Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[paximperium]

This is not an accurate assessment of my views at all. I am saying - for very good reason - that valid theory stops, in terms of parsimony, at the point of the "universal consciousness" theory. Questions and further investigation most definitely do not stop at this point.

No, it is a completely accurate assessment of your nonsense. You've answered a mystery by claiming another mystery and answering it with a mystery. You have no idea what parsimony is.

I have never claimed this theory answers all the questions we have.

Completely 100% true. It doesn't answer any questions we have about reality at all except for some nonsensical question that you created yourself.

I have only ever claimed that a conscious thinker of the Universe is much more parsimonious than either a self-sustaining substance (materialism) or self-sustaining information (physicalism) due to the fact that the former is predicated on something known unlike the latter theories.

Which continues to complete and utter nonsense based on nothing but your assertion and ignorance.

Against the argument that my theory leads to X, Y and/or Z things for which we have no evidence I can only respond by saying that so to materialism and/or physicalism.

Translation: Materialism doesn't answer question X, Y and Z therefore I get to makeup some nonsensical pile of crap with no evidence that also doesn't answer X, Y and Z.

This is called the Tu Quoque Fallacy and it is a joke.

Nobody has the answer - and why people are getting so incredibly uptight about a theory presented as pure theory and accepted as such by the proponent as well as being declared as not able to answer all the questions we have is trully stunning.

So claiming nonsense because people doesn't have the ultimate answer somehow makes the nonsense automatically exempt from criticism?

So some moron who claims that cancer is caused by little demons or that Syndrome X is caused by psychic powers must be respected because it is "pure theory"?

I am being called for everything in this thread by more than a few people for no reason other than having a theory that they disagree with.

No, you've been called everything you deserve. You are dishonest, you refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with you and you are as closed minded and ignorant as many true believers.

Given such, I am now beginning to lessening my participation in this thread and becoming more active (time permitting) on another forum that I believe a few of you are familiar with http://forum.mind-energy.net/ trusing that the moderators there will help to keep things in check.

Hey, if all you ever wanted was to have a bunch of other true believers to agree with you then why ever bother talking to anyone else? It must make you feel good to have a bunch of other nobodies pat you in the back.

Keep to your little fringe. The scientists and science will continue to march forward even as you huddle in your caves and keep thinking magic and monsters are the cause for lightning.

 

[HypnoPsi]

But parsimonious is not the right word.

Yes it is. Consciousness is not an unknown thing. Prima materia/hyle or information that can sustain itself (physicalism) are unknown things.

Theists posit God-consciousness based upon self-consciousness. Atheism has nothing to predicate a self-sustaining Universe on.

Now my question is - so what? Nothing is being proven here and we all, surely, know that parsimony is only a method of producing a theory rather than a conclusion and that it can be wrong if the data you start with is insufficient.

So why all the fuss?

You don't have a theory. You have an undeveloped idea.

Of course it's a theory - and a better one than materialism or physicalism.

It's a tentative answer as to how (but not why) the universe exists and is, in principle, testable for falsifiability should someone ever show that prima materia/hyle exists (and is self-sustaining; i.e. uncreated) or that information can sustain itself.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes it is. Consciousness is not an unknown thing. Prima materia/hyle or information that can sustain itself (physicalism) are unknown things.

parsimony: economy of explanation in conformity with Occam's razor

You have no explanation. Parsimony is irrelevant.


~~ Paul

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes it is. Consciousness is not an unknown thing. Prima materia/hyle or information that can sustain itself (physicalism) are unknown things.

You keep saying this. It was wrong the first time you said it. It's wrong now. We've shown you specifically why it is wrong. I will repeat, by the cogito we know that thought exists. For thought to exist as it is demonstrated in that argument both time and energy must exist or the entire prospect of the cogito would be impossible. Time and energy are, therefore, prior to thought, they are more fundamental than thought. You can argue that energy is tied into thought as some form of consciousness, but you can't demonstrate this. No one can. So that idea is a construction on your part.

It is actually more parsimonious to suggest that energy -- proved by the very argument you are using to demonstrate what you think is fundamental and the very argument that demonstrates that what you think is fundamental is, in fact, not the fundamental aspect of reality -- to say that energy is the fundamental constituent of the universe.

You know that stuff that can neither be created nor destroyed.

Whether it is true that energy is the fundamental constituent is a whole other matter.

So why all the fuss?

You tell me. You're the one persisting when logical argument shows you wrong.

 

[rocketdodger]

Theists posit God-consciousness based upon self-consciousness. Atheism has nothing to predicate a self-sustaining Universe on.

*sigh*

WHAT SUSTAINS THE GOD-CONSCIOUSNESS?

You don't know? Your "theory" is more "parsimonious" and you don't know?

wtf

 

[Dancing David]

Wow, the same assertion again:

the evidence of consciousness is real, the evidence of matter is not.

But the evidentiary basis is the exact same.

 

[HypnoPsi]

You keep saying this. It was wrong the first time you said it. It's wrong now. We've shown you specifically why it is wrong. I will repeat, by the cogito we know that thought exists. For thought to exist as it is demonstrated in that argument both time and energy must exist or the entire prospect of the cogito would be impossible.

I've never said that time and energy don't exist - their fundamental nature is another question.

That said, if you want to continue discussing this issue with me just hop on over to the moderated forum at http://forum.mind-energy.net/

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I've never said that time and energy don't exist - their fundamental nature is another question.

That said, if you want to continue discussing this issue with me just hop on over to the moderated forum at http://forum.mind-energy.net/

~
HypnoPsi

Thank you for the invitation. This place takes up so much of my time, that it is unlikely, but it is very nice of you to invite me.

I say that time and energy are more fundamental than thought because thought cannot occur without them, but they can theoretically occur without thought. We wouldn't know that they occur without thought, but that's an epistemic issue.

I still say we are left with two possibilities and no way to distinguish between the two. It is either the case that there is a self-sustaining thinker that has as basic consituents to its being time and energy (God), or it is the case that we have time and energy as fundamental with no thinker.

In other words, when it comes to the fundamental constituent of the universe, we cannot understand ultimate reality, but it is either a person or it isn't. The universe is either teleological or it isn't. Without a way to tell, like Neo, we must choose.

It's all a matter of how you want to approach the world. Neither is more correct than the other from where we sit, but one is right and one is wrong. Neither is more parsimonious.

 

[rocketdodger]

That said, if you want to continue discussing this issue with me just hop on over to the moderated forum at http://forum.mind-energy.net/

For what possible reason would you prefer to continue this discussion on that forum?

This forum is also moderated.

Does it somehow change the quality of your arguments? Because if so then I am game.

But if so, I have to ask, why would you be able to argue better there than here?

I think it really has to do with being surrounded by people who share the same fallacies as you.

 

[articulett]

It's all a matter of how you want to approach the world. Neither is more correct than the other from where we sit, but one is right and one is wrong. Neither is more parsimonious.

I disagree... I think the one that doesn't involve an invisible undetectable immeasurable form of consciousness is the most parsimonious.

Injecting such is superfluous. It explains nothing, and tends to give the believer a backwards perception regarding how consciousness evolved. It's a dead end conclusion that keeps one from finding out more.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I disagree... I think the one that doesn't involve an invisible undetectable immeasurable form of consciousness is the most parsimonious.

Injecting such is superfluous. It explains nothing, and tends to give the believer a backwards perception regarding how consciousness evolved. It's a dead end conclusion that keeps one from finding out more.

From looking at fundamental reality, how can you distinguish between "energy", which is a garbage term that we simply lay on something that we can't really define and "God", which is a garbage term that we lay on something that we really can't really define?

The problem I glossed over, to be nice, is that views that see God as a person limit the definition of God, so they are derivative and do not describe ultimate reality.

We can't describe ultimate reality, so it is not superflous to define it as God. It is simply a definition.

Basically you are telling me that you choose "energy", and that's fine with me.

 

[articulett]

But nobody is talking about "just energy" when they are talking about god... they imbue it with "purpose"-- thought... human characteristics.

You may not... you're a pantheist, right? But how can consciousness without matter make more sense than sound without matter? Sound is "just energy" too-- but without matter, there can be no sound. Running is "energy", but without matter, nothing can "run".

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But nobody is talking about "just energy" when they are talking about god... they imbue it with "purpose"-- thought... human characteristics.

You may not... you're a pantheist, right? But how can consciousness without matter make more sense than sound without matter? Sound is "just energy" too-- but without matter, there can be no sound. Running is "energy", but without matter, nothing can "run".

Consciousness without matter would be a situation in which everything we see around us -- what we call matter -- is actually thought from a universal mind. It would bear no relation to the way that "we" think, except that it would be the ultimate cause.

One of the problems that idealists run into is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to cast ultimate reality as a univesal mind and they want humans to be independent of that mind somehow. But if there is one substance, this is not possible. So, if there is a single universal consciousness, it's thoughts are matter. And that matter arranges in certain ways to produce "us", so our thinking is simply the universal consciousness thinking about itself through some inferior means ("us"). For it to plan that is really strange and makes no sense.

Idealists who want to believe that we have an obligation to meditate about this greater consciousness haven't thought it through. If we have such an obligation, it can only occur if there are two types of substance -- the universal consciousness and us. If they want to be consistent and stick to one substance, then "we" are just that consciousness doing what it does.

Imbuing the ultimate substance with human characteristics is a mistake. It is a way of relating to "all that is", but it is necessarily a limitation on "God".

 

[articulett]

Agreed. But I wouldn't call that "god"... though I understand why some would. In a way, it's like saying "god is all the cool stuff about nature that I'm too limited to understand"...

I just call that, "all the cool stuff about nature that I'm too limited to understand... yet".

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Agreed. But I wouldn't call that "god"... though I understand why some would. In a way, it's like saying "god is all the cool stuff about nature that I'm too limited to understand"...

I just call that, "all the cool stuff about nature that I'm too limited to understand... yet".

That's fine. I don't really think it matters what words we use. The important thing is the wonder of nature and our relationship to it. 'God' is just short-hand for all that.

The further insight is that this is just nature relating to itself.

But awe and wonder feels good, so why not?

 

[articulett]

Well, I used to think that way... and I called it "god"... but I think that was just a way to ease my mind into the fact that there really couldn't be consciousness without a brain. It allowed me to "fit in" and think fuzzily without having to really say what I thought or face what I was hiding from myself.

It does make relating to believers easier, and takes away the immediate tendency they have to mishear what you are saying... but that's because they can twist what you are saying into what they want to believe.

IRL, I might do that. But when people say they "believe in god", they usually mean consciousness without a brain--an invisible form of consciousness-- undetectable yet they've "detected" it. I think that's arrogant, and I won't pay heed to the notion that it's not. I understand why people "believe in" that, but I do not find it rational no matter how many semantic games are played.

Yes, there is much we don't know... I am just not willing to call "that" god. I mean, I'd do it if faced with recrimination for expressing my atheism... but I don't like living in a world where I'm judged on the invisible entities I don't believe in and where people "need" to hear me saying things I'm not saying in order to keep this idea that "belief in god" is a good thing.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, I used to think that way... and I called it "god"... but I think that was just a way to ease my mind into the fact that there really couldn't be consciousness without a brain. It allowed me to "fit in" and think fuzzily without having to really say what I thought or face what I was hiding from myself.

It does make relating to believers easier, and takes away the immediate tendency they have to mishear what you are saying... but that's because they can twist what you are saying into what they want to believe.

IRL, I might do that. But when people say they "believe in god", they usually mean consciousness without a brain--an invisible form of consciousness-- undetectable yet they've "detected" it. I think that's arrogant, and I won't pay heed to the notion that it's not. I understand why people "believe in" that, but I do not find it rational no matter how many semantic games are played.

Yes, there is much we don't know... I am just not willing to call "that" god. I mean, I'd do it if faced with recrimination for expressing my atheism... but I don't like living in a world where I'm judged on the invisible entities I don't believe in and where people "need" to hear me saying things I'm not saying in order to keep this idea that "belief in god" is a good thing.

That's fine. I've let go all the stuff attached to the word and don't use it to "get by". I work around more fundamentalist types than you -- Adventists everywhere -- and they all view me as an atheist because I certainly do not believe in a personal God. I generally don't discuss this stuff with that many people in real life anyway. You can call me an atheist, you can call me a pantheist, whatever, it amounts to the same thing. One thing I am not is a theist.

I also do not, from my personal history, hold onto old labels. I became a complete non-believer around age 14. My position now is something that I slipped back to once I realized that when we think down to a fundamental level there is a choice waiting there and not truth. I don't see any problem taking back the word God. It signifies the central mysteries of existence as well as any other word.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

To clarify, idealism on its own (IMO) seems identical in observation to materialism. Materialism relies on laws predicting how information will be perceived. That's the best that can be done. Beyond that, every speculation is the same as the last.

That's a good appreciation, still, I believe it goes beyond this. For the record and for a start (for those who do not have an idea of what I believe, or those who have been deluded in to thinking I believe something I don't), I'm not an idealist but I'm also far fromb being a materialist. I believe that every camp (including dualists, monists and every other ists) is simply deluded by shiny words, and that we should be proud and happy just by the fact that we can make fantastic descriptions and imaginary depictions about what it is 'really' going on.

Some people, for the sake of economy, like to call what they imagine as the ultimate reality "mater" good for them. With the same authority and certainly the same accuracy I can call it "immanent reality" or "noumena" or "Tao" (this one is elegant to say the least),

or...

I can chose to stop right before having to make an ontological commitment, and this is, exactly, my position regarding the subject.

As for the question that names this thread, I believe everyone is confused, so, the same as materialists defining "physical" with their choice of words, idealists choice of words would be absurd


BTW I'm really late to the discussion and I have no time to read it all, sorry for that.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Hmm,
A couple os thoughts:
If under idealism, things ‘only exist’ in a moment of existence created by perception or thought. It still becomes the equivalent of materialism.

If a photon comes into existence at the point of perception, then it comes into existence with an intact history and behaves as though it has travelled all the way from some distant object. It behaves as though there was a gravitational body that intercepted it if it is part of a ring event.

If on the other hand the photon is in existence for that whole time, because it is perceived by some meta-mind (the godthought proposal), then the rules of materialism still apply. It behaves as though it is made of energy/matter. It may exist only because of the meta-mind bur it still behaves the same.

So again, what difference is there between materialism and idealism?



Yet is behaves as though it has been there the whole time, yes or no?



And what difference does it make? You can not tell one from the other. Quanta of energy, godthought, ideas, butterfly dreams, they all will act the same.

Brilliant. Yes. Exactly.

 

[Dancing David]

Brilliant. Yes. Exactly.

Hiya BDZ!