My theoretical framework

[Piggy]

Wrong. We know about relations, geometric distortions, informational states, space-time and other things that are related to matter and energy but are described in different ways. Descriptions should be functional, their utility depends on that.

None of that in any way suggests anything spiritual or otherwise non-material about our world.

All of that is part and parcel of the material model.

 

[Piggy]

Piggy, Piggy. Please stop that game. I'm not proposing a "competitor" for matter.... I'm stating that it is not needed (as matter is not needed). We need to predict phenomena, not to talk about "what is made of".

You couldn't be more wrong. We've learned a helluva lot from asking the question: "What's this made of"?

Perhaps you're back to your strawman of the final substance.

This thing you say you're trying to "subtract" -- no one's actually claiming it's there.

 

[Piggy]

What do you think this debate is about, man?

I've come to think it's about a strawman.

If I understand BDZ aright, he's trying to "subtract" this notion that there's some ultimate substance, some final substance, out there.

In doing so, he mischaracterizes the material model -- y'know, the one that actually works.

When we say the universe is made up of matter, we're not talking about any final substance.

So I think all this sound and fury comes down, not to a debate over terms, but to an attempt to debunk a claim that's never been made, except by the one who wants to debunk it.

 

[Piggy]

I'm not the one (not sure about piggy) claiming that "everything is material". I find the notion void of content. Nothing more, nothing less.

And this is what it gets down to in the end, isn't it?

You're trying to get out of materialism free.

The claim "everything is material" is the inevitable conclusion if, as you say, you're not offering any alternative to it.

That's why my repeated question about whether anything has ever successfully rivaled it is important, and why you can't simply ignore it.

When we say that we live in an entirely material universe, that's not an empty statement.

 

[Nick227]

Not sure about what you asked. If I believe that we end attacking and defending our positions (and egos) instead of keep trying to understand each other? Yes, to an extent. But as you can see, things are way cooler now

Hi BDZ,

I mean, through discussing these ideas do you experience that they become less intensely "yours?" Does identification diminish? I'm interested.

Personally, I figure any philosophy that proceeds from the notion that there exists a limited observer - a personal identity, a personal "I" - is fatally flawed. Thus, what Kant considered "absurd" is the simple reality of non-dualism.

I must admit I'm a little surprised that you seemed so fascinated by this noumena-phenomena thing. Doesn't "Advaitin" mean "follower of not two?"

Nick

 

[volatile]

5. His original statement of his "framework" was self-contradictory (in the same way as any dualistic position). There are two ways to resolve this, by assuming he meant one thing or the other in a deliberately obfuscated post. One way you end up with materialism; the other way, solipsism.

I made this exact point earlier in the thread. BDZ needs to answer the question I keep posting:

What is the nature of these objects, and how can you account for the fact that multiple people can see the same object in broadly the same way?

One possible answer is materialistic; the other is solipsistic. Which is it to be? I don't want to have to ask this again.

 

[PixyMisa]

None of that in any way suggests anything spiritual or otherwise non-material about our world.

All of that is part and parcel of the material model.

Yep. I made that same point earlier, and BDZ completely ignored me.

 

[Piggy]

Well, after all this tortured verbiage and logic, I think BDZ's argument comes down to something like this (using "the sky is blue" rather than "the world is made of matter"):

Naive blueskyists may claim that "the sky is blue", and I'm not claiming to have any alternative to that, but I have no use for that concept, because it's an empty concept.

When they claim the sky is blue, they must believe that there is some ultimate blueness out there. But there's not. Because first of all, blue is an illusion of our senses and brains, and secondly, if you go up in the sky and look you're never ever going to find a piece of blue.

So I just want to subtract that notion of an ultimate blue from the equation. And when you do that, the statement "the sky is blue" makes no sense.

I don't know why you can't understand this.

Silly, huh?

And yet this is how BDZ's arguments have run of late. To sum up / paraphrase:

Naive materialists may claim that "the world is made of matter", and I'm not claiming to have any alternative to that, but I have no use for that concept, because it's an empty concept.

When they claim the world is made of matter, they must believe that there is some ultimate material substance out there. But there's not. Because first of all, the material objects we experience are an illusion of our senses and brains, and secondly, if you examine "matter" close up at the subatomic level you're never ever going to find a chunk of matter.

So I just want to subtract that notion of an ultimate material substance from the equation. And when you do that, the statement "the world is made of matter" makes no sense.

I don't know why you can't understand this.​

 

[AkuManiMani]

I don't care about ontology.

I don't care about any of this philo labeling, and I'm not going to get sucked into it.

The issue that I've been trying to engage you on, on the other hand, is this bizarre idea you seem to pop up with from time to time that a material view of the universe and a spiritual view of the universe are somehow non-different or merely an issue of semantics, which is incorrect.

Incorrect based upon what? Your willful and deliberate ignorance as to the subject matter? This discussion IS about ontology -- it IS about "philo labeling", as you call it. [The fact that BDZ mangles the logic and terminology of it beyond coherent recognition is incidental]

How can you say that the "material view" and the "spiritual view" are somehow in conflict if you can't [or refuse to] even define what each position is -- let alone the difference is between them?

What is "matter"? What is "spirit"? Does "spirit" interact with "matter"? If they do then they aren't fundamentally different. They would both be part of the same ontological framework and the two terms could be interchangeable in some sense. Anything that interacts with "matter" would have to be considered another form of "matter". For instance, energy is considered another form of matter -- it is not in conflict with, or antithetical to, matter even tho they are functionally different. Fundamentally they are just different expressions of the same underlying pattern.

 

[Piggy]

How can you say that the "material view" and the "spiritual view" are somehow in conflict if you can't [or refuse to] even define what each position is -- let alone the difference is between them?

It's the latter. I refuse to. Because there's no reason to. Everyone here is familiar w/ this age-old dichotomy. We all know exactly what I'm talking about, and it's silly to pretend that we don't.

I get the feeling from your earlier posts that if we go down that route, it's going to become a fixation on definitions, and we all know that when that happens it's reductio ad absurdium because definitions recede infinitely.

What is "matter"? What is "spirit"? Does "spirit" interact with "matter"?

Since there is no definition of "spirit" that is valid or coherent, that question can't be answered.

Talk of "spirit" and "soul" is all nonsense. That's my point.

To start asking such questions about debunked, nonsensical, incoherent notions leads nowhere.

As for "matter", I seriously doubt there's any real question about what that term refers to in this context.

If they do then they aren't fundamentally different. They would both be part of the same ontological framework and the two terms could be interchangeable in some sense. Anything that interacts with "matter" would have to be considered another form of "matter". For instance, energy is considered another form of matter -- it is not in conflict with, or antithetical to, matter even tho they are functionally different. Fundamentally they are just different expressions of the same underlying pattern.

Unless, of course, you bother to recall that there is no valid definition of "spirit" that holds any water, has any evidence to support its existence, or does not contradict known fact.

Once we do recall this, all of that there just stops making even any potential sense. It becomes no longer worth asking about.

 

[AkuManiMani]

How can you say that the "material view" and the "spiritual view" are somehow in conflict if you can't [or refuse to] even define what each position is -- let alone the difference is between them?

It's the latter. I refuse to. Because there's no reason to. Everyone here is familiar w/ this age-old dichotomy. We all know exactly what I'm talking about, and it's silly to pretend that we don't.

My point is that the whole "age-old" dichotomy was false to begin with. The dualists contended that the "spiritual" mind was a completely separate entity from the "physical" body. The fact is that if the two apparently distinct entities interact then they are not separate or fundamentally different from each other -- there IS no duality.

I get the feeling from your earlier posts that if we go down that route, it's going to become a fixation on definitions, and we all know that when that happens it's reductio ad absurdium because definitions recede infinitely.

There is not "reductio ad absurdium". There is a clearly defined conclusion based upon clearly defined definitions: Mind [aka "spirit"] is not antithetical to physicality. I explicitly eliminated all other superfluous definitions to get to the heart of the subject.

What is "spirit"? What is "matter"? Does "spirit" interact with "matter"?

Since there is no definition of "spirit" that is valid or coherent, that question can't be answered.

Talk of "spirit" and "soul" is all nonsense. That's my point.

I earlier went out of my way to provide a coherent definition of both terms [e.g. "of or pertaining to the mind"] and you chose to ignore it on grounds that it was somehow irrelevant to the discussion. Even the scientific definition of matter itself is pretty broad. We can all agree that an atom is "matter" but which part of it makes it "material"? Is it the elections that blink about in its outer layers? Is it the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons of the nucleus? Is it the oscillation of the "strings" that they are composed of? This illustrates the reason why I insisted that you define what you mean when you say matter or spirit. Both terms are very vague and very broad and if one hopes to have a coherent discussion about the two of them one MUST clearly define them instead of falling back on the whole "the terms are used all the time so you know what I mean" bit.

As for "matter", I seriously doubt there's any real question about what that term refers to in this context.

Oh ho! And what DOES it refer to in this context?

Unless, of course, you bother to recall that there is no valid definition of "spirit" that holds any water, has any evidence to support its existence, or does not contradict known fact.

That is an assumption made from conscious willful ignorance on your part.

 

[Piggy]

AkuManiMani, it's not that, lo and behold, spirit and matter turned out to be different aspects of one thing, or to refer to one thing. It's that spirit turned out to be nonexistant. The debate was settled on the side of physicality.

You can put the "spirit" label onto "whatever consciousness turns out to be regardless" but in doing so you provide a definition which is irrelevant to a discussion of whether the material model is valid or not.

 

[Darat]

Darat, do u even have any clue what I was arguing or are you just being contrary for contrary's sake?

Yes - that is why I could sum it up as being "trivial and rather meaningless way rather than anything of significance".

 

[AkuManiMani]

AkuManiMani, it's not that, lo and behold, spirit and matter turned out to be different aspects of one thing, or to refer to one thing. It's that spirit turned out to be nonexistant. The debate was settled on the side of physicality.

You can put the "spirit" label onto "whatever consciousness turns out to be regardless" but in doing so you provide a definition which is irrelevant to a discussion of whether the material model is valid or not.

My argument wasn't that the "material model" is invalid -- that was BDZ's argument. *I* was arguing that and distinction between "material" and "spiritual" is a matter of semantics and categorization and that they are not in conflict. The basic definitions of "spirit" is mind and consciousness. The existence of consciousness is a self-evident fact; it has never "turned out to be non-existent". If you do not accept the definition of spirit as consciousness then what is it that you consider spirit and why is/was it in conflict with the "material model", pray tell? And don't use another invalid analogy about tooth fairies because we both know that thats not whats being discussed.

To recap:

I earlier went out of my way to provide a coherent definition of both terms [e.g. "of or pertaining to the mind"] and you chose to ignore it on grounds that it was somehow irrelevant to the discussion. Even the scientific definition of matter itself is pretty broad. We can all agree that an atom is "matter" but which part of it makes it "material"? Is it the elections that blink about in its outer layers? Is it the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons of the nucleus? Is it the oscillation of the "strings" that they are composed of? This illustrates the reason why I insisted that you define what you mean when you say matter or spirit. Both terms are very vague and very broad and if one hopes to have a coherent discussion about the two of them one MUST clearly define them instead of falling back on the whole "the terms are used all the time so you know what I mean" bit.

Since you refuse to define why "matter" and "spirit" are contradictory [yet stubbornly maintain that they are], and why former supersedes the latter I will, once again, specifically define why they do not conflict. There is no "ad infinitum" and no "ad absurdum" -- just a clear and definite conclusion based off of strait forward, basic definitions.

mat·ter /ˈmætər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mat-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed: the matter of which the earth is made.
2. physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, esp. as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.

spir·it /ˈspɪrɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spir-it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
2. the incorporeal part of humans

spir·it·u·al /ˈspɪrɪtʃuəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spir-i-choo-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal.

[....]

9. of or relating to the mind or intellect.

The above definitions are not in any way in conflict with one another. "Spirit" defines intangible and incorporeal aspects of reality while "matter" is what is defined the tangible -- that which is tactile in nature. What we define as matter are objects composed of atoms [such as our bodies] that have the properties of mass and generally interact with each other via the electromagnetic force and gravity. A thought, an idea, or a pattern is NOT considered "material" because they are intangible -- we do not experience them in a tactile fashion. Their reality is informational in nature. Even with this distinction tho, it is still artificial. Atoms themselves are just a specific category of oscillating patterns. What makes atoms "material" to us in the subjective sense is the way our bodies interact with similar constructs -- we experience the tactile sensation of resistance against other "material" objects. Our bodies interact with other objects composed of atoms in a specific way, and this system of interaction we call "physical".

The "material" view starts from the domain of atoms and their interactions as a frame of reference. From this point of view all explanations and descriptions revolve around this perspective. The "spiritual" view starts from the domain of mind, consciousness, and intent as a frame of reference.

No one in their right mind would argue that matter is insignificant to understanding the world and only a fool would contend that because consciousness is not matter that is somehow is not real.

The real point of contention is whether or not the mind persists in some way after the material pattern of the body/brain dissipates. There is no solid evidence that it does and plenty of evidence that suggests that it probably does not.

Yes - that is why I could sum it up as being "trivial and rather meaningless way rather than anything of significance".

The original comment I made (which you sniped and edited out of context) what that one cannot find a literal "Theory of Everything" because it is impossible to have perfect knowledge and understanding. You then went on to pooh-pooh this statement as being mere opinion. When I pointed out that it was a statement of fact you challenged me to explain how I "knew" it to be fact. I then explained that it is axiomatic and self-evident. You then dismissed the answer to your own question as "meaningless". You're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary -- you never had an actual point of any significance yourself.

 

[Piggy]

*I* was arguing that and distinction between "material" and "spiritual" is a matter of semantics and categorization and that they are not in conflict.

They are not in conflict as long as you define them so that they both mean what "material" means.

But again, if you do that, you're dealing with a definition that's irrelevant to any point on this thread.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well I can't answer from the stance of someone who does give a stuff what the stuff actually is - indeed I don't believe that we, as human beings, even have the capability to understand whatever there may be "underneath the bonnet" (USA translation: bonnet = hood of a car), and that is even if the concept of "underneath the bonnet" is in fact a truly meaningful concept.

Well reasoned answer. Thanks. Thats exactly my point, to argue about claiming knowledge about what things are beyond us is not only naive, but absurd. Note that in everyday life its ok to do it, like stating that the sun rises in the mornings.

But if you are serious about understanding our world, then by definition, we can't know. We do know, and depend on it either for survival or for creating new technology, how the universe behaves in certain circumstances. Now, for convenience, we tend to separate the universe in "small chunks" and then ascribe relational properties to them. Our perceptual system works in that way, drawing clear contrasts among what, arguabily, is just a sea of buzzing particle/waves.

However saying that I do have to concede that the process of trying to look "underneath the bonnet" and the assumption that we can make sense of what we find is the only tool that humans have come up with that produces reliable and accurate results (so far at least). So pragmatically my sympathy is with the stuffists.

Darat, again excellent post! I agree with you. In fact, I agree in that, for example, that SOMETIMES. when dealing with "classical" woos, it is ok to talk about basic concepts as if they were real. Matter against spirit is an old fight, and some people are still fighting it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

There is no need to know the "final substance" in order to understand that "materialism", as you call it, is the only legitimate world view left standing among the contenders.

So, when materialists, claim that it is matter, they are lying?

Only "legitimate world view". So the others are bastards?

What is materialism anyway.

 

[Piggy]

Note that in everyday life its ok to do it, like stating that the sun rises in the mornings.

But if you are serious about understanding our world, then by definition, we can't know.

I think, like Ichneumonwasp on the parallel thread, it's time for me to "bow out". Because if you're still stuck at this level of thinking, BDZ, there's no way out of the perceptual trap you've built for yourself.

"The sun rises in the mornings" is true not only at the naive level, but at every other level. Scientific inquiry only expands our understanding of exactly what that means.

You've placed yourself in what I call the "know nothing" camp, which I've argued against on this forum in other threads.

It can be a convenient stance, b/c it frees you from having to deal with many difficult issues, especially those which might challenge your ideas.

Trouble is, it just ain't so.

 

[Piggy]

So, when materialists, claim that it is matter, they are lying?

Only "legitimate world view". So the others are bastards?

What is materialism anyway.

No, it's you who are engaging in less-than-honest argument at this point, BDZ.

You know full well I don't care about any definition of any philo camp, and you're bringing it up again as a red herring.

As I've said plainly, YOU are the one who dreamed up this "final substance" argument. It is, in fact, a pure strawman.

I've asked you very specifically now, on both threads, whether your complaint about materialism boils down to 2 specific points, and you've ignored me.

So it's time for me to move on.

Cheers.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If the "materialist" view is right, it makes no sense to rail against materialism, whether that's naive materialism or not.

What's the "materialist" view?

BTW, I find it interesting that you put materialist in between " ".