Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

The material world is perception independent.

Us here in this thread have agreed that the world described by empirical science is the one we percieve. You seem to be contradicting this.

Different observers perceive the same material world. And our own varied perceptions are perceptions of the same material world.

But "the material world" is the world of empirical science, isn't it? The one we percieve?

Perceptions are not the same kinds of things as the objects of perception.

What's the difference?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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

If forced* to choose, I would go with materialism because of Occam. I will happily change that choice when someone describes an ideal or neutral monism that does not require a complete kludge to explain the apparent consistency of the external world (or that does not ignore the problem entirely).

~~ Paul

* Note that I said forced.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

1 + 1 + 0 = 2

~~ Paul

OK, so you've got 2 on each side of a = sign. Where did the 2 come from?

Remember, my answer was: 1 + -1 = 0. I can tell you where the 1 and the -1 came from. And I don't need to tell you where 0 came from, because it's 0.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If forced* to choose, I would go with materialism because of Occam. I will happily change that choice when someone describes an ideal or neutral monism that does not require a complete kludge to explain the apparent consistency of the external world (or that does not ignore the problem entirely).

~~ Paul

* Note that I said forced.

Eh? After all the conversations we have had on this, you think I have offered you a neutral monism which doesn't explain the fact that the external world behaves lawfully????

 

[hammegk]

Paul:The fact that we perceive an objective reality says nothing about its' actual attributes.

Your choice of "matter" is one step farther from the reality you "know" than mine is. As is Geoff's, but his lies in an "other direction", so to speak.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

OK, so you've got 2 on each side of a = sign. Where did the 2 come from?

Remember, my answer was: 1 + -1 = 0. I can tell you where the 1 and the -1 came from. And I don't need to tell you where 0 came from, because it's 0.

All righty then. Where did the 1 and -1 come from? Why don't you have to justify the 0?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Eh? After all the conversations we have had on this, you think I have offered you a neutral monism which doesn't explain the fact that the external world behaves lawfully????

Oh, you have. But it requires this meaningless kludge:

1 + -1 = 0

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The fact that we perceive an objective reality says nothing about its' actual attributes.

Agreed.

Your choice of "matter" is one step farther from the reality you "know" than mine is.

No, it's not. Materialism puts it outside the observer, just existing. Idealism puts it in the nonconscious mind of the observer. It's a step away in either case. You have no more control over it than I do.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Yeah, by gosh, that is what "objective" signifies; too bad it still says nothing about attributes.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Oh, you have. But it requires this meaningless kludge:

1 + -1 = 0

~~ Paul

Erm, no. Firstly, the lawfulness of the world is the claim connected with naturalism and quantum mechanics - nothing to do with the above equation. Secondly, the equation isn't meaningless in the context of metaphysics because the most fundamental metaphysical question of them all is "How can something come from nothing?" and "0 = 1 + -1", somewhat obviously, is an answer to that question. It's also [a simplified version of] the only answer that anybody has ever provided. Theists/idealists don't answer it, because they simply say that God has always existed and the contingent things didn't come from nothing, they came from God. Atheists/materialists don't answer it either. They simply claim the Universe just popped into existence of its own accord with no explanation whatsoever. These two groups of people then argue with each other about which one of them provided the most legitimate means of avoiding answering the question. But when somebody comes along and actually provides an answer, it is dismissed as "a meaningless kludge", regardless of the fact that in terms of an answer to that question, it's the only show in town.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's a meaningless bit of pseudomathematical rhetoric, Geoff.

~~ Paul

 

[chriswl]

Us here in this thread have agreed that the world described by empirical science is the one we percieve. You seem to be contradicting this.

You're not, surely, trying to claim that "perception independent" means "inaccessible to perception"? The world described by empirical science is something that all perceivers can agree on. In that sense it is "perception independent". It is the world we all perceive.

What's the difference [between perceptions and the objects of perception]?

What a strange question, how do we even begin to compare them? Perceptions reveal the objects of perception, that's the relation between them. You seem to be trying to imagine what it would be like to perceive a perception and compare this to the experience of perceiving an object. But you don't perceive perceptions, you just have them. Perceiving is something you do.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It's a meaningless bit of pseudomathematical rhetoric, Geoff.

~~ Paul

Mu.

 

[hammegk]

What moves? Flag, wind, or Mind?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Note that you're claiming that "1 + -1 = 0" provides a meaningful answer, while "it just popped into existence" or "it has always been" do not.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Note that you're claiming that "1 + -1 = 0" provides a meaningful answer, while "it just popped into existence" or "it has always been" do not.

~~ Paul

That is correct, Paul. I am providing a meaningful answer about the relationship between nothingness and non-nothingness. Sorry if you still don't understand it. I don't know why you are having so much difficulty with it, since it isn't actually all that hard to understand.

 

[Belz...]

It is the materialists who believe in a world they can never experience, not me.

That's ridiculous. Materialists believe that experience is based on the objective world. How you can say that we can never experience that world is beyond me.

You believe in a world entirely independent of your perceptions.

Strawman #1. (EDIT: I misinterpreted that sentence. Move along.)

But you have got a major confusion going on, because you think the perception-independent world is the same as the world you percieve.

Isn't that a direct contradiction with your prior statement ?

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.

That's why we have science, which gives us the ability to verify what that world is like by non-personal confirmation.

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?

Clear, but wrong. It doesn't DENY anything. It merely claims that your perspective is BASED on functions and processes of that external reality.

 

[Belz...]

In other words we have this "world as it really is", about which we know absolutely nothing

Well, that's news to me.

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.

Materialism ASSUMES a basic premise in order to function. You should know that all philosophies have to work this way. Otherwise they have nothing to work from, and they could never lead to anything. I'm sure YOUR philosophy is based on SOME assumption, though that assumption is far from certain.

 

[Belz...]

Secondly, the equation isn't meaningless in the context of metaphysics because the most fundamental metaphysical question of them all is "How can something come from nothing?"

That's not the most fundamental question if nothing actually ever comes from nothing.

and "0 = 1 + -1", somewhat obviously, is an answer to that question.

Let's see how you explain that one:

It's also [a simplified version of] the only answer that anybody has ever provided. Theists/idealists don't answer it, because they simply say that God has always existed and the contingent things didn't come from nothing, they came from God. Atheists/materialists don't answer it either. They simply claim the Universe just popped into existence of its own accord with no explanation whatsoever. These two groups of people then argue with each other about which one of them provided the most legitimate means of avoiding answering the question. But when somebody comes along and actually provides an answer, it is dismissed as "a meaningless kludge", regardless of the fact that in terms of an answer to that question, it's the only show in town.

I can't help but notice you actually HAVEN'T provided an explanation as to HOW that little equation of yours answers anything, as -1 doesn't seem to represent anything real.

 

[DreadNiK]

That is correct, Paul. I am providing a meaningful answer about the relationship between nothingness and non-nothingness. Sorry if you still don't understand it. I don't know why you are having so much difficulty with it, since it isn't actually all that hard to understand.

It isn't that hard to understand...

No harder than 0 = 2 + -2

However, it still doesn't demonstrate anything. Other than a very very basic grasp of maths...