Materialists......

Geoff said:
RAW does not tell people what to believe. His purpose is to get people to understand just how much their own beliefs influence their own ways of thinking about and interpreting reality.
Click to expand...
Well, that's a good thing, although I don't really understand how the quarter experiment does that.

Geoff, please don't ignore the conversation about physical things. Let's take RAW to heart and try to talk about it without our usual biases:

Why does the fact that only one person can observe X make X special, that is, nonphysical?

~~ Paul
 
Geoff said:
Because it makes it inherently subjective and non-objectifiable.
Click to expand...
Okay then, some questions.

What about something that can only be observed, in principle, by two or three people? Is that pnysical or nonphysical?

What about something that can be directly observed by only one person, but which can be observed to a certain degree by others? To what degree does it have to be observable by others before you would declare it physical?

What is the problem with calling something physical even if it is subjective?

As a neutral monist, you claim that everything is one neutral type of existent. So a chair and my consciousness are the same type of existent. What is it that makes you want to put them in separate categories?

In fact, there is nothing that is observed identically by multiple people, since all observations are, to some extent, subjective. Doesn't this mean, then, that nothing is physical according to your criterion? If so, then why not just call everything physical?

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Well, that's a good thing, although I don't really understand how the quarter experiment does that.

Geoff, please don't ignore the conversation about physical things. Let's take RAW to heart and try to talk about it without our usual biases:

Why does the fact that only one person can observe X make X special, that is, nonphysical?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

By your definition of "physical" there is nothing that might not turn out to be physical. That is because your current definition of physical is open-ended. "Material" limits us to the entities described by pre-QM physics. It starts to break down when we hit QM and your definition would allow things to be included as "physical" that are even more esoteric than the entities of quantum mechanics. As such, this definition of "physical" is useless. I no longer know what it means. It has no limit. Therefore there is nothing at all that could make something definately non-physical because whatever it is, it could be described by some future "physics" that we have no current inkling about. According to your definition, there is nothing to absolutely prevent a physics of qualia or parapsychology.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Okay then, some questions.

What about something that can only be observed, in principle, by two or three people? Is that pnysical or nonphysical?
Click to expand...

Well, it's certainly partially objectifiable. You can at least get two or three opinions to contrast. I cannot answer the question about whether is is physical or nonphysical because I no longer know what limits you place on "physical".

What about something that can be directly observed by only one person, but which can be observed to a certain degree by others?
Click to expand...

Like what?

As a neutral monist, you claim that everything is one neutral type of existent. So a chair and my consciousness are the same type of existent.
Click to expand...

No, that's not true. Neutral monists claim that everything is one type of existent on the level of things-in-themselves. Chairs and minds are, instead, things as humans percieve them, and these things at least seem to be dualistic.

What is it that makes you want to put them in separate categories?
Click to expand...

Because one of them appears to have extension in space and time and the other does not.


In fact, there is nothing that is observed identically by multiple people, since all observations are, to some extent, subjective. Doesn't this mean, then, that nothing is physical according to your criterion?
Click to expand...

What is my criterion of "physical"?

If so, then why not just call everything physical?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

Well, that's what you seem to be doing. For me, this just renders the word "physical" meaningless.
 
Geoff said:
By your definition of "physical" there is nothing that might not turn out to be physical. That is because your current definition of physical is open-ended. "Material" limits us to the entities described by pre-QM physics. It starts to break down when we hit QM and your definition would allow things to be included as "physical" that are even more esoteric than the entities of quantum mechanics. As such, this definition of "physical" is useless. I no longer know what it means. It has no limit. Therefore there is nothing at all that could make something definately non-physical because whatever it is, it could be described by some future "physics" that we have no current inkling about. According to your definition, there is nothing to absolutely prevent a physics of qualia or parapsychology.
Click to expand...
Since when does the definition of material exclude QM stuff?

My definition of physical is not open-ended. If you can find things that behave illogically or truly inconsistently, or things whose governing laws cannot be determined by observation, then I'd be willing to entertain the idea that they are not physical. Otherwise, why should you be surprised, as a monist, that everything appears to be the same sort of thing?

Well, it's certainly partially objectifiable. You can at least get two or three opinions to contrast. I cannot answer the question about whether is is physical or nonphysical because I no longer know what limits you place on "physical".
Click to expand...
See above.

Like what?
Click to expand...
Like inner experience. Certainly you agree that my inner experience can be observed to some degree by others. To what degree does it need to be observable by others before you'd say it was physical?

No, that's not true. Neutral monists claim that everything is one type of existent on the level of things-in-themselves. Chairs and minds are, instead, things as humans percieve them, and these things at least seem to be dualistic.
Click to expand...
But as a monist, don't you say that they are not dualistic, even if they seem that way?

Because one of them appears to have extension in space and time and the other does not.
Click to expand...
Consciousness does not have an extension in space and time?

Well, that's what you seem to be doing. For me, this just renders the word "physical" meaningless.
Click to expand...
Why does it make the word more meaningless than any other word we would use for the single existent?

If there is only one fundamental existent, then everything should appear to be that existent. Call it physical, ideal, what difference does it make? If you can't get everything to fit its description, then you are not a monist.

~~ Paul
 
Good idea. Let's let 'red' mean every possible photon wavelength. :)

Just helping you & Stimpy with your daffynitions, mmmkay?
 
hammegk said:
Will articulett ever notice the only person here preaching The Truth is her? :)
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming to preach the truth--only showing that people pretending to have "higher truths" are probably fooling themselves. I'm not saying I know all--only that no one else has access to information that I can't also access. I would like to believe in souls and hidden purposes--but I prefer not to fool myself...and when there's no evidence and lots of word play--I've learned that is a sign of someone trying to fool me or themselves...
 
JustGeoff said:
Not you, that is for sure. ;)

You are utterly convinced you know it all. You don't.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced I know it all--I am convinced that you don't know it all either, but that you are convinced you do. I know a lot about how people fool themselves and a lot about consciousness, because it interests me, and I want to know the facts. I think that most people could agree that consciousness is entirely in the brain or it can exist independent of the brain. The facts support the former. I think we can agree that either synchronicity exists or its an illusion created by a mind that evolved to see patterns and meaning. The evidence supports the latter. That is all I'm claiming--no mystical subjective truths--no claims of knowing something you can't know or that I could sell books about...I'm not the one claiming to have insight into "higher truths"--that would be you. And so your insult would be better aimed at yourself since your "view" is the one that can not be changed no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented. That is called "faith"--it may be great for philosophy, but it sucks for understanding the facts. Do you have any evidence to support your claims? Because that is all it would take to change a skeptic's mind. I would say it's the faith-based thinking that is impervious to logic--because who needs evidence when you just "feel" it's true.
 
JustGeoff said:
Not very likely.
Click to expand...

Let's see...I've been told that by you and Hammy...that makes two posters...I've seen both of you told that by many people...and you haven't budged your thinking one iota...so I think my odds of reaching your conclusion are better than you reaching that conclusion although you've been told just that by a great number of people whom you promptly place on ignore so you can spin your favorite pedantic illusion. I think it's pretty obvious that you are only fooling yourself. I mean, it's not obvious to you--but apparently it is obvious to most of those responding to you. And you've made it quite clear that nothing will get you to change your mind. So why should anyone engage in these debates with you. You presume you have something to teach but nothing to learn?
 
Hammegk said:
Good idea. Let's let 'red' mean every possible photon wavelength.

Just helping you & Stimpy with your daffynitions, mmmkay?
Click to expand...
Dude, we're talking about the one fundamental existent, not merely some subset of it. Doesn't everything have to fit its definition? If not, what does it mean for a metaphysic to be a monism?

~~ Paul
 
Why, Paul, I agree. Your problem is that the word "physical" is already taken, just as "mind" is already taken; and they don't mean the same things to anyone except apparently you and Stimpy.
 
articulett said:
Yes...but did you read the responses...some were even eloquent and fairly well reasoned but still utterly wrong.

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/espnewcomments.html

Don't you find that alarming? Disconcerting? Conviction seems not to have a bearing on correctness.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair to those people, my current skeptical response to just about everything was prompted by me realising, all too often, that I had been fooled in the past. Snopes.com is partly responsible, as is CSICOP and James Randi, for making me realise that.

Since then, I don't take anything for granted. When I checked that ESP site, and clicked on the "eye", I saw the card I had picked dissapeared. My thought was: "okay, what if I don't pick a card ?". I did (or didn't so) so, and noticed one of the cards I remembered was there wasn't. "Okay, what about the other ca... well, son of a..." was my next thought about that.

My point is most people don't realise how often they're fooled, intentionally or not.
 
Belz... said:
I should really speak to a mod about changing the word "posts:" in your profile to "insults:"
Click to expand...
I see. Please tell me who else posting in this thread seems to be preaching The Truth? IIRC, the lady in question has mentioned the word a number of times.

BTW, when I post an "insult", you won't have any problem judging that it was an insult. However, the current Changing-As-The-New-Day-Dawns-Rules have made me more circumspect than had been the case previously. Mmmmkay? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom