Materialists......

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

In brief, the attempt is to gain and express knowledge of God by describing what God is not (apophasis), rather than by describing what God is.

I didn't read the article, but I predict is says that God is not any of the things we see around us.

...

Oh look, my prediction was correct.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I thought we were talking about the nature of consciousness here, not the nature of the Divine (if there is such a thing). Shoring up your position using theological arguments which are designed to be impossible to disprove is not exactly compelling.

No comment.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, of course it does.

Then here's my next question: what causal power DOES it have ?

We have spent much of this thread with various people trying to nail down definitions of the source of free will or "the subject". Both of these "things" are aspects of the Divine in Hinduism. It is not surprising that in attempting to nail down those definitions we have merely ended up with a long list of what the these "things" are not. It is not possible to capture the essence of the Divine using conscious rationalisations. Neti, neti, neti......

Divine ? We're talking about the mind here.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

"How scrumptous to be faithful! But utterly irrelevant to whether or not the opinion in question is true. Whatever the finer feelings associated with faith, no matter how elevated those who indulge in it, from the point of view of truth and evidence, faith is exactly the same as prejudice. Declaring an opinion to be a matter of faith provides it with no new evidential support, gives no new reason to think it true. It merely acknowledges that you have none." ---Jamie Whyte

I recommend Crimes Against Logic, by Jamie Whyte.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

The question remains; which materialist posting here is willing to have 100% belief in the statement "The probabilities of god existing and the probability of free will existing are both zero." Notice that 'virtually zero' does not equal 'zero'.

Geoff has concluded neutral monism offers a way around this problem; I've concluded objective idealism is another.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Then here's my next question: what causal power DOES it have ?

It has causal power over some aspects of reality. I'm not sure what sort of an answer you expect for this question, given the debate that has already taken place.

Divine ? We're talking about the mind here.

That's right, Belz. And this is mysticism.

 

[Apathia]

Welcome. And I appreciate your contributions. These are old battles you are witnessing...they recur and get heated and then go away for a while. If someone hurts your feelings or seems brusk or unresponsive--chances are that person has a similar affect on others. Jump in. And don't worry about being a peacemaker--I think the participants are enjoying themselves no matter how irate they appear. And I rather like that I can "fight" online and be aggressive in a way that might get objects thrown at me in real life. In fact, I think it makes me tolerate the people in my actual reality a tad better.
Remember, you have as much right to voice your opinion as everybody else!
It's true! (that last line is in reference to a woo member who comes here to promote John Edwards and the like--she spouts a banality and them follows it with a smiley face and "it's true!")

Thanks again. I'm not an agressive personality so tend to shy away from sparing games. Also I'm pragmatic and am not motivated to cling to and push an ideology. So I won't be much joining the fray, but I will make my own comments from time to time.

I'll try not to give them the Walmart seal of approval. LOL

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The question remains; which materialist posting here is willing to have 100% belief in the statement "The probabilities of god existing and the probability of free will existing are both zero." Notice that 'virtually zero' does not equal 'zero'.

I'll let you know once I hear a coherent definition of either of those concepts.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

A protypical wanna-be-materialist-but-remains-mired-dualism chimes in.

How many existents -- or even words -- can be precisely "defined"? None, maybe?

 

[I less than three logic]

Even if coherent definitions for the concepts were given, and given those definitions excluded them from being able to exist in the materialistic world view, there is still a problem because the question posed is poorly formed and fails to account for skepticism of our world view.

I'm willing to admit I may be incorrect, and that your objective idealism, Geoff's neutral monism, or some other may be correct after all. So even if I concluded that God does not exist and that free will is an illusion, I can't declare the possibility of their existence zero because my willingness to admit I may be wrong prohibits me from proclaiming the premise from which I based that conclusion infallible.

Despite your claim, being unwilling to declare the possibility of their existence zero does not make one a dualist. I merely allow the possibility that you may be correct, and since your view doesn't require the possibility to be zero, I can't declare 100% certainty that they don't exist.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

While I was on my short holiday, I read the paper that Geoff suggested, "The Problem of Perception," here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-problem/

The prefix neuro appears in it exactly once, in a sentence that states that neuroscience is irrelevant to a particular question.

Is it a metaphysical question by any chance?

That article is about the philosophy of perception, not neuroscience.

Philosophers are trying to come up with a model of perception that can be stated in two or three sentences.

I don't think that is true.

They shall fail, because they are paying no attention to reality.

I think the reverse is true. I think they are paying very close attention to somewhere the materialists are turning a blind eye.

Some of the proposed models are related to some of what really goes on in the brain, but no single model is going to describe the process of perception in toto. The project will generate all the models that are related to some part of perception, along with models that are irrelevant. The project will not converge on a single, simple model.

~~ Paul

That is unknown at this time.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How many existents -- or even words -- can be precisely "defined"? None, maybe?

Probably exactly none, which is one reason why I claim that this whole metaphysics thing is hopeless.

Is it a metaphysical question by any chance?

That article is about the philosophy of perception, not neuroscience.

And as such, it is doomed to go nowhere. Whether they like it or not, they are trying to come up with a model for perception.

I don't think that is true.

It really look like they are trying to come up with a model for perception. Descriptions are devised based on the apparent workings of perception. Ideas are rejected on the basis that counterexamples can be found in nature. That sounds like model building to me.

I think the reverse is true. I think they are paying very close attention to somewhere the materialists are turning a blind eye.

Paying attention to what? How can they devise or reject ideas based on anything other than observation of the real world?

Here's an example: There are maps in the brain that correspond to the visual field, parts of the body, etc. Other parts of the brain derive information from these maps. Is that indirect realism? Sure sounds like it.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And as such, it is doomed to go nowhere.

That is your opinion.

It really look like they are trying to come up with a model for perception. Descriptions are devised based on the apparent workings of perception. Ideas are rejected on the basis that counterexamples can be found in nature. That sounds like model building to me.

Yes, but it is metaphysical model-building, not scienticis model-building.

Paying attention to what?

The real problem, instead of all the bogus problems the materialists like to throw about like chaff.

How can they devise or reject ideas based on anything other than observation of the real world?

They can analyse the concepts we are using when we try to describe what "observing the real world" actually means.

Here's an example: There are maps in the brain that correspond to the visual field, parts of the body, etc. Other parts of the brain derive information from these maps. Is that indirect realism? Sure sounds like it.

Possibly. Depends on the context.

 

[Belz...]

The question remains; which materialist posting here is willing to have 100% belief in the statement "The probabilities of god existing and the probability of free will existing are both zero." Notice that 'virtually zero' does not equal 'zero'.

Oooh... Oohh!! I will, I will!

 

[Belz...]

It has causal power over some aspects of reality. I'm not sure what sort of an answer you expect for this question, given the debate that has already taken place.

Kinda like a trial without a verdict, really.

"causal power over some aspects of reality" seems like a conceit that we don't have a clue what it is or even what it could be.

That's right, Belz. And this is mysticism.

Are you beign sarcastic ? If not, what are you saying ?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Kinda like a trial without a verdict, really.

"causal power over some aspects of reality" seems like a conceit that we don't have a clue what it is or even what it could be.

It could also mean that it is very difficult and potentially impossible to accurately describe. You are not going to get the sort of clear cut answer you are looking for.

Are you beign sarcastic ? If not, what are you saying ?

No, I'm not being sarcastic. I am assuming you have some sort of knowledge of mysticism and the central claims it has made throughout its long and complicated history, and it seems you don't. Hinduism says it the most clearly:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-8964

Hindus believe in an uncreated, eternal, infinite, transcendent, and all-embracing principle, which, “comprising in itself being and non-being,” is the sole reality, the ultimate cause and foundation, source, and goal of all existence. This ultimate reality is called brahman. As the All, brahman causes the universe and all beings to emanate from itself, transforms itself into the universe, or assumes its appearance. Brahman is in all things and is the Self (atman) of all living beings. Brahman is the creator, preserver, or transformer and reabsorber of everything. Although it is Being in itself, without attributes and qualities and hence impersonal, it may also be conceived of as a personal high God, usually as Vishnu (Visnu) or Siva. This fundamental belief in and the essentially religious search for ultimate reality—i.e., the One that is the All—have continued almost unaltered for more than 30 centuries and have been the central focus of India's spiritual life.

 

[chriswl]

And some times it's just no use trying to explain to people that being physical doesn't negate having a subjective mental life and that having a mind doesn't mean some seperate thing in interface with my body. Mind and body aren't seperate substances. it's just a way of speaking of two different perspectives in a single dynamic.

Very nice. A view almost guaranteed to offend no one. But is that because it says nothing at all?

A "perspective" requires a subject that has the perspective and a something that it has a perspective on so you haven't really transcended the subject-object thing here at all. And anyway, I don't think you are giving the material world its due here. You are basically at one with with Geoff in your hubristic assumption that there is an equivalence in ontological significance between the material world and the fleeting cosmic accident that is human consciousness.

 

[hammegk]

..... being unwilling to declare the possibility of their existence zero does not make one a dualist. ...

It does if the remainder of your worldview clings to materialism=True.

Oooh... Oohh!! I will, I will!

Then do so. Here is as good a place as any.

.... I don't think you are giving the material world its due here.

It is 'due' nothing. Should you wish to base your worldview on the assumption materialism=True, I've mentioned the statement you should be willing to make; either do so, or choose a worldview you are willing to feel comfortable defending -- or demonstrate what I say in this case is illogical and/or incorrect.

You are basically at one with with Geoff in your hubristic assumption that there is an equivalence in ontological significance between the material world and the fleeting cosmic accident that is human consciousness.

Neither dualism, materialism, neutral monism, subjective idealism, nor objective idealism address what human consciousness is, or is not. All agree that the neural system as we perceive it is necessary for it.

 

[Apathia]

Very nice. A view almost guaranteed to offend no one. But is that because it says nothing at all?

Having read most of this thread, I elect to have my words saying nothing of import as opposed to having them wrenched into things I did not say or didn't intend to say. I confess that they are subjective and emotive. They are just the words of some naive ignoramus saying that he vaulues being a person and relating to other persons, regardless of how that is explained or posited by whoever's ontology.It's out of place in this thread where people are fishing for idieological errors. Actually there is nothing there to offend, unless stuff gets read into it. So, I'd rather leave it at the bland greeting of life's not half bad.

I think I need to stay out of this thread.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Very nice. A view almost guaranteed to offend no one. But is that because it says nothing at all?

A "perspective" requires a subject that has the perspective.....

Only the first-person perspective requires this. The third-person perspective does not.