Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

I just mean the physical world, the mathematised world as conceived by Descartes, exists. It is real.

Are you openly defending substance dualism.....

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Is "real realism" taken?

~~ Paul

No, but it would be the opposite of gazerism (which is "unreal realism").

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I still can't see any other alternative to order than disorder.

It's like Franko speaking from the grave.....

Would you say that something could appear ordered from one perspective at the same time as appearing disordered from another?

 

[articulett]

Doesn't that trouble you ? That there's no clear definition or description of the thing you believe in ?



I know what mysticism is. I just found it difficult to believe you'd bring it up in a logical debate.

It isn't a debate; it's preaching. And only one side is using logic--the other is using "spin" to promote a nebulous notion he wants to be true. I bet he goes around telling people he stumped the skeptics with his example.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I would contend that the question mark is important.
The question mark is the reason we have science in the first place.......

EEEEEK!

You have two very different question marks mixed up. There is a very specific ontological question mark hanging over quantum mechanics. It has been there right from the very start and it is still there today. But this is in no way the same "question mark" that drives science in general. There was nothing inevitable about science leading to quantum mechanics. Far from it.

and we will always have science until there is no more question mark. This state will probably never arrive, at least not for the human race.

I also hope that science will continue to discover new things. But I don't see what this has to do with the ontological unknowns surrounding QM.

The question mark is bigger than ever, with physics proposing that time and space might only be meaningful concepts in certain contexts and time-space as a superfluid, or "closed time-like curves" any prior definition of physical begins to look pretty quaint.

....and therefore somewhat irrelevant. The thread is called "materialists...." not "physicalists....."

I would always contend that Materialism is not an incoherent or illogical metaphysic, on the contrary it is a trivial one. It is a tautology. All you can say with materialism is "Whatever is ... is".

No, I do not agree. We have a fairly clear idea what we mean by "material" or "substance". The notion of "material" does not even change when we arrive at 20th century physics. If anything, it begins to break down when applied to relativity and breaks down completely with Schroedingers wave mechanics.

If there is a God then Materialism would say "there is a God". (Because if there were a God then science could not say "there is not a God" )

What if God is not material?

What if God transcends the distinction between existence and non-existence, as suggested by the Tao Te Ching and the Upanishads from antiquity and by modern theologians such as Paul Tillich and philosophers such as Hegel and Heidegger?

If there was libertarian free will then Materialism would say "there is libertarian free will".

What if libertarian free will is not material?

That is because Materialism is dependent on science and science describes rather than proposes.

Materialism is not dependent on science.

I believe your claim breaks down with the arrival of Bell's theorem and the implication that the Universe is non-local and that non-local connections exist.

http://www.hinduism.co.za/newpage1.htm

In recent years physicists have had to address the interplay of consciousness and the physical world. In Quantum Physics much has been made over Bell's Theorem. The implications of this theorem and the experimental findings that flow from it are staggering. They force us to consider that the entire notion of a purely objective world is in conflict not only with the theory of quantum mechanics, but with the facts drawn from actual experiments. These findings point insistently to a profound interaction between conscious mental activity and the physical world itself.

...

This discovery [Bell's Theorem], first proposed in 1964 by the physicist John S. Bell was first confirmed by experiment in 1972 by Professor John Clauser at Berkley. It is an almost unbelievable result - unbelievable because the logical mind has great difficulty in comprehending how it can be true. Its impact on the physics community has been enormous. Professor Henry Stapp, a physicist at Berkley and an authority on the implications of Bell's Theorem, has called it THE MOST IMPORTANT DISCOVERY IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE.

A description of the proof of Bell's theory, as given by Stapp reads:

"If the statistical predictions of quantum theory are true, an objective universe is incompatible with the law of local causes."

Although formidable at first glance, Bell's Theorem seems simpler once key terms are understood.

First, an "objective universe" is simply one that exists apart from our consciousness.

Secondly, the "law of local causes" refers to the fact that events in the universe happen at a speed that does not exceed the speed of light. Things happen, in other words, always at the speed of light or less.This limitation is imposed by Einstein's special theory of relativity, and is a mainstay of modern physical theory. To be accurate, in actual experimental situations, it is not Bell's Theorem that is tested, but the predictions of Quantum Mechanics.

In 1935, Albert Einstein, together with Nathan Rosen and Boris Podolsky proposed through flawless mathematical reasoning that if the quantum theory were correct, then 'A change in the spin of one particle in a two particle system would affect its twin simultaneously, even if the two had been widely separated in the meantime'. And 'simultaneous' is a dirty word in the theory of special relativity, which forbids the transmission of any signal faster than the speed of light. Obviously, a signal telling the particle 'what to do' would have to travel faster than the speed of light if instantaneous changes were to occur between the two particles.

The dilemma into which Einstein, Rosen and Podolsky dragged the quantum theory was a profound one, coming to be known as THE ERP EFFECT.

In 1964 Bell's Theorem emerged as a proof that Einstein's impossible proposition did in fact hold true: instantaneous changes in widely separated systems did occur.

The ironic thing is that "physicalism", if taken to include QM and Bell's theorem, is heading towards the position that I defend. The only way that people avoid agreeing with this is by making all sorts of uninformed comments about how QM has got nothing to do with metaphysics or consciousness. From the point of view of science, all that is needed to fatally undermine materialism is the proven existence of non-local connections that cannot be consistent with naive materialism.

 

[Belz...]

No, but it would be the opposite of gazerism (which is "unreal realism").

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

<Starts running around like an idiot>

Clearly, there are TOO many isms...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Doesn't that trouble you ?

Not in the slightest, no.

That there's no clear definition or description of the thing you believe in ?

That is why it is called mysticism. It is ineffable, indescribable, unspeakable. However, there are clear themes running through mysticism from start to finish:

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/m/mysticism.html

Despite the various approaches to mysticism it seems to possess some common characteristics. Such were the findings of the philosopher W. T. Stace, who discovered seven common themes of mysticism when studying Roman Catholic, Protestant, ancient classical, Hindu, and American agnostic mystical experiences. They were (1) a unifying vision and perception of the One by the senses and through many objects; (2) the apprehension of the One as an inner life; (3) and objective and true sense of reality; (4) feelings of satisfaction, joy, and bliss; (5) a religious element that is a feeling of the holy and sacred; (6) a paradoxical feeling; (7) and inexpressible feelings.

Though different for everyone, I hope you can see how my own arguments/beliefs fit in here. Particularly (6) and (7) although I relate to them all.

I know what mysticism is. I just found it difficult to believe you'd bring it up in a logical debate.

There is only so far that logical debate can take you. Sooner or later you arrive at Kant or Wittgenstein and realise that it can take you no further. In my own case it gets to the point where I stop arguing and start posting things like "Zero = Infinity". Logic cannot be used to express what I am trying to express. Posting song lyrics, verses from the Tao Te Ching or Zen Koans may be more useful at that point.

 

[DreadNiK]

The ironic thing is that "physicalism", if taken to include QM and Bell's theorem, is heading towards the position that I defend. The only way that people avoid agreeing with this is by making all sorts of uninformed comments about how QM has got nothing to do with metaphysics or consciousness. From the point of view of science, all that is needed to fatally undermine materialism is the proven existence of non-local connections that cannot be consistent with naive materialism.

At one point, I wondered if QM as we currently know it has any implications for metaphysics. So I tried to find out. As far as I could tell, there was no good evidence to support QM having metaphysical implications, only that it *might possibly* have some. If you know otherwise, please provide that evidence, as I will find it most interesting.

EDIT: Of course, my knowledge of QM is ridiculously limited, as it relies upon the layman term summaries I could find. I suspect yours is the same, yet you are the one trying to claim it supports your position, not me.

 

[Wudang]

I'm not sure that hinduism websites are the best references for Stapp's interpretation of Bell's theorem. Their quote neglects to mention that non-locality in that context is required only if one assumes hidden variables. Eg. Stapp frm 2000
"This locality condition expresses the idea that what an experimenter freely chooses to measure in one spacetime region can have no effect of any kind in a second region situated spacelike relative to the first. The experimental results conform closely to the predictions of quantum theory in such cases, but the most reasonable conclusion to draw is not that locality fails, but rather that the hidden-variable assumption is false"
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0010047

I think you'll find arxiv.org more reliable for physics.

 

[DreadNiK]

I'm not sure that hinduism websites are the best references for Stapp's interpretation of Bell's theorem. Their quote neglects to mention that non-locality in that context is required only if one assumes hidden variables. Eg. Stapp frm 2000
"This locality condition expresses the idea that what an experimenter freely chooses to measure in one spacetime region can have no effect of any kind in a second region situated spacelike relative to the first. The experimental results conform closely to the predictions of quantum theory in such cases, but the most reasonable conclusion to draw is not that locality fails, but rather that the hidden-variable assumption is false"
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0010047

I think you'll find arxiv.org more reliable for physics.

But that doesn't support his position...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

At one point, I wondered if QM as we currently know it has any implications for metaphysics. So I tried to find out. As far as I could tell, there was no good evidence to support QM having metaphysical implications, only that it *might possibly* have some.

The very fact that there are at least five major classes of metaphysical interpretation of QM suggests it has implications. The arguments are about how far you can push the interpretations.

If you know otherwise, please provide that evidence, as I will find it most interesting.

There is no undisputed evidence, but that does not mean there is no good evidence. Accepting the implications of the evidence is so disastrous for a materialist that he will often refuse to accept it. So it is hardly surprising that the evidence is disputed. Personally I believe the evidence to absolutely crystal clear, and many other people agree with me. The people who disagree appear to do so on the grounds of "What you are claiming seems so extra-ordinary that I'm not quite ready to believe it yet." This was actually the stated position of the person who lectured me on philosophy of science.

EDIT: Of course, my knowledge of QM is ridiculously limited, as it relies upon the layman term summaries I could find. I suspect yours is the same, yet you are the one trying to claim it supports your position, not me.

You are aware of bell's theorem, quantum entanglement and non-locality, yes?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm not sure that hinduism websites are the best references for Stapp's interpretation of Bell's theorem. Their quote neglects to mention that non-locality in that context is required only if one assumes hidden variables. Eg. Stapp frm 2000
"This locality condition expresses the idea that what an experimenter freely chooses to measure in one spacetime region can have no effect of any kind in a second region situated spacelike relative to the first. The experimental results conform closely to the predictions of quantum theory in such cases, but the most reasonable conclusion to draw is not that locality fails, but rather that the hidden-variable assumption is false"
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0010047

I think you'll find arxiv.org more reliable for physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

Per Bell's theorem, either quantum mechanics or local realism is wrong.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Wudang,

You do realise that Stapp is an idealist who believe in "quantum consciousness", yes?

In his own words.....

http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9902&L=quantum-mind&P=2135

"From: Henry Stapp <[log in to unmask]>

In connection with recent postings about the placements of the von
Neumann cut I add here the most relevant section of my paper Attention,
Intention, and Will in Quantum Physics (Feb 3, 1998)

http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html

Idealism and Materialism

I have stressed just now the idea-like character of the physical state
of the universe, within vN/W quantum theory. This suggests that the
theory may conform to the tenets of idealism. This is partially true.
The quantum state undergoes, when a fact become fixed in a local region,
a sudden jump that extends over vast reaches of space.

Stapp's position saves local realism only at the cost of veering towards outright monistic idealism. Stapp is more of idealist than I am.

Geoff

 

[hammegk]

But if the primary attribute is mind then the primary attribute must possess the property of intention.

That is a good way to state a, if not the, primary attribute.

But if you examine the concept of intention it can only be a complex thing. So you must be asserting that the primary substance is a complex thing - which would appear to be a contradictory position.

ROFL. Weak, indeed. Materialism and/or physicalism have much graver problems to overcome. DCQE stuff is fascinating, don't you think?

Well I assume that by now you know (I've told you often enough) that I am not a materialist and you are just being obnoxious.

And imo you are an interactive dualist and wannabe materialist. If you have actually declared a position, I missed it.

But your comment is meaningless in any case. You are claiming illogic exists rather than demonstrating what it is that is illogical. A materialist who defends the existence of the mind is perfectly logical. Nobody has yet been able to define precisely what the "mind-body" problem is, without first assuming their conclusion.

Unless you are a dualist, there is no mind/body problem. There is a choice of monism, acceptance of all the logical implications of that choice, and its' defense.

What is it precisely about a conscious state that logically forbids it from arising from a non-conscious state?

Nothing, other than people who make that argument being unwilling to examine their stated and tacit assumptions underlying their position.

Again you can assert these things as often as you like. But you have never given any reasoning to show why this should be so.

You claim to have a logical and coherent position, but I have never seen any logic to support the claim.

I agree we have entered the realm where language fails ala Wittgenstein.

You have never given any reasoning why "matter" stuff must be deterministic or why "mind" stuff cannot be deterministic.

At some point for any communication to be possible we must accept some shared meaning that words like "mind" and "matter" bring with them.

Your position appears to be "the alternative to order is freedom and Godhood".

An interesting comment.

I still can't see any other alternative to order than disorder.

Yeah, mathematics does appear to have to limits. Sorry.

I think you're confusing open-mindedness and doubt. Just because you allow for your beliefs to be wrong doesn't mean you believe them to be.

Irrelevant to your choice and defense of a monism.

I believe I just did.

"I will" is not the same as "I, Belz..., have 100% complete faith that neither god nor free will exist." typed by your hand and posted.

It's like Franko speaking from the grave.....

Or mention of the Higgs Field ....

 

[Belz...]

Not in the slightest, no.

Well, that's interesting. If neurology told us that the brain manages signals from one part of the body to the other, but didn't seem to correspond to any of our emotions or states of mind, I'd be very concerned, because that would put my worldview in serious doubt.

People who aren't concerned when their worldview is questioned by facts usually act on blind faith.

That is why it is called mysticism. It is ineffable, indescribable, unspeakable. However, there are clear themes running through mysticism from start to finish:

There are clear themes running through The Lord of the Rings. How does that relate to reality ?

Though different for everyone, I hope you can see how my own arguments/beliefs fit in here. Particularly (6) and (7) although I relate to them all.

I'm not interested in beliefs when in a debate about evidence and reality.

There is only so far that logical debate can take you. Sooner or later you arrive at Kant or Wittgenstein and realise that it can take you no further. In my own case it gets to the point where I stop arguing and start posting things like "Zero = Infinity". Logic cannot be used to express what I am trying to express. Posting song lyrics, verses from the Tao Te Ching or Zen Koans may be more useful at that point.

This is beginning to sound dangerously close to Interesting Ian's claim that subjectivity is more important and more reliable than objectivity.

The current debate can only take us so far because of lack of evidence, not because philosophy and mysticism offer something that science and logic can't.

 

[Belz...]

There is no undisputed evidence, but that does not mean there is no good evidence. Accepting the implications of the evidence is so disastrous for a materialist that he will often refuse to accept it.

...followed by sentences that don't present said evidence.

I find it annoying when someone claims that there IS evidence, but doesn't present it on the opinion that his "opponent" in the debate will not accept it. In fact, I find it highly suspect.

Either present the evidence, or admit that the evidence is, at best, inconclusive; at worst, non-existent.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, that's interesting. If neurology told us that the brain manages signals from one part of the body to the other, but didn't seem to correspond to any of our emotions or states of mind, I'd be very concerned, because that would put my worldview in serious doubt.

What has this got to do with the ineffable nature of mysticism?

People who aren't concerned when their worldview is questioned by facts usually act on blind faith.

Yep, they are called materialists......

There are clear themes running through The Lord of the Rings. How does that relate to reality ?

It doesn't. Your point?

I'm not interested in beliefs when in a debate about evidence and reality.

You hold beliefs as much as anybody-else does. The only difference is that you don't know your beliefs are beliefs.

This is beginning to sound dangerously close to Interesting Ian's claim that subjectivity is more important and more reliable than objectivity.

In some cases, subjective factors are the only game in town. If you attempt to apply objectivity, you just squash them out of existence and are left with nothing. The unfortunate result is that you equate the history of mysticism with the lord of the rings.

The current debate can only take us so far because of lack of evidence, not because philosophy and mysticism offer something that science and logic can't.

This says it all, Belz. If that is the way you feel then there is nothing more for me to add. If you want to lock your mind in a closet, that is your prerogative.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

...followed by sentences that don't present said evidence.

I find it annoying when someone claims that there IS evidence, but doesn't present it on the opinion that his "opponent" in the debate will not accept it. In fact, I find it highly suspect.

Either present the evidence, or admit that the evidence is, at best, inconclusive; at worst, non-existent.

Bell's theorem forces us to accept one of four things:

1) Quantum theory is wrong.
2) Logic is wrong.
3) Local Realism is wrong.
4) Some form of ontological idealism is true.

There are no other options. I don't know anyone who defends (1), I am not going to seriously consider (2) and that leaves (3) and (4), both of which seem to imply that materialism is false.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We seem to agree "real reality" exists. We are just discussing your greatest love, "The Defintion".

But if we're not required to nail down definitions, I can simply declare your idea a crock of crap and you have no means to defend it.

Bifurcate? Along what lines?

As in the invention of disjunctivism, put forth to deal with annoying real-world experiences that are difficult to handle in oversimplified models such as direct and indirect realism.

~~ Paul

 

[Belz...]

What has this got to do with the ineffable nature of mysticism?

It doesn't. You said there could not be a definition for the term that I asked. So you're basically trying to support the existence of something that you cannot even define.

I asked if that bothered you, you said no. I replied that if it happened to me, I'd be worried.

Yep, they are called materialists......

How clever. How mature. I was talking about people in general.

It doesn't. Your point?

You seemed to claim that because mysticism has a running "theme" it makes it more likely. Otherwise, were you just saying that for no reason ?

You hold beliefs as much as anybody-else does. The only difference is that you don't know your beliefs are beliefs.

You know, this tendency of philosophers to resort to insults is getting quite tiresome.

The only assumption that I hold is that the universe that I observe represents reality. Science seems to vindicate that assumption. In the broadest sense it is a belief, but if the word is used in that way it means nothing. Again, we're back to semantics.

In some cases, subjective factors are the only game in town.

Name one example.

This says it all, Belz. If that is the way you feel then there is nothing more for me to add. If you want to lock your mind in a closet, that is your prerogative.

No, YOU'RE the one who keeps hinting that there's SOMETHING out there that's supposed to explain stuff, but you just stubbornly refuse to explain what that is, how it would work or what it could mean. Either back up your assertions or don't make them at all.