Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

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?

I didn't understand this. What "negative"?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

We need a logical proof to choose between monisms.
~~ Paul

1 + -1 = 0.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

This is not crystal clear. I do not know what it means to experience a perspective. I think one just has a perspective.

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."

Yes, Arkan's statement was confusing. I think it's fair to say that science absolutely does describe an external world-as-it-really-is. The question is whether that external world is generated by (a) nonconscious actions of the self; (b) a Metamind thingie; or (c) just is. Either way, though, "external world-as-it-really-is" describes it to a T(eapot).

~~ Paul

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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.

The is not your addition of, "... NOT the external world-as-it-really-is." equally irrelevant? So, then we're left with "Empirical science describes the-world-as-it-is-experience[d] by us." Which I am fine with.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

1 + -1 = 0.

I see your proof and raise you the proof of materialism:

1 + 1 = 2.

~~ Paul

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I didn't understand this. What "negative"?

Allow me to rephrase then.

Given that you can not prove a negative. ex. "Show me that there are no invisible pink unicorns!"

1) Materialists state: assume a phrase/statement/idea/concept/etc is false, until evidence is provided to show it is true. "Unless evidence is provided, invisible pink unicorns do not exist."
2) ~Materialists state: assume a prhase/statement/idea/concept/etc is true, until evidence is provided to show it is false. "Unless evidence is provided that shows that invisible pink unicorns do not exists, assume they do exist."

This fundemental difference in approaches is the source of your irritation, yes?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Allow me to rephrase then.

Given that you can not prove a negative. ex. "Show me that there are no invisible pink unicorns!"

1) Materialists state: assume a phrase/statement/idea/concept/etc is false, until evidence is provided to show it is true. "Unless evidence is provided, invisible pink unicorns do not exist."
2) ~Materialists state: assume a prhase/statement/idea/concept/etc is true, until evidence is provided to show it is false. "Unless evidence is provided that shows that invisible pink unicorns do not exists, assume they do exist."

This fundemental difference in approaches is the source of your irritation, yes?

No. What irritates me is that you've got it exactly backwards. Materialism does not assume something is false unless it is proved to exist. Far from it. Materialism is a claim that an external experience-independent physical world exists, even though we could never, ever experience such a thing. Idealists, on the other hand, do what you are claiming materialists do - they claim their experiences are real and the so-called "external world" doesn't even exist

How can so many people make the same error and not realise they are doing it?

Here is a short article which explains the point very clearly:

http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/phinow3.htm

2.3 The Underlying Logic of the Argument

I beg the reader's patience. What is of interest here is not the Pinkel Triangle [or pink unicorn for that matter] itself, but the logic of the argument. In this particular example, common sense does indeed tell us that the conclusion is true, and it should also help us to see that the argument is valid. For subsequent reference, I shall propose it in this formal scheme. The format is that if the premise (1) is true then you can infer the first conclusion (2) and hence the final conclusion (3).

It is intrinsically inconceivable that we can ever perform any experiment or observation to detect the presence of X.
Therefore any X is indistinguishable from a fiction.
Therefore any X is a fiction.If you disagree with this scheme, then I must ask you for a counter-example, or a contrary proof.


3.4 The Physical World is Indistinguishable from a Fiction

Any observation will be based on a perception - either directly through your sense organs or indirectly through a measuring instrument, the use of which would rely on reading a dial or some such display. It is not intelligible to have an observation of the world that does not come to you through one or other of your senses. We therefore now find ourselves at step no. 1 of the argument that was outlined above. Substituting "the physical world" for X, we have:

It is intrinsically inconceivable that we can ever perform any experiment or observation to detect the presence of the physical world.

Therefore any physical world is indistinguishable from a fiction.

Therefore any physical world is a fiction.

Thus we arrive at the weird conclusion of the title: that the physical world that we think we inhabit is just a useful fiction. And we have obtained this surprising conclusion just using common sense, without any high-flown philosophical theory.

Hello?

 

[nescafe]

1 + -1 = 0.

You know, just pointing people to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Neutral Monism might be a better way to get people to try to understand your philosophy than tossing off irrelavent mathematical truisms.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I see your proof and raise you the proof of materialism:

1 + 1 = 2.

~~ Paul

Where did the 2 come from?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You know, just pointing people to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Neutral Monism might be a better way to get people to try to understand your philosophy than tossing off irrelavent mathematical truisms.

It should be, but I've done it many times before and seen little sign that anybody has ever read it.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No. What irritates me is that you've got it exactly backwards. Materialism does not assume something is false unless it is proved to exist. Far from it. Materialism is a claim that an external experience-independent physical world exists, even though we could never, ever experience such a thing. Idealists, on the other hand, do what you are claiming materialists do - they claim their experiences are real and the so-called "external world" doesn't even exist

How can so many people make the same error and not realise they are doing it?

Here is a short article which explains the point very clearly:

http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/phinow3.htm



Hello?

Because earlier in the thread we had the following (paraphrased) exchange

Tricky: I assume the mind is brain processes unless you can show me the mind is more than brain processes.

JG: I assume the mind is more than brain processes unless you can show that the mind is nothing more than brain processes.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Materialism is a claim that an external experience-independent physical world exists, even though we could never, ever experience such a thing. Idealists, on the other hand, do what you are claiming materialists do - they claim their experiences are real and the so-called "external world" doesn't even exist.

Nah. Everyone claims an external world exists. The only person who would not be making such a claim is someone who claims that the only things that exist are the things he is consciously experiencing. I think a few crazy people claim this.

Somehow or other, the world continues on even when we are not experiencing it. Perhaps that's because it exists independently of us and any other mind. Perhaps that's because we have a nonconscious mental component that generates it. Perhaps that's because the Metamind makes it so. But for all intents and purposes, it is external to us.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Where did the 2 come from?

Same sorts of places that your 1, -1, and 0 come from.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The is not your addition of, "... NOT the external world-as-it-really-is." equally irrelevant?

So, then we're left with "Empirical science describes the-world-as-it-is-experience[d] by us." Which I am fine with.

That is a good start, especially since it doesn't involve any assertion of materialism. It is a statement which is compatible with many other positions, including mine.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That is a good start, especially since it doesn't involve any assertion of materialism. It is a statement which is compatible with many other positions, including mine.

Mine, too. Oh wait, I don't have a metaphysical position. Why do I agree? Because it is only an epistemological position!

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Mine, too. Oh wait, I don't have a metaphysical position. Why do I agree? Because it is only an epistemological position!

~~ Paul

Yes, but it is also a component part of a metaphysical position which follows. That is an argument about realism rather than materialism, but the critical plank in that argument is something you have now accepted. However, there is little point in me presenting it, because once you realise where it leads all that will happen is that you will come back to this point and claim you meant/said something else. This time I'm not going to waste 26 pages going round in an enormous circle.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Same sorts of places that your 1, -1, and 0 come from.

~~ Paul

You didn't have any 0 in your offering. Are you going to add it? If so, where?

 

[chriswl]

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?

The material world is perception independent. Different observers perceive the same material world. And our own varied perceptions are perceptions of the same material world.

Do you mean that the nature of the material world is different to the nature of our perceptions (sensations versus objects)? Only a philosopher could think that was any kind of a problem. Perceptions are not the same kinds of things as the objects of perception. But who ever suggested they were or should be? Perception is the process by which we find out about the things that exist.

 

[hammegk]

Indeed; yet what attributes that reality allows us to perceive makes you choose to believe it is "material"?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You didn't have any 0 in your offering. Are you going to add it? If so, where?

1 + 1 + 0 = 2

~~ Paul