Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

No, as Arkan_Wolfshade suggested, I'm wondering how you can tell the difference in things which you can't experience versus things which don't exist.

Really? It's not difficult. The ones I can experience are the ones I experience and the ones I can't, I don't.

To me, that is a very important question.

Why? The answer is obvious.

Why isn't it to you?

Because the answer is trivially obvious.

If you can't tell the difference, then wouldn't it bother you a little bit that you spent so much effort in learning about something which you could never even tell if it existed?

Not really, Tricky, no. The argument you appear to be defending is the argument about skepticism about external realism. Which is really, really, weird, because I think you believe you are defending realism. Sure, maybe nothing exists beyond our direct experiences, but if you are going to go down that line of reasoning you'd better be ready to sit down next to hammegk and lifegazer, because right now you are mimicking their argument. Go figure.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Really? It's not difficult. The ones I can experience are the ones I experience and the ones I can't, I don't.



Why? The answer is obvious.



Because the answer is trivially obvious.



Not really, Tricky, no. The argument you appear to be defending is the argument about skepticism about external realism. Which is really, really, weird, because I think you believe you are defending realism. Sure, maybe nothing exists beyond our direct experiences, but if you are going to go down that line of reasoning you'd better be ready to sit down next to hammegk and lifegazer, because right now you are mimicking their argument. Go figure.

Maybe you should stop trying to stuff Tricky, and others', comments into philosophy buckets and instead just deal with the comment as it is.

 

[Tricky]

Really? It's not difficult. The ones I can experience are the ones I experience and the ones I can't, I don't.

But I didn't ask you about things you can experience. I asked you about things you can't experience, and how you can distinguish them from non-existent things. Since you aren't stupid, I can only conclude that you intentionally answered a question other than the one I asked.

Why? The answer is obvious.

Then please tell it to me.

Because the answer is trivially obvious.

I know I am ignorant of lots of things, by it is quite obvious to me that you have not answered the question I asked. I must conclude that you either cannot or will not answer a simple question.

Not really, Tricky, no. The argument you appear to be defending is the argument about skepticism about external realism. Which is really, really, weird, because I think you believe you are defending realism. Sure, maybe nothing exists beyond our direct experiences, but if you are going to go down that line of reasoning you'd better be ready to sit down next to hammegk and lifegazer, because right now you are mimicking their argument. Go figure.

I'm not defending anything here. I'm asking you a simple question which you seem to be avoiding in a most circumlocutory fashion. I'm not sure if I can phrase it any more simply for you.

 

[hammegk]

Maybe you should stop trying to stuff Tricky, and others', comments into philosophy buckets and instead just deal with the comment as it is.

Mmmmkay. Here's another comment of equal merit to this thread to "deal with". "blah, blah, blah".

...if you are going to go down that line of reasoning you'd better be ready to sit down next to hammegk and lifegazer, because right now you are mimicking their argument. Go figure.

UCE, that hurts, and I disagree. What have I done to merit that insult?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Maybe you should stop trying to stuff Tricky, and others', comments into philosophy buckets and instead just deal with the comment as it is.

I am merely responding to the argument as given. If Tricky wants to use the argument "How do you know anything about a perspective you can never experience?" then he'd better have a long hard think about what precisely he is suggesting. There is only one perspective we ever experience and it's not the 3rd-person, objective, scientific one, is it? So if he is going to ask me "How can you tell the difference between a perspective you can never experience and one which doesn't exist?", then he'd better have a good explanation as to why he himself believes a perception-independent world exists (even though he never experiences it), because he appears to be undermining that very same claim.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But I didn't ask you about things you can experience. I asked you about things you can't experience, and how you can distinguish them from non-existent things.

And I am asking you once more to think a little harder about what you are asking me. How can YOU, tricky, distinguish between things you can't experience (like a perception-independent external world) and non-existent things. It is the materialists who believe in a world they can never experience, not me.

Since you aren't stupid, I can only conclude that you intentionally answered a question other than the one I asked.

Oh no, Tricky. I am addressing your point quite directly. I am showing you that it is you, not me, who is fallaciously believing things about a world he can never experience. So why oh why are you asking me this question?

I know I am ignorant of lots of things, by it is quite obvious to me that you have not answered the question I asked. I must conclude that you either cannot or will not answer a simple question.

You're not doing a very good job of answering the same question thrown back at you though, are you?

Here's why my position is more rational than yours, tricky. You believe in a world entirely independent of your perceptions. So do I. But you have got a major confusion going on, because you think the perception-independent world is the same as the world you percieve. Not only do you believe in an external world you can never experience, but you have spent several years naively defending the notion that this world is just the same as the one you perceive. I do not believe such things. I do believe in a perception-independent world. But I am not so philosophically backwards as to believe, without the remotest justification, that I really know what that perception-independent world is like. I have some rough guesses, that is all. So who is it who is guilty of believing self-manufactured fairy-tales about worlds he has never experienced and who is taking a more rational, logical position?

I'm not defending anything here. I'm asking you a simple question which you seem to be avoiding in a most circumlocutory fashion. I'm not sure if I can phrase it any more simply for you.

And I cannot answer it any more simply than to say that it is you, not I, who believes he knows things about a world he can never experience. Sorry tricky, but people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and people shouldn't expect answers to questions they have no right to ask.

 

[Tricky]

I am merely responding to the argument as given. If Tricky wants to use the argument "How do you know anything about a perspective you can never experience?" then he'd better have a long hard think about what precisely he is suggesting.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking. Why can't you give a coherant answer to this simple question? Now I may suggest some things, based on your answer or perhaps ask more questions, but until I get an answer, I won't know.

I There is only one perspective we ever experience and it's not the 3rd-person, objective, scientific one, is it? So if he is going to ask me "How can you tell the difference between a perspective you can never experience and one which doesn't exist?", then he'd better have a good explanation as to why he himself believes a perception-independent world exists.

I never said I believed a perception-independent world exists. But if you ask me direct questions, I will give you direct answers if you will provide me the same courtesy.

 

[DreadNiK]

Let's keep with the cube analogy. I'm trying to get people to stop asking the wrong question. "What exists beyond the physical world?" is the wrong question. The correct questions are "What is the nature of the existence of the physical world?" or "What do we really mean by physical?" You are asking me "What shall we add to the physical world?" In other words, you are trying to get me to specify something you can build upon your current materialistic conception of reality. I cannot do this, because I was never suggesting this is possible. It's not possible, because to do so can only lead to substance dualism, and substance dualism is not the answer. Instead, I am suggesting that people step back from materialism and try to find a new context for it. Instead of adding to the materialist picture I want to pick it up, wholesale, and place it in a new context. So nothing gets "added" in the way you envisage. Instead, I'm trying to relocate it so it has some foundations instead of just hanging theoretically in mid-air. It's just like the cube. You cannot solve the puzzle without disturbing the bits of it that you already see as completed.

Materialism looks true from our perspective. Whatever the final answer is, materialism is still going to look true from our perspective. What has got to change is the claim that materialism is also true from all other perspectives - specifically from the perspective of "things in themselves". The problem is not that empirical science is failing to analyse and describe the empirical world. The problem is that the empirical world isn't "the world as it is in itself." Instead, it is merely "the world as we experience it." All of the findings of empirical science remain just as true of the world as we experience it, even if we retract the claim that the world as we experience it is the same as the world as it really is.

You are the one claiming other perspectives exist. Therefore Tricky's question as to how you distinguish from any perspective except the first person is perfectly reasonable. Just answer it.

Personally I think the above quote is valueless. Plain and simple. If we can experience no other perspective, and materialism is true from our perspective, then materialism is true.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I am merely responding to the argument as given. If Tricky wants to use the argument "How do you know anything about a perspective you can never experience?" then he'd better have a long hard think about what precisely he is suggesting. There is only one perspective we ever experience and it's not the 3rd-person, objective, scientific one, is it? So if he is going to ask me "How can you tell the difference between a perspective you can never experience and one which doesn't exist?", then he'd better have a good explanation as to why he himself believes a perception-independent world exists (even though he never experiences it), because he appears to be undermining that very same claim.

Fine, set aside Tricky then.

How do you know about something you can never experience? You're the one who suggested this was a possible state. I don't give $0.02 about materialism, idealism, dualism, etc

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You are the one claiming other perspectives exist.

Oh no. YOU are. Tricky is. All the materialist here are doing exactly that. Interesting Ian and lifegazer are the only people who claim that the other perspectives don't exist (I'll leave hammy out of this for a moment).

Let us all be crystal clear about this. Tricky was asking about how we can tell the difference between a perspective we can never experience and one which does not exist. So "other perspectives" means "other than the subjective, 1st-person perspective which we do experience." And that is precisely what materialistic external realists believe and it is precisely the belief they never examine properly.

Read it and weep: Materialism is a claim that whole of existence is another perspective to the one we directly experience. Not only is it based on an unfounded belief in an external reality - a perspective we can never experience - but it goes much further than that and claims that this external reality is ALL that exists. It actually DENIES the existence of the one perspective we do experience. Is that clear enough?

If ever anybody wanted evidence that materialists do not understand their own position, it's here in this thread.

Therefore Tricky's question as to how you distinguish from any perspective except the first person is perfectly reasonable. Just answer it.

That isn't actually what he asked. He asked how to distinguish between a perspective you cannot experience and one which doesn't exist. You have asked a totally different question - and it has a different answer.

Personally I think the above quote is valueless. Plain and simple. If we can experience no other perspective, and materialism is true from our perspective, then materialism is true.

There is a paradox in this paragraph. Materialism is true from our perspective. But our perspective isn't the 3rd-person, objective view at all, is it? Instead, it's the 1st-person, subjective perspective. Materialism is only true from the subjective perspective. Say it over again like a mantra.....materialism is only true from the subjective perspective.

Can we finally arrive at Kant and realise that the material world which empirical science describes the behaviour of is not, as the materialists claim, the perception-independent external world after all? Can now all agree that in fact we can have no knowledge of the-world-as-it-is-in-itself, and that we have no means of establishing that such a thing even exists?

Empirical science describes the-world-as-it-is-experienced-by-us, NOT the external world-as-it-really-is.

 

[hammegk]

I don't give $0.02 about materialism, idealism, dualism, etc

Why do you continue with this discussion? No better bridges to emerge from under?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Fine, set aside Tricky then.

How do you know about something you can never experience?

Maybe you can't. Since I'm defending Kant's position right now, I'll give you Kant's answer: "You can't. The closest you can get is an analysis of the neccesary conditions for what you can experience, and metaphysics can go no further." He does make one sarcastic comment in the introduction to "A Critique of Pure Reason" when he says that "The thirst for that sort of knowledge [of things-in-themselves] could only be satisfied by the use of magical powers." Interpret that however you want.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Empirical science describes the-world-as-it-is-experienced-by-us, NOT the external world-as-it-really-is.

Is that exactly what you mean, or do you actually mean "Empirical science describes the-world-as-it-is-experienced-by-us, and it is unknown if that is synonymous with the external world-as-it-really-is."?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Maybe you can't. Since I'm defending Kant's position right now, I'll give you Kant's answer: "You can't. The closest you can get is an analysis of the neccesary conditions for what you can experience, and metaphysics can go no further." He does make one sarcastic comment in the introduction to "A Critique of Pure Reason" when he says that "The thirst for that sort of knowledge [of things-in-themselves] could only be satisfied by the use of magical powers." Interpret that however you want.

So, how is that different from me musing that you have an IPU in your garage?

 

[Tricky]

Maybe you can't. Since I'm defending Kant's position right now, I'll give you Kant's answer: "You can't.

Is that your position as well?

He does make one sarcastic comment in the introduction to "A Critique of Pure Reason" when he says that "The thirst for that sort of knowledge [of things-in-themselves] could only be satisfied by the use of magical powers." Interpret that however you want.

My interpretation would be that it is pretty much a waste of time to try to posit some sort of "the world as itself" perspective as you have suggested materialists should do.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Epiphany?

materialism => You can't prove a negative. Assume X is negative until evidence is provided showing X exists.

~materialism => You can't prove a negative. Assume X is positive until evidence is provided showing X can not exist.

Eh?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Read it and weep: Materialism is a claim that whole of existence is another perspective to the one we directly experience. Not only is it based on an unfounded belief in an external reality - a perspective we can never experience - but it goes much further than that and claims that this external reality is ALL that exists. It actually DENIES the existence of the one perspective we do experience. Is that clear enough?

Materialism does not deny the subjective perspective. It simply says that that is a perspective on the physical, and that the perspective is generated by mechanisms that are just like all other physical mechanisms.

How much materialism bothers people seems to be related to how much they like to say "my subjective experience is the only thing I know to be real." The more they like to say that, the more they rag on materialism. Sure, it sounds clever. Indeed, we can never know the external world qua whatever. But this fact does not in and of itself imply that the subject must be the real thing and the external world a figment. It doesn't even act as evidence one way or the other.

We need a logical proof to choose between monisms. So far, I haven't heard one. We may have to choose based on Occam, once all the monisms adequately describe the situation as we see it.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

materialism => You can't prove a negative. Assume X is negative until evidence is provided showing X exists.

~materialism => You can't prove a negative. Assume X is positive until evidence is provided showing X can not exist.

Why is this any more representative of the situation than the other way round? What's X, anyway?

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Is that exactly what you mean, or do you actually mean "Empirical science describes the-world-as-it-is-experienced-by-us, and it is unknown if that is synonymous with the external world-as-it-really-is."?

You might as well have said "Empirical science describes the-world-as-it-is-experience by us, and it is unknown if that is synonymous with a teapot."

In other words we have this "world as it really is", about which we know absolutely nothing and you are adding the qualifier "and it is unknown if this is synonymous with [X]". [X] could be anything, from a teapot to Pol Pot to God. So what you are saying is logically correct but everything you have added after the "and" is irrelevant.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Is that your position as well?

In terms of what can be known via empirical science or philosophical argument, yes.

My interpretation would be that it is pretty much a waste of time to try to posit some sort of "the world as itself" perspective as you have suggested materialists should do.

No, you still don't understand. I am not suggesting materialists "should do" this. I am telling you that they already do it.