I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[Belz...]

Yes, the arrogance to think that a bunch of monkeys(no offence to monkeys) understand existence.

Or the ignorance of thinking we cannot.

 

[PixyMisa]

Hi Tassman,
What you've presented here, deals with the utility of the philosophies under discussion. That materialism is more useful than idealism. Well that might be the case, but doesn't address the question and is irrelevant to the discussion.

Idealism actually has zero utility.

Fine, it would be nice to see the origin and see which it actually is.

Brain.

I suspect that it would turn out to be something else.

Your suspecter is overdue for service.

It has been pointed out that understanding how the brain works doesn't address the question.

It has been pointed out that bollocks.

Under idealism, the physical world would be identical.

No, under idealism you can construct an infinite series of excuses for the physical world appearing in any way whatsoever, or none.

Assume all you like, it doesn't change the reality out there, of which we are in ignorance.

Not that much ignorance, thank you very much.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Idealism actually has zero utility.


Brain.


Your suspecter is overdue for service.


It has been pointed out that bollocks.


No, under idealism you can construct an infinite series of excuses for the physical world appearing in any way whatsoever, or none.


Not that much ignorance, thank you very much.

Nice post, as usual!

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Materialism" - The idea that reality is understandable, operates under certain consistent rules, and that learning about the universe will yield a greater understanding of our existence, a position supported by literally everything we know up to and including the very concept of "knowing".

"Idealism" - Everything is in my head, lookit at how deep I am, here's some Woo.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes that would have been pretty sweet, I am pretty lucky I got me one of those experiencer thingies. Today on my walk I saw a Common Loon, I can't seem to demonstrate that either.

Nice dodge, you have no evidence that the experiencer is actually the same, you just assert it without evidence.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, the arrogance to think that a bunch of monkeys(no offence to monkeys) understand existence.

especially when they pretend all sorts of things without any evidence.

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry, what exists?

You obviously don't understand much about mysticism. The clue is in the word itself, i.e. Mystery.

Yup, you have said it is all.

Some mystics however apply science to it anyway.

 

[dlorde]

Sure, the eye cannot sometimes differentiate between frequencies of the light wave, that's a sensor problem not a brain problem.

No, this is processing that occurs in the brain, not at the retina. The perceived colour is affected by the context of the scene and the other colours around it. For example, the Rubik's Cube Colour Illusion.

Just sayin'...

 

[LarryS]

Hi Tassman,
What you've presented here, deals with the utility of the philosophies under discussion. That materialism is more useful than idealism. Well that might be the case, but doesn't address the question and is irrelevant to the discussion.

Fine, it would be nice to see the origin and see which it actually is. I suspect that it would turn out to be something else.

It has been pointed out that understanding how the brain works doesn't address the question. Under idealism, the physical world would be identical.


Assume all you like, it doesn't change the reality out there, of which we are in ignorance.

I suggest it is rather parsimonious to make this assumption, as all indications in nature suggest that there is abundance in all things. Why not the things that we are not aware of?

Or do we have supreme knowledge?

PixyMisa?

While I was never an Idealist per se, I was ambivalent as to whether matter or consciousness is primary, however, I've recently had a 'conversion' to materialism. Because of a very simple fact - that declaring that mind or consciousness is primary is a bit of a conversation stopper - it's not even a concept, it's merely a placeholder and as such does not add value to the conversation. Being an Idealist is like reserving the best seat in the house for somebody that never shows up.

 

[Belz...]

No, this is processing that occurs in the brain, not at the retina.

Unless you just don't have the receptor cells for that.

 

[tsig]

No, this is processing that occurs in the brain, not at the retina. The perceived colour is affected by the context of the scene and the other colours around it. For example, the Rubik's Cube Colour Illusion.

Just sayin'...

Rubik's Cube

Instead, your retina and brain pay most attention to edges, places in the scene where there are sharp changes in intensity and/or wavelength. Your brain makes "informed guesses" about the intensity and wavelengths of light coming from points between edges. These informed guesses are based on, among other things, the intensities and wavelengths of light coming from other locations in the scene blindspot. Hence the intensity and color of light coming from particular objects in the scene may change if the objects are moved. You can verify this in the two images to the right.

Ok the brain extrapolates the color based on wavelengths of light coming from other locations.

The stimuli are still external to the brain so I'm not seeing any point here.

Are you implying that all reality is some sort of Rubik's Cube?

 

[punshhh]

I could just copy and paste my last post here, couldn't I?

Can you be a bit more specific, what exactly exists?
Just saying existence exists is a tautology.

Existence exists. Mysticism doesn't. I can understand things that exist. No one can understand things that don't.

Oh dear mysticism is a lifestyle, I know it cannot be reduced to an object, but it certainly exists.

 

[punshhh]

FTFY

Same as I've just said to ehcks.

There you go.

I was asking what a thing is, you know the thingimy gig that exists.

 

[punshhh]

No we understand it perfectly. It's a poor attempt to make "not knowing" noble.

Its a realisation of what we don't know, you seem to try hard to ignore what we don't know.

 

[punshhh]

Or the ignorance of thinking we cannot.

I didn't say we can't, rather that we don't (at this time).

 

[punshhh]

While I was never an Idealist per se, I was ambivalent as to whether matter or consciousness is primary, however, I've recently had a 'conversion' to materialism. Because of a very simple fact - that declaring that mind or consciousness is primary is a bit of a conversation stopper - it's not even a concept, it's merely a placeholder and as such does not add value to the conversation. Being an Idealist is like reserving the best seat in the house for somebody that never shows up.

Yes, it's only for folk who like indulging in philosophy, like all these folk posting on this philosophy sub forum (not).

Otherwise I would expect it to be used as a tool, or stepping stone in a persons personal philosophy.

Also from my perspective it is a rather clunking exercise in logic, without much in the way of an unbroken heritage.

 

[Belz...]

Can you be a bit more specific, what exactly exists?

Something exists. Of that you can be absolutely certain. Determining the nature of that thing is not helpful. However, by carefyl studying you and other people who also seem to exist can unlock the secrets of how this thing works, and use it to your advantage.

That's basically the whole idea of science and materialism.

 

[Belz...]

I didn't say we can't, rather that we don't (at this time).

And yet that is not true, unless you attempt to answer a nonsensical question.

 

[tsig]

Its a realisation of what we don't know, you seem to try hard to ignore what we don't know.

How do you know what we don't know?

Sounds like you are praising ignorance. Is mysticism nothing more than promoting ignorance?

 

[marplots]

How do you know what we don't know?

Sounds like you are praising ignorance. Is mysticism nothing more than promoting ignorance?

Is it promoting or exposing? After all, we wouldn't want to be ignorant about our own ignorance... unless, you know, that feels better.