My theoretical framework

[Dancing David]

Let see. Objects are real things even when you are not watching them. If you close your eyes in your bathroom the mirror, your toothbrush, the soap, the jacuzzi, everything is right there, exactly the same as when you open your eyes.

Welcome to woo land! a fairy tale kingdom in which you can assume things without thinking. People like you would have never find out anything about atoms, nor would be pushed in to thinking if gravity was a force or a distortion of something else.

But don't feel that bad, this utterly naive POV of yours is shared by countless of millions. Now go play with the paste (as I guess thats the kind of thing you'll find interesting).

I don't get this BDZ, i would assume that this is just the end of an argument.

The things in the bathroom sure appear to be there, regardless of the state of my eyes.

 

[Complexity]

BDZ - What a bunch of utter twaddle.

Read a good book, think a while, pet a cat, or make a really good omelet, but do something other than post this garbage.

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixy,

Sometimes I realy think you are playing a game here. There are some physical things that are not material; forces

Forces are conveyed by the gauge bosons: photons, the W and Z bosons, gluons, and the theoretical graviton. These are matter.

distortions

What are those?

geometries

Show me one of those.

space-time

If space-time is not material, then it's not physical either. Space-time is not made out of matter; matter exists in space-time. Matter also changes the shape of space-time. But this doesn't change the nature of the material.

You are holding to a 16th-century view of the term "material". This isn't the 16th century, BDZ.

even the value of a coin.

The value of a coin is a concept. It has no independent existence, but must be represented. The representation is material.

I used standard, dictionary definitions so if you happen to believe that "physical" and material" are synonyms thats your wish.

No, I'm talking about what physicalism and materialism mean in philosophy. They are exactly the same ontological position.

But don't come to tell me that you can't understand what it is implied in my statement.

"A system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules."

I didn't.

You said:

But you forgot to tell me what matters, this is, your opinion of mine:

Which is gibberish.

Here the implications are that matter, geometries and the value of a coin are relational concepts that follow a set of rules.

You are confusing two completely different categories of things.

If such (semantic) rules can predict phenomena then they work as descriptions, but nothing can be said about their ontological status beyond this.

Yeah, and? That's why materialism is an assumption.

They are, and will always be, just functional descriptions, out of this, the unknown.

In other words, they are explanations, in the only sense that can possibly matter.

 

[Dancing David]

I would have to agree. 99.999% of philosophy revolves around debating questions that don't have answers using language that would be inadequate if they did.

How are you using the word debate here?

 

[Dancing David]

Well, if you're going to define it that broadly -- and as an outsider to the field I reckon I have no reason to object -- then I have to concede the point.

And, much as I hate to admit it, some of Robin's arguments regarding the critical role of political philosophy in the minds of specific persons at specific junctures in history are starting to grow on me, especially if I take your lens to it.

What bothers me so much, though, about philosophical discussions is that they always seem to devolve into pointless spats about whether a seraph or cherub can legitimately claim space on this or that ism of a pin. It doesn't take long for turf battles to replace substantive discussion of the real world.

That said, I still believe that the larger perspective needs to be taken into account as well, such as the points made about the evolution of democratic systems in Athens.

I like this Piggy!, thus we have the metaphysical Crypts and Bloods squaring off for the turf war at Rock Candy Mountain.

 

[Dancing David]

Apes and monkeys form political systems, too. And they do so w/out philosophy.

But some humans have come to believe that the philosophy which is used to justify their actions is somehow indispensible to those actions.

There is also the quote about chimps and collapsing wave functions.

 

[Dancing David]

By that definition, any notion anyone has about doing anything becomes a philosophy, in which case the word ceases to mean anything beyond "idea about what to do", which is a useless definition.

If I say, "Hey, let's get a pizza -- that'd be good", is that a philosophy?

I would say that philospohy is more the argument about where to get the pizza and what to have on it or even better, why is there pizza?

 

[Piggy]

I would say that philospohy is more the argument about where to get the pizza and what to have on it or even better, why is there pizza?

Not even "Why is there pizza?" is a philosophical question. It can -- and should -- be answered without reference to philosophy.

Philosophy is intellectual bondo, filling the gaps til we find the piece that really fits there.

 

[PixyMisa]

I would say that philospohy is more the argument about where to get the pizza

Pizza Cutters in Wahroonga. If you don't live in their delivery area, it's time to move.

and what to have on it

There is no wrong choice.

Well, bananas and macadamia nuts is odd at first, but it grows on you.

or even better, why is there pizza?

There is pizza because there is hunger.

There is hunger so that we can eat pizza.

The causal loop is closed.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Philosophy is intellectual bondo, filling the gaps til we find the piece that really fits there.

That's really good. Of course, it is a lumper vs. splitter issue ultimtely since what we call science was formerly natural philosophy and lumpers want to keep the old name (or at least the idea), but that pretty much sums up the situation in a concise way. Intellectual bondo. I love it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Sounds fair , yet i suppose we can discuss what then is knowledge.

It doesn't matter , either way. It could be spirits, it could be energy, it could be little monekys on scooters (well that would show up in partcile accelerators).

It doesn't matter what the ontology of the universe is.

Functional analysis is All We Have.

I am the zombie, they are the eggmen, ...

(didn't understood the last sentence) still, NICE!

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I don't get this BDZ, i would assume that this is just the end of an argument.

The things in the bathroom sure appear to be there, regardless of the state of my eyes.

Sure they appear to be there. But the appearance is the result of several processes, it is a construct (not a re-construction). What is "really there" is different to what we see.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

(didn't understood the last sentence)

Reference to a Beatles song, "I am the Walrus"

And if you were wondering, the walrus was Paul.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yeah, and? That's why materialism is an assumption.

Nice. Now, since you reckon this (you have just conceded that you assume materialism is true), why are you so attached to the word, emotional reasons maybe? Let's see more deeply what exactly you have admitted.

"I (Pixy), admit that I have taken for granted, or accepted as true without proof, that materialism is real".

Now we can take the next step. Jumping from assuming an old world-view is true to realizing it is only a description, useful to predict some phenomena but useless to ascribe any plausible ontological status to its constituents.

 

[Dancing David]

<Snatches the Golden Baloney trophy from BDZ's arms, hands it to Dancing David>

Thanks Piggy!

I will give it to our local homeless shelter.

All thoughst are equally true and equally false. Some have greater validity than others, IE they can be used to predict the behavior of things.

We can discuss how perceptions are manufactured wholesale from the sensations if you like. You are aware I am assuming that your brain makes up most of our experiential reality. I am not saying that reality is made up, I am a hard knock materialist. Just that perceptions are manufactured wholesale.

Politics and philosophy are good examples of thoughts that are equally true and equally false.

And I know chew ain't new readneck. Ise from the heart land, you are much too erudite.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Nice. Now, since you reckon this (you have just conceded that you assume materialism is true), why are you so attached to the word, emotional reasons maybe? Let's see more deeply what exactly you have admitted.

"I (Pixy), admit that I have taken for granted, or accepted as true without proof, that materialism is real".

Now we can take the next step. Jumping from assuming an old world-view is true to realizing it is only a description, useful to predict some phenomena but useless to ascribe any plausible ontological status to its constituents.

Pixy has identified materialism as an assumption or premise, not a conclusion. Are you actually playing with yourself at the thought of Pixy saying those words to you? 'Cause it SOUNDS like you are. I'm just sayin'.

 

[PixyMisa]

Nice. Now, since you reckon this (you have just conceded that you assume materialism is true), why are you so attached to the word, emotional reasons maybe?

I'm not. I'm just pointing out your fallacies.

Let's see more deeply what exactly you have admitted.

BDZ, if you actually bothered to read what people write, you would have seen any number of such statements, including in my own posts, going back years.

"I (Pixy), admit that I have taken for granted, or accepted as true without proof, that materialism is real".

That's what "assumption" means.

Now we can take the next step. Jumping from assuming an old world-view is true to realizing it is only a description, useful to predict some phenomena but useless to ascribe any plausible ontological status to its constituents.

You just aren't even trying at this point.

Materialist behaviourism, i.e. naturalism, ignores the ontology and just presents a statement about behaviour. However, since behaviour is all we can ever know, there is in fact no difference at all between this and materialism.

Materialism, naturalism, physicalism. All the same, in every way that matters, in every way that can matter. I don't care which one you choose. I do care if you try to claim that one of them is wrong.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

In other words.

"I Know you are right BDZ, but I deliberately choose to use the plain old word "materialism" anyway."

Got it.

Materialist behaviourism, i.e. naturalism, ignores the ontology and just presents a statement about behaviour. However, since behaviour is all we can ever know, there is in fact no difference at all between this and materialism.

You have, slowly, and without making lots of noise, changed your POV (and I'm glad about it). You have not beeing ignoring ontology Pixy, but shouting as loud as you could that "everything is made of matter". That, dear Pixy, is an ontological commitment.

So, yes you have been defending plain old materialism... and now, surprisingly, you say that all we can ever know its its behavior? Well, of course! now your are sounding like me!

 

[PixyMisa]

In other words.

"I Know you are right BDZ, but I deliberately choose to use the plain old word "materialism" anyway."

What are you right about?

You have, slowly, and without making lots of noise, changed your POV (and I'm glad about it).

I haven't changed my position one whit. You just aren't paying attention; you'd rather play "gotcha" with strawmen.

You have not beeing ignoring ontology Pixy, but shouting as loud as you could that "everything is made of matter". That, dear Pixy, is an ontological commitment.

Read what I said, BDZ. For once. Naturalism does not say what things are made of, and hence is not an ontological position. But since we cannot know, only assume, what things are made of, it is equivalent to materialism in every way that signifies.

So, yes you have been defending plain old materialism... and now, surprisingly, you say that all we can ever know its its behavior?

That is what I have been saying all along. Yes, I am a materialist. Yes, all we can know is behaviour. No, there is no contradiction.

Materialism is an assumption.

Physicalism is an assumption.

Naturalism is an assumption.

And all are equivalent.

Your position, once translated into a logically consistent form, is an assumption - and again, equivalent to materialism.

Well, of course! now your are sounding like me!

Without the smugness, incessant petty insults, and general incoherence, I assume?

 

[Piggy]

All thoughst are equally true and equally false. Some have greater validity than others, IE they can be used to predict the behavior of things.

Oh, baloney. That's just a ploy to avoid having to deal with truth and falsehood.

I remember, a few years ago, I had a dream that I'd bought a new car. I woke up and for a few minutes still thought I had a new car. That thought was false. After a while, I realized, no, I still have the same old car. That thought was true.

There are no 2 ways about that.

We can discuss how perceptions are manufactured wholesale from the sensations if you like.

What in the world is that supposed to mean? I have no idea what the phrase "perceptions... manufactured wholesale from... sensations" might refer to. I really don't.

You are aware I am assuming that your brain makes up most of our experiential reality.

Didn't your daddy ever talk to you about assuming?

Bottom line here, although we are undeniably prone to certain (evolutionarily advantageous) delusions, no species could reasonably be expected to survive if its perceptions did not, by and large, correspond pretty neatly to external phenomena.

Sure, there is no "flavor of bananas" or "sound of a buzzsaw" anywhere out there in the world. But so what? The fact is, in the healthy brain, there's a damn good correspondence b/t those experiences and very real phenomena in the physical world.

I am not saying that reality is made up, I am a hard knock materialist. Just that perceptions are manufactured wholesale.

You're going to have to find a better term than "wholesale" b/c to me this refers to certain features of capitalist economy, and I have no clue how you might be using this term in reference to perception.

Politics and philosophy are good examples of thoughts that are equally true and equally false.

Huh? By that, do you mean that politics and philosophy are BS?

And I know chew ain't new readneck. Ise from the heart land, you are much too erudite.

Actually, I'm a milltown kid. Yeah, I have an education, but I'm still a collard-eating boy from red clay Georgia. Always will be.