including yours) that no ‘science’ can even begin to falsify (and quite possibly will never be able to).

Not falsified, falsifiable. Everything that happens to us is falsifiable.

…not to mention…that you cannot even begin to falsify the events that generate the ‘axioms’ upon which logic and reason (and therefore the entirety of science and the process of falsification) depend.

So are you going to argue that they are also all fundamentally flawed?

No, but they are unproven. However we need axioms to proceed, and we are currently using the safest one. So far all our observations concur with it.

 

[marplots]

Not falsified, falsifiable. Everything that happens to us is falsifiable.

Do you mean in the present tense? Because a great deal of the past seems to be unfalsifiable. There's a thread on the "historicity of Jesus" as an example.

 

[Belz...]

Do you mean in the present tense? Because a great deal of the past seems to be unfalsifiable. There's a thread on the "historicity of Jesus" as an example.

I mean that if I say I ate a pizza yesterday, all you would have had to do to falsify my claim was to film me during my day. The point of falsifiability is that it is able to be proven wrong. Unfalsifiable claims are usually worded in such a way that you can never do that, because there is always an "out".

 

[marplots]

I mean that if I say I ate a pizza yesterday, all you would have had to do to falsify my claim was to film me during my day. The point of falsifiability is that it is able to be proven wrong. Unfalsifiable claims are usually worded in such a way that you can never do that, because there is always an "out".

By "out" I think you mean some dodge; some clever escape clause?

I didn't think what I mentioned was of that type, but there would certainly be others. Claims that relied on uncertainty in general (where measuring one quality destroys another) should suffice as well.

A common unfalsifiable claim might involve the universe beyond what we can detect - relying on the assumption that physics as we know it extends into areas we cannot reach.

But the more mundane works just as well. I could assert that Lincoln ate food as a claim that is not falsifiable. I think Lincoln actually did eat food, but how might I be proven wrong?

 

[annnnoid]

Not falsified, falsifiable. Everything that happens to us is falsifiable.

The following just ‘happened’ to Berf Gooner:

Berf wants a small pepperoni pizza.
No, change of mind,…Berf wants a large deluxe pizza.
No, change of mind,…Berf wants a medium Hawaiian pizza.
No, change of mind,…Berf wants 2 tomatoes and a piece of broccoli and then Berf wants to have sex.
Next…Berf is experiencing a variety of obtuse moodiness not unlike the feeling of a cool breeze on an overcast winter day.

Explain how a single one of these events would be falsified….cause if they can’t be falsified…then they didn’t happen.

…according to you (any of the other disciples of the one-true-epistemology want to leap in here?).

Or could it possibly be possible…that punshhh isn’t the only ignorant one with fundamental failings?

 

[Darat]

The following just ‘happened’ to Berf Gooner:

Berf wants a small pepperoni pizza.
No, change of mind,…Berf wants a large deluxe pizza.
No, change of mind,…Berf wants a medium Hawaiian pizza.
No, change of mind,…Berf wants 2 tomatoes and a piece of broccoli and then Berf wants to have sex.
Next…Berf is experiencing a variety of obtuse moodiness not unlike the feeling of a cool breeze on an overcast winter day.

Explain how a single one of these events would be falsified….cause if they can’t be falsified…then they didn’t happen.

…according to you (any of the other disciples of the one-true-epistemology want to leap in here?).

Or could it possibly be possible…that punshhh isn’t the only ignorant one with fundamental failings?

Eh? The same way as we do everything else - using evidence.

 

[tsig]

The following just ‘happened’ to Berf Gooner:

Berf wants a small pepperoni pizza.
No, change of mind,…Berf wants a large deluxe pizza.
No, change of mind,…Berf wants a medium Hawaiian pizza.
No, change of mind,…Berf wants 2 tomatoes and a piece of broccoli and then Berf wants to have sex.
Next…Berf is experiencing a variety of obtuse moodiness not unlike the feeling of a cool breeze on an overcast winter day.

Explain how a single one of these events would be falsified….cause if they can’t be falsified…then they didn’t happen.
…according to you (any of the other disciples of the one-true-epistemology want to leap in here?).

Or could it possibly be possible…that punshhh isn’t the only ignorant one with fundamental failings?

You seem to be using that word "falsified" in a previously unknown manner.

Why do you want to take Berfs' pizza?

Has Berf been falsified?

Do you envy Berf his pizza and sex?

Or could it possibly be possible…that punshhh isn’t the only ignorant one with fundamental failings?

 

[annnnoid]

Eh? The same way as we do everything else - using evidence.

What evidence do you use to falsify subjective experience since you effectively have zero ability to objectively adjudicate it?

You seem to be using that word "falsified" in a previously unknown manner.

Why do you want to take Berfs' pizza?

Has Berf been falsified?

Do you envy Berf his pizza and sex?

Or could it possibly be possible…that punshhh isn’t the only ignorant one with fundamental failings?

You don't have to declare victory because your modus operandi is to make vague, meaningless, irrelevant statements in the fond belief that they make you appear intelligent.

 

[Belz...]

The following just ‘happened’ to Berf Gooner:

Berf wants a small pepperoni pizza.
No, change of mind,…Berf wants a large deluxe pizza.
No, change of mind,…Berf wants a medium Hawaiian pizza.
No, change of mind,…Berf wants 2 tomatoes and a piece of broccoli and then Berf wants to have sex.
Next…Berf is experiencing a variety of obtuse moodiness not unlike the feeling of a cool breeze on an overcast winter day.

Explain how a single one of these events would be falsified….cause if they can’t be falsified…then they didn’t happen.

Once again, your ignorance and incredulity are not convincing arguments.

You can falsify all of those, in principle, by identifying how brains behave when you want a specific thing, or when something specific happens, then by monitoring Berf's brain. The problem here is that, as usual, you do not understand what is being discussed, and you think that your lack of understanding applies to the universe as a whole.

The concept of falsifiability is simple: can a claim be shown to be false, even in principle.

Or could it possibly be possible…that punshhh isn’t the only ignorant one with fundamental failings?

It could, since you also fall into that category.

 

[LarryS]

Once again, your ignorance and incredulity are not convincing arguments.

You can falsify all of those, in principle, by identifying how brains behave when you want a specific thing, or when something specific happens, then by monitoring Berf's brain. The problem here is that, as usual, you do not understand what is being discussed, and you think that your lack of understanding applies to the universe as a whole.

The concept of falsifiability is simple: can a claim be shown to be false, even in principle.



It could, since you also fall into that category.

Perhaps in principle those claims could be falsified, but we're nowhere's near that capable of mining the brain to return prior states of mind, intent or images of experiences. If we were, we would not need the courts to establish guilt or innocence. Your claim these are falsifiable could easily be proven false . . . especially now that Carnac the Magnificent is dead.

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps in principle those claims could be falsified, but we're nowhere's near that capable of mining the brain to return prior states of mind, intent or images of experiences.

That's irrelevant, because the principle of falsifiability does not depend on our current ability to falsify the claim. In fact it fits well with one of the greatest strengths of science: the ability to make predictions that cannot be proven currently, but that will be shown to be true when the means allow.

 

[marplots]

Could you restate the "principle of falsifiability" again? I'd like to put my skeptical eye on it.

 

[punshhh]

That's irrelevant, because the principle of falsifiability does not depend on our current ability to falsify the claim. In fact it fits well with one of the greatest strengths of science: the ability to make predictions that cannot be proven currently, but that will be shown to be true when the means allow.

I will have look at my shortcomings later today. I am getting a some insight into your reasoning here, as you've stated this before.

So there are things which are falsifiable in principle (Y) and there are those things which can't be falsified in principle (X). Presumably there is a method of determining which set something is in?

Let me guess, set Y contains things humanity can directly interact with, or detect, or logically determine.

Set X contains everything else, what exists, the facts of existence, an almost infinite number of other things.

As this discussion is about alternative ontologies to the one humanity can scientifically derive, presumably the alternatives all fall in set X. So to state that set Y is the only set worth considering and set X is pie in the sky, is a slam dunk, or a checkmate.

 

[ehcks]

So there are things which are falsifiable in principle (Y) and there are those things which can't be falsified in principle (X). Presumably there is a method of determining which set something is in?

Let me guess, set Y contains things humanity can directly interact with, or detect, or logically determine.

No. Set Y includes indirect detection. We did not detect dark matter directly. We detected it by its gravitational effects. We did not detect antibiotics directly, we noticed that a fungus killed bacteria in a petri dish.

Set X contains everything else, what exists, the facts of existence, an almost infinite number of other things.

No. Set X includes nothing which exists. Almost by definition, Set X is only things that do not, and can not exist.

If we were to detect that consciousness alone had the power to alter the state of the universe around us, it would be in Set Y. It would become falsifiable.

 

[punshhh]

No. Set Y includes indirect detection. We did not detect dark matter directly. We detected it by its gravitational effects. We did not detect antibiotics directly, we noticed that a fungus killed bacteria in a petri dish.

I was including indirect detection under "or detect".

No. Set X includes nothing which exists. Almost by definition, Set X is only things that do not, and can not exist.

If we were to detect that consciousness alone had the power to alter the state of the universe around us, it would be in Set Y. It would become falsifiable.

ok, so what set is what exists in?