Materialists......

[hammegk]

oops.

 

[hammegk]

Okay, what is the assumption of a non-materialist?

Thought Exists.

Okay, in your ________ world, how do you stop me from having the experience of seeing my computer screen?

Your methods work for me as well regarding what we name human thought.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

No, it is a representation in my mind and it is an object sitting in front of me. Both the representation and the actual object are physically based.

I believe this is the main point where we differ. Feel free to address this point over the weekend.

And now to quote Cartman: "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Thought Exists.

Wait, I'm a materialist.

I believe thought is underlined by physical processes.

Hence, thought exists.

Am I a materialist and a non-materialist?

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Your methods work for me as well regarding what we name human thought.

I'm not understanding how my removing all light sources affects your human thought?

 

[chriswl]

Who am I?
What am I?
Does life have a meaning?
Why does the Universe exist?
How does something come from nothing?
Is there anything like a God?
Why is the world the way it is?
Does it have to be this way?
Do I have free will?

As soon as we start to really think about these sorts of questions we realise that we don't understand the question at all. So the mystery of their unsolvability is not actually a mystery - they have no answer, not because they address something profound but because they fail to address anything real.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Thought Exists.

This an assumption based on what?

 

[hammegk]

Wait, I'm a materialist.

I believe thought is underlined by physical processes.

Hence, thought exists.

Am I a materialist and a non-materialist?

That would be called a dualist. It's not a logically defensible position.

You will need to consider in a bit more detail how you link "I believe thought is underlined by physical processes" to "Hence, thought exists".

We agree that thought involving what we perceive as the "physical structure" we call neural systems requires that perceived-as-physical structure.

I'm not understanding how my removing all light sources affects your human thought?

Our perceived-as-physical-structures communicate with what is not our specific body via photon exchange (and probably via graviton exchange). So far as science has ascertained other bosons do not effect or affect our bodies by communicating outside of them.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Right. OK. Whatever. There are no opposites. Deep, man. Way too deep for Geoff. No opposites. Right Ok. No opposites. Jeez.....and I really believed in opposites. Funny how you can be so wrong about something. I mean...believing there are such a thing as opposites! What must I have been thinking. Anyway, glad I know better now. No opposites. Nope. None. Only "spectrums". Right.

Yeah, that black and white thinking can sneak up on you.

I don't this board is ready for Derrida, yet.

Perhaps not, but we are ready for Felix Guattari:

We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multidimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously.

See, no ontological binarism.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Our perceived-as-physical-structures communicate with what is not our specific body via photon exchange (and probably via graviton exchange). So far as science has ascertained other bosons do not effect or affect our bodies by communicating outside of them.

All righty then.

~~ Paul

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Our perceived-as-physical-structures communicate with what is not our specific body via photon exchange

No. Photon exchange? Our perceived-as-physical-structures (brain or body) communicate with what is not our specific body via physical process like:

photon absorption (seeing)
acoustic wave absorption (hearing)
chemical detection (smelling)

whether photo, chemical, mechanical, or thermal, these processes are governed by transferring energy chemically and/or electrically to the brain, which become our thoughts and experiences (electrochemical signals transmitted between neurons).

(and probably via graviton exchange). So far as science has ascertained other bosons do not effect or affect our bodies by communicating outside of them.

Sure, but fermions interact with our bodies (see above) and bosons can interact with fermions and other bosons (see above). Anyway,

Going off your one assumption: thought exists.

I don't understand where the thoughts come from? You have thoughts. You are aware of thoughts. What are those thoughts about? They exist, but why do they exist? How can you locate them at all?

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

That would be called a dualist. It's not a logically defensible position.

I do not agree that what I said is dualism.

You will need to consider in a bit more detail how you link "I believe thought is underlined by physical processes" to "Hence, thought exists".

Sure, based on experience and thought, I have decided that all that is real and exists is physically based.

I have worked of the assumption that reality was limited to only what I perceived, found it useless, and thus discarded it.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Your methods work for me as well regarding what we name human thought.

So human thought is physically based, since interrupting various physical processes can affect human thought and perception.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So human thought is physically based, since interrupting various physical processes can affect human thought and perception.

No, no, no. Interrupting various physical processes just filters out some thoughts/consciousness. At least that's what Interesting Ian says.

~~ Paul

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Thought Exists.

Then conceivably, thought alone can dictate the very nature of imaginary external world.

Hence, by using thought, you can alter your mind's view of the world to however you think and somehow make your mind perceive this imaginary world in such a way to substantiate the fact that the world and its nature is totally of your own mind.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

See, no ontological binarism.

~~ Paul

From your post:

"all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously."

Who is it here who has emphasised the importance of the excluded middle?

Your quote is correct, but you've missed the point of it. By opting for materialism, it is YOU who have excluded the middle. I haven't excluded it. I keep ramming it down your throat:

1 + -1 = 0.



Materialism isn't the excluded middle. Materialism excludes the middle by claiming one half of the binary opposition stands alone. You have to recognise both halves of the opposition, and recognise them as opposed, before it is possible to avoid excluding the middle.

 

[hammegk]

This an assumption based on what?

That we 'think' we are 'thinking', although you'll see below there is more to it than that.

Then conceivably, thought alone can dictate the very nature of imaginary external world.

That would be solipsism, which I choose to deny as a useful possibility. We can have a gentlemen's agreement that we both think we think and think we are communicating.

But we will never prove we are not just some Thinker's dream, either.

So human thought is physically based, since interrupting various physical processes can affect human thought and perception.

Human thought requires the stuff we perceive as "my" physical body&brain (and yours sfaik).

No. Photon exchange? Our perceived-as-physical-structures (brain or body) communicate with what is not our specific body via physical process like:

photon absorption (seeing)
acoustic wave absorption (hearing)
chemical detection (smelling)

whether photo, chemical, mechanical, or thermal, these processes are governed by transferring energy chemically and/or electrically to the brain, which become our thoughts and experiences (electrochemical signals transmitted between neurons).

Er, yes. And mediation of all those processes requires at some point photon exchange, mmkay?

Going off your one assumption: thought exists.

I don't understand where the thoughts come from? You have thoughts. You are aware of thoughts. What are those thoughts about? They exist, but why do they exist? How can you locate them at all?

Whether "we" are brains-in-vats or what we 'think' we are ... thinking beings in an objective external reality ... thought exists.

For discussion, we can agree I Think, and You Think.

I do not agree that what I said is dualism.

I doubt that was your intent.

Sure, based on experience and thought, I have decided that all that is real and exists is physically based.

Ok. That's materialism. You then have a few logical choices on what we call thought acually is -- in every case thought is a meaningless by-product of the physical processing that's where the action is -- as epiphenomena, via supervenience, whatever, and you may logically defend that position.

I have worked of the assumption that reality was limited to only what I perceived, found it useless, and thus discarded it.

Yeah, whatever external reality is it's objective so far as my 'thoughts' have ever effected or affected things. Yet my 'thought' does seem to direct, what I perceive as 'my' body/brain, and that effects and affects external reality.

Therefore I choose "objective idealism" as my logically defensible position. Now "my physical stuff" is my epiphenomena, and 'my thought' is the causal agent that controls events. Much of the machinery appears to run on auto-pilot and my conscious intervention may never over-ride 'my environmentals' that keep some the perceived physical stuff operating.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Who is it here who has emphasised the importance of the excluded middle?

Surely you don't think I was taking such Postermodern drivel seriously?

Materialism isn't the excluded middle. Materialism excludes the middle by claiming one half of the binary opposition stands alone. You have to recognise both halves of the opposition, and recognise them as opposed, before it is possible to avoid excluding the middle.

If there is a claimed opposition, then the middle is excluded by definition. Once you allow for a middle, then there is a spectrum, because any oppositional gap is filled in and made continuous by the middle.

Any monism is exactly as continuous or discontinuous as any other, as long as it accounts for the world as we see it.

That would be solipsism, which I choose to deny as a useful possibility. We can have a gentlemen's agreement that we both think we think and think we are communicating.

So much, then, for the simplicity of your mantra "*I* think."

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Therefore I choose "objective idealism" as my logically defensible position. Now "my physical stuff" is my epiphenomena, and 'my thought' is the causal agent that controls events. Much of the machinery appears to run on auto-pilot and my conscious intervention may never over-ride 'my environmentals' that keep some the perceived physical stuff operating.

A couple of observations. If your physical stuff is epiphenomena, than I am your epiphenomenon. But it is difficult to call it epiphenomenal when I punch you in the snout and it hurts. Contradictorily, you've agreed that I also think, which makes my fist my epiphenomenon, not yours.

The argument that the external world is run by your nonconscious throws a wrench in the works. If you have no knowledge of or control over the vast majority of the "external world," then it is really reaching to call the external world a product of your mind. It is no more subjective than it is in a materialist worldview, nor is there any way to verify that it really is a product of your mind. For all intents and purposes, it is an objective, external world.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Surely you don't think I was taking such Postermodern drivel seriously?

It's hard to tell what you take seriously.

So much, then, for the simplicity of your mantra "*I* think."

you really should try to keep up with events; that was left by my wayside long ago (based on the one cogent thought I've ever seen from Upchurch, of all people). Are you too busy posting the same meaningless drivel 'materialism true ...see, I just proved it' to keep up?