• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My argument against materialism

PixyMisa said:
Bananas? No. Subatomic particles, yes. Happens constantly.


The Universe is by definition causally closed. If there is anything beyond it, and we have some way to know that, then that something is not beyond the Universe but part of it.

In other words, the question makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Are bananas illusory, a mirage?

Fine, say the question does not make sense,

Does sense/logic/math/the laws of physics exist as principles of existence?
ie, as principles existing in their own right, which an observer would encounter identical in some other notional finite universe.

Or would this notional universe exhibit a random assemblage of laws of physics entirely different to the laws we know?
 
dlorde said:
:confused: what's foam got to do with it?



Can you explain what you mean by 'an involvement of infinity'? infinite how (what sort of infinite)?

Can you also explain how they suggest that to you? [if you already did, please link]
Click to expand...

Foam;
singularities spewing out universes and sucking them in again, like bubbles(spacetime bubbles).

Singularities sub atomic particles, both foamy bubbles.

I have evidence of the involvement of infinity, black holes and the singularity in the big bang.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
Are bananas illusory, a mirage?
Click to expand...
No.

Fine, say the question does not make sense
Click to expand...
That question made perfect sense.

Does sense/logic/math/the laws of physics exist as principles of existence?
ie, as principles existing in their own right, which an observer would encounter identical in some other notional finite universe.
Click to expand...
The laws of physics are very different from logic and mathematics. Logic and mathematics are always the same; the laws of physics are specific to our Universe, and need not apply at all to another hypothetical Universe.

Or would this notional universe exhibit a random assemblage of laws of physics entirely different to the laws we know?
Click to expand...
Yep. Same logic and maths though.
 
PixyMisa said:
No.


That question made perfect sense.


The laws of physics are very different from logic and mathematics. Logic and mathematics are always the same; the laws of physics are specific to our Universe, and need not apply at all to another hypothetical Universe.


Yep. Same logic and maths though.
Click to expand...

Its amazing how much information you can distill into a two letter word ("no").

So we can have two notional universes exhibiting the same math and logic.

By what agency do these "universal" systems, logic and math manifest in two unrelated notional universes?


Also could these same notional universes, manifest without something approximating or equivalent to gravity?
 
yy2bggggs said:
The main question is whether or not you can meaningfully call that piece a part of you
Click to expand...

I think most people would, for obvious reasons. There's little point in a "you" without it.

Let's just start by calling it "illusory agency", because we do in fact seem to have agency. The interesting thing is, there are a lot of mechanisms that come into play to produce this illusion, and those mechanisms seem to actually serve pragmatic purposes.
Click to expand...

Then I don't understand why you said I confused the two.

No, the part you're wanting to refer to in 3. In particular, I'm guessing you want to say more that our "illusory agency" doesn't make decisions, than you are trying to say that the part of our brain that makes decisions has no part that is aware of itself.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know about the latter, and I clearly stated the former, so I'm having a hard time understanding why it's just a guess on your part.
 
annnnoid said:
It suggests no such thing.
Click to expand...

The fact that you become AWARE of the decision after it's been made doesn't suggest that the part of you that is AWARE didn't make the decision ?

You'll have to explain that to me.

Something, quite obviously, initiates what we refer to as ‘conscious decision making’. And something, quite obviously, is fundamentally responsible for the absolute conviction a very great many credible people assert when they confidently proclaim that they are responsible for their own lives.
Click to expand...

People are absolutely convinced of a lot of things, Annnnoid. It usually doesn't amount to much in the balance.

You would refer to it dismissively as ‘sleight-of hand’. That is massively simplistic and premature.
Click to expand...

Again, you're going to have to explain that to me.
 
punshhh said:
I know I (punshhh) exist, I can demonstrate that.
I have no proof that I am finite, it might be the illusion of being finite.
Click to expand...

There is overwhelming evidence that you ARE finite, and none whatsoever that you're not.

You still haven't answered my request for an example of an infinite quantity.
 
punshhh said:
Its amazing how much information you can distill into a two letter word ("no").

So we can have two notional universes exhibiting the same math and logic.

By what agency do these "universal" systems, logic and math manifest in two unrelated notional universes?
Click to expand...
No agency. There's no alternative.

What are the properties of a universe where the speed of light is a billion times slower or faster than in ours, or propagates in seven or seventeen dimensions? It would be enormously different to ours, but we could work it out.

What are the properties of a universe where 1=2? The question doesn't even make sense.

Also could these same notional universes, manifest without something approximating or equivalent to gravity?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you'd be able to recognise them as universes, but I don't see why not.
 
punshhh said:
Foam;
singularities spewing out universes and sucking them in again, like bubbles(spacetime bubbles).

Singularities sub atomic particles, both foamy bubbles.

I have evidence of the involvement of infinity, black holes and the singularity in the big bang.
Click to expand...

Have you ever studied physics?
 
PixyMisa said:
Yes, there has to be some sort of feedback going on. The experimental data strongly suggests that it's not simply a question of consciously making a decision and action then following, but on the other hand it's not plausible that consciousness is purely a internal replay function.
Click to expand...
Right. But if you include in your concept of agency the part that makes the decision and the part that is aware, then you have a start for a sensible concept of agency. Furthermore, it was my argument here that things weren't so simple--I still believe they aren't.

People feel they are agents, and they feel they have insight into how their agency works. These are two different things, and the latter is an introspective theory subject to interpretation error.

A lot of the explorations you're working with have to do with derivatives of a particular introspective theory; i.e., they deal with how it would have to work if we "consciously" decide things. I think this is the wrong approach to use to carve a sensible concept of agency; it presumes that we know the question, and we merely need to answer it. I'm not so sure I agree with the question in the first place.

Instead, I propose focus on what makes a person think he acts; there are various aspects to this (e.g., a person's sense of control, a person's sense of authorship of the actions, a person's sense that he initiates the action). Exploring which conditions preserve or destroy these senses should give you a better understanding of what they are actually sensing, and this should help outline a more accurate idea of what the system is doing when a person reports "I am doing that". From here it should be easier to establish whether or not the thing that is perceived is illusory.
 
Belz... said:
Then I don't understand why you said I confused the two.
No, the part you're wanting to refer to in 3. In particular, I'm guessing you want to say more that our "illusory agency" doesn't make decisions, than you are trying to say that the part of our brain that makes decisions has no part that is aware of itself.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't know about the latter, and I clearly stated the former, so I'm having a hard time understanding why it's just a guess on your part.
Click to expand...
It's because you said:
Your consciousness is only aware of your own decisions after said decisions have been made, so it doesn't really do anything except "being conscious".
Click to expand...
If the part that is making decisions is aware of itself, then that part is conscious; and since the way you're using possessives, this would be a part of me, then it follows that this would be a part of "my consciousness". But it's a part you wish to exclude.

I'm suggesting as a qualifier at least "illusory agency" to make sure you confine necessarily to the part of the brain that reports alleged awareness of initiation of action to Libet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom