Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[PixyMisa]

Only because you make the same mistake a materialist makes, you assume that you know what 'consciousness' is, just as a materialist assumes they know what 'matter' is.
Nope.

Well, there are some materialists who assume that, I'll grant you. But look at what the actual materialists in this thread actually say.

They are not talking about what matter is, only what it does, only behaviours.

Maybe you don't consider such people as materialists, but that's how they label themselves, and there's gotta be a Scotsman in there somewhere.

I state in all serious, i can not prove that i am not a p-zombie. I exhibit all the behaviors of consciousness, but i can not prove that I am conscious.
P-zombies are not a coherent concept under materialism anyway.

[HypnoPsi]

The other claims that Rupert Sheldrake proves the existence of God.


Who has ever claimed that Rupert Sheldrake has proven God?

~
HypnoPsi

[PixyMisa]

Who has ever claimed that Rupert Sheldrake has proven God?
Specifically? You.

[HypnoPsi]

Does it look like I care? I have zero interest in changing your mind. After reading your garbage for a few pages, it was pretty clear you're as dishonest as DOC, Radrook or Plumjam.

I have an agenda of showing how completely and utterly moronic and dishonest your arguments are. Put me on ignore for all I care. It'll just show how silly you are by repeating each and every dismantled argument. The lurkers can see all your garbage torn apart as you ignore me and keep spouting your garbage....well, maybe it may not make a difference since you seem to keep doing that anyway.


You know, if we can make you so miserable and raise your blood pressure that much, maybe you might actualy want to cut back on reading what we say.

But, alas, like a moth to flame...

Obviously, the real problem is that you can see the logic of our arguments and don't like it any more than you like our poking fun at all those self-aware toaster ovens you take so seriously.

Rant on.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

All I know is that for me as a conscious being with no knowledge of any self-sustaining information or substance that another consciousness is the most parsimonious solution to existence.No, you do not know that. You claim that. It is false.


How so? Be specific.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

But tell you what: Pick a study you think is valid, and I'll show you why it's worthless tripe. Just one to start with. Once that's dealt with, I'll let you pick another. And so on.


I have no intention of spoon feeding you anything or of getting involved in another debate I'll likely not have any time to participate in from Monday onwards.

I have successfully defended the parsimonious nature of the God theory as it pertains to existence against the self-sustaining information/matter theory. That's it.

What is subjective experience?

There's an aspect of memory to it, I'm sure you'll agree. Toasters can remember stuff.

There's an aspect of perception to it - direct or indirect. Toasters can peceive stuff.

There's an aspect of reasoning to it. Toasters can reason.

If those are all the aspects of subjective experience, we can safely conclude that toasters have them.

Toasters have 1's and 0's and particular patterns of input into the mechanics/programing of the toaster results in specific sets out outputs.

That's it for toasters. They have no thoughts about said input or output or the processing that goes on inbetween.

If you want to propose that there are additional aspects to subjective experience, then tell me what you think they are.

Thoughts is a good place to start. Where is your evidence that toasters think, have qualia and subjective experience?

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
I don't see "I" as a behaviour or any reason why I should.
Then the ball's in your court. It's not a behaviour, you say? Well, what is it then?


Nope. I don't claim to know what the "I" is. You do. Just because I don't believe you that "I" is a behaviour I don't have to prove a negative at all.


Are you saying here that you believe objective observation can lead to your knowing something is conscious?Yup.

Decarte's cogito. If something - another human, a toaster, a slime mold from 61 Cygni - can reason it's way through cogito, and show its work, on what basis can we deny its self-awareness?


How do you know a toaster oven can reason it's way through Decarte's cogito?

~
HypnoPsi

[paximperium]

You know, if we can make you so miserable and raise your blood pressure that much, maybe you might actualy want to cut back on reading what we say.
Huh? Man, what an ego. You amuse me. You're arguments are so weak that it doesn't even give me much of a challenge. I've read better pseudo-philosophy and apologist from ancient Christians.

Well, whatever makes you happy, you've created a little belief system that no one else cares about or believes, even your fellow theists. You're claims are nothing more that a philosophical punching bag; practice.

But, alas, like a moth to flame...Yeah, can't quit looking at a car wreck. A little character flaw on my part.

Obviously, the real problem is that you can see the logic of our arguments and don't like it any more than you like our poking fun at all those self-aware toaster ovens you take so seriously.Logic? What logic? You use it when it suits you and then throw it away when it doesn't. It is pretty interesting seeing how you twist and misuse logic and rhetoric.

I see the sad little delusion that is your arguments.
I see the dishonesty and semantic acrobatics.
I see how completely and utterly worthless of your arguments are.
I see how the rest of science progresses as little people keep to their magic thinking believing in myths and magic...oops, sorry god and psi.
I see progress in neurosciences even as you sadly attempt to wiggle away and play little games to make your delusions seem more plausible.

Happily, I really doubt you've convinced anyone with your garbage except those who are already true believers.

BTW: You making fun of the self-aware toasters is amusing since it just shows your ignorance. Keep poking fun at the toaster, I don't think it cares.

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Who has ever claimed that Rupert Sheldrake has proven God?Specifically? You.


When? Quotes please.

As far as I was aware I didn't even believe God could be proven, but on you go if you're so sure. Let's see where I've supposedly claimed this.

~
HypnoPsi

[rocketdodger]

I disagree entirely. Psi is extra sensory and I see no reason it's down to EM fields.

Ok, I can see why you have difficulty grasping the concepts underlying this issue. You are utterly uneducated in the relevant fields.

Neurons -- the cell thing-a-majigs in your brain -- function via electrochemistry. A signal propagating along a neuron is actually a wave of ions moving across the cell membrane powered by an electrochemical gradient that has been set up across the membrane.

So if you remove the electrochemical reactions -- by burning a guy's head off, for instance -- there will be no more consciousness. Hence consciousness is completely dependent upon electrochemical reactions.

That we have to explain this to you, when you presume to argue with us about the mechanisms of consciousness, is indicative of the quality of your arguments in this thread.

And it is the reason why I am not going to even bother trying to explain things to you anymore -- you literally do not know what you are talking about. You apparently don't even have a foundation in science that we can build on if we wanted to.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I have successfully defended the parsimonious nature of the God theory as it pertains to existence against the self-sustaining information/matter theory. That's it.



~
HypnoPsi



Um, no you haven't. Unless consciousness is self-sustaining, which you have argued that you have no evidence for, then there is something more fundamental than consciousness giving consciousness its "motion".

[HypnoPsi]

You use it when it suits you and then throw it away when it doesn't.

No. I keep demonstrating that the God theory is more parsimonious than any atheist theory and haven't wavoured from that point - at all.


BTW: You making fun of the self-aware toasters is amusing since it just shows your ignorance. Keep poking fun at the toaster, I don't think it cares.

Ah.. no. Sorry to disapoint you. The funny folks aren't the toasters. They're the people who believe toasters are self-aware.

I don't recall ever having poked fun at a toaster oven in my life.

~
HypnoPsi

[rocketdodger]

Utterly wrong. Even the Buddhist ideas of a totally "self-less" Nirvana are absolutely fine with me - in fact, I think several aspects of that view have much more going for them than certain traditionally western views of God.

Now you claim to be reading my mind... I see "God" and psi, etc., as entirely different things.

Again, I would not be troubled in the slightest if "God" turned out to be a non-entity in terms of the single conscious being of western thought.

Furthermore, the fact that you only responded to the first third of my post here, and avoided addressing the actual issues brought up in the other two thirds, is strong evidence that you realize your arguments have been weighed, measured, and found quite wanting.

Am I wrong?

[rocketdodger]

Um, no you haven't. Unless consciousness is self-sustaining, which you have argued that you have no evidence for, then there is something more fundamental than consciousness giving consciousness its "motion".

Isn't it amazing how people can not understand this?

Isn't it amazing how people can really think that replacing "stuff we can't understand" with "magic we can't understand" solves any problems?

[Ichneumonwasp]

You know, the more I think about it, we know quite a few things without doubt. And we know them to be more fundamental than thought itself because the reason we know them is becaused they are implied by thinking just as knowledge implies thinking in the first place.

We know that time exists, because the act of doubting unfolds. If it didn't then it could not be -- thought would jumble together and be impossible. We know that an animating force exists, because without it thought would not be possible.

Here's a question, do we know that extension exists? There clearly must be extension in time, so there is some form of extension. Does this count? We cannot clearly know that extension in space exists by the cogito, but we clearly know much more than what is commonly stated about it.

[HypnoPsi]

Neurons -- the cell thing-a-majigs in your brain -- function via electrochemistry. A signal propagating along a neuron is actually a wave of ions moving across the cell membrane powered by an electrochemical gradient that has been set up across the membrane.


In brief, the sodium-potassium pump is largely responsible for triggering an action potential. Now, how do you explain NDE's in patients with an EEG flatline?

So if you remove the electrochemical reactions -- by burning a guy's head off, for instance -- there will be no more consciousness. Hence consciousness is completely dependent upon electrochemical reactions.

That's your opinion. Now see the question above. I look forward to your answer.

That we have to explain this to you, when you presume to argue with us about the mechanisms of consciousness, is indicative of the quality of your arguments in this thread.

And it is the reason why I am not going to even bother trying to explain things to you anymore -- you literally do not know what you are talking about. You apparently don't even have a foundation in science that we can build on if we wanted to.


I have a foundation in science.

Stop evading the issue. Please explain how the data gained in such things as the Ganzfeld can be the result of some EM field. Sometimes the expermenters and subjects were in separate buildings. What about all the other interference.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Am I wrong?


Yes. You are wrong about everything.

~
HypnoPsi

[Ichneumonwasp]

In brief, the sodium-potassium pump is largely responsible for triggering an action potential. Now, how do you explain NDE's in patients with an EEG flatline?



~
HypnoPsi


Cite me a case of a known NDE in a patient that occurred during the time that the EEG was flat and we can talk.

Sorry, didn't notice your earlier statement -- no the sodium pottasium ATPase pump has nothing directly to do with triggering an action potential. It helps to maintain the resting membrane potential that permits the action potential to occur.

[rocketdodger]

In brief, the sodium-potassium pump is largely responsible for triggering an action potential. Now, how do you explain NDE's in patients with an EEG flatline?

There are people who have communicated their NDE while they had no brain activity? I haven't heard of such a thing...


That's your opinion. Now see the question above. I look forward to your answer.

My answer is that I am not aware of any data showing people to have had any kind of mental activity whatsoever when their brain is entirely dead.

If such data did exist, then clearly there would be another aspect of consciousness that we are missing right now.


I have a foundation in science.

Then you might want to start applying it.

Stop evading the issue. Please explain how the data gained in such things as the Ganzfeld can be the result of some EM field. Sometimes the expermenters and subjects were in separate buildings. What about all the other interference.

First, I do not agree that such results are as credible as you insist. I side with Pixy on this.

However, if they were credible, then I don't see why EM would be so farfetched. A common celluar phone, which is capable of producing far less energy than your brain, can easily communicate with other devices through multiple buildings within the noise of literally millions and even billions of wireless communications.

At the very least, that is a known phenomena. Why would you jump to the conclusion that "psi" is magic when -- assuming credible evidence for psi existed -- there are so many other plausible explanations?

Because your entire line of thinking is biased by your desire for magic to be real.

[paximperium]

No. I keep demonstrating that the God theory is more parsimonious than any atheist theory and haven't wavoured from that point - at all.
No you haven't. Just about everyone here has shown your argument to be complete and utter garbage and based on nothing but semantic dancing and a blanket claim supported by nothing but semantics. You can't even support your silly claim with math.

Any "Atheist"(more appropriately Secular) Hypothesis on the basis of the cosmos is based on mathematics and is currently only theoretical due to the lack of hard evidence but is supported by mathematical evidence. Secular science continues the search for the truth, while the crazies continue to play semantic games and pretend to known the truth.

Someone who keeps claiming things despite evidence on the contrary is called deluded.

Ah.. no. Sorry to disapoint you. The funny folks aren't the toasters. They're the people who believe toasters are self-aware.

I don't recall ever having poked fun at a toaster oven in my life.
Ah so sorry, everyone is still laughing at you.

[paximperium]

In brief, the sodium-potassium pump is largely responsible for triggering an action potential.
No it doesn't. It maintains the ionic gradient. Did I mention the laughter?

Now, how do you explain NDE's in patients with an EEG flatline?Really? Someone who is braindead has come back to life? Please do show us this miracle resurrection? (and what the hell is someone doing an EEG on a person undergoing CPR?)


That's your opinion. Now see the question above. I look forward to your answer.No. We all are awaiting you to support your claim above.


I have a foundation in science.So, it'll be very easy for you to provide this evidence of a resurrection?

Stop evading the issue. Please explain how the data gained in such things as the Ganzfeld can be the result of some EM field. Sometimes the expermenters and subjects were in separate buildings. What about all the other interference.So a 2-4%(depending on how tight the experiment is) beyond random chance is all you have as evidence for you psi? Color me super impressed.

Now if psi was shown to actually exist, it would be a really interesting field of research, in fact it would be exceedingly amusing if we find out that this "psi" is actually a materialistic process...I can see certain people throwing a fit and claiming that psi is still magic even after such a discovery.

[Silentknight]

Agnosticism: The view that even though the Universe and Natural Laws clearly exist one does not know how they exist.
Deceptively valid so far.

Theism: The view that the Universe and Natural Laws are best explained by a supreme conscious thinker and that some property or substance that inherently supplies itself with the necessities of maintaining it's own existence is superfluous.
Ah, nope. Belief in worshiped beings called gods, regardless of what those worshiped beings do, is the only minimum requirement for theism. These gods could just sit around and do nothing. They could have evolved from the universe themselves like we did. They could just be really powerful people who are venerated as deities.

Atheism The view that the Universe and Natural Laws are best explained as self-sustaining and that a supreme conscious thinker is superfluous.
Nope again. Rejection of belief in worshiped beings called gods, regardless of what these worshiped beings are supposed to do, is the only minimum requirement for atheism. Furthermore, atheism is not mutually exclusive from agnosticism, and thus leaves room open for unknowns.

Theism is predicated on a known thing: Consciousness. Atheism is predicated on nothing known.
Since you got both definitions wrong, what makes you think you got this last part right? :rolleyes:

You have no more logical justification for postulating a God based on consciousness than you would postulating one based on matter, for that matter, and yes it matters. Knowledge is what is predicated on consciousness. You don't leap from "knowledge" to "God" just because it makes you feel good to think you have all the answers. By your reasoning, one could postulate God after staring into the sun for several hours.

I have no intention of spoon feeding you anything or of getting involved in another debate I'll likely not have any time to participate in from Monday onwards.
Hey, it's your claim. Too bad you're not willing to defend it in any way other than assertion. I think I just heard a toilet flush.

I have successfully defended the parsimonious nature of the God theory as it pertains to existence against the self-sustaining information/matter theory. That's it.
Yet you also tried to refute my objection by saying you never once claimed consciousness was self-sustaining, which leads me to wonder where this ridiculous strawman was derived from, if not the framework of your own theistic beliefs.

In brief, the sodium-potassium pump is largely responsible for triggering an action potential. Now, how do you explain NDE's in patients with an EEG flatline?
Patients who "recall" NDEs are drawing it from "memory." Yet as I explained, memories are patterns of chemicals and neural connections. When the brain suffers trauma, these connections break down and get rearranged. Even when there's an EEG flatline, as you claim, there are still reactions going on in the brain. This can cause new memories to form. The very fact that these NDE patients have been revived means that brain function never irrevocibly ceased. They weren't brain dead, in other words.

Stop evading the issue. Please explain how the data gained in such things as the Ganzfeld can be the result of some EM field. Sometimes the expermenters and subjects were in separate buildings. What about all the other interference.
I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 3... :D

[Dancing David]

I do not presume to have even the slightest idea what consciousness is.

Then how can you say it exists?

So? I can't prove I'm conscious to anyone else either. All I know is that for me as a conscious being with no knowledge of any self-sustaining information or substance that another consciousness is the most parsimonious solution to existence.

Sure, whatever.

peace to you and yours.






I have no idea if the God-thinker is self-sustaining or everlasting. All I know is that the God-thinker is predicated on the personal thinker and the self-sustaining energy is based on nothing.

The two are equivalent and you may not style yourself an idealist but you avoid it just like them.

Whatever. (Old hippy phrase of acceptance, not Reese Withersppon)





This has to be one of the silliest things I've ever read.

~
HypnoPsi
Sigh, that figures, it always happen, you are the same as the rest. Not willing to overcome your own issues and really talk about things. HammeGK was a cranky old fart but at least he didn't engage in the run away mentality you have just shown.

Too bad it was going well up until you did the same as all idealists or whatever you want to style yourself. As Brave Sir Robin said...

Later.

[Dancing David]

I don't see "I" as a behaviour or any reason why I should.





Why? Are you saying here that you believe objective observation can lead to your knowing something is conscious?




I couldn't care less. This is all your stuff that you need to figure out.

~
HypnoPsi


Sure whatever.

You can not prove that your are conscious, you assume then that god is conscious.

What a hoot!

later gator!

[Dancing David]

Nope.

Well, there are some materialists who assume that, I'll grant you. But look at what the actual materialists in this thread actually say.

They are not talking about what matter is, only what it does, only behaviours.

Maybe you don't consider such people as materialists, but that's how they label themselves, and there's gotta be a Scotsman in there somewhere.


P-zombies are not a coherent concept under materialism anyway.

Nope, it was all rhetorical baiting.

Gosh that is the last thing I need another True Scotsman around the house, they just gather dust and scare the cat...

[PixyMisa]

I have no intention of spoon feeding you anything or of getting involved in another debate I'll likely not have any time to participate in from Monday onwards.
I see. So you get to make any assertion you like, with no responsibility for providing supporting evidence or logic, while we have to prove a negative?

No.

I have successfully defended the parsimonious nature of the God theory as it pertains to existence against the self-sustaining information/matter theory. That's it.
No. You have repeatedly asserted this, despite being shown that its complete dingo's kidneys.

Toasters have 1's and 0's and particular patterns of input into the mechanics/programing of the toaster results in specific sets out outputs.
Indeed. Just like humans, except explicitly binary-coded.

That's it for toasters. They have no thoughts about said input or output
You just said they did:

Toasters have 1's and 0's and particular patterns of input into the mechanics/programing of the toaster results in specific sets out outputs.
That's thought. That's awareness. Not self-awareness, not without reflection, but awareness.

or the processing that goes on inbetween.
That, as I have said, depends on the toaster.

Thoughts is a good place to start. Where is your evidence that
toasters think, have qualia and subjective experience?
I just explained all that.

Again, if you think there is anything to subjective experience beyond memory, perception, and reasoning, tell me what it is and I can address that.

Oh, and the concept of qualia has as much validity as p-zombies, i.e. none whatsoever.

[articulett]

I have successfully defended the parsimonious nature of the God theory as it pertains to existence against the self-sustaining information/matter theory. That's it.
~
HypnoPsi

I just have to say that I think it's so funny when the woo make assertions like this-- as though repeating it can make it true. I suppose he's "successfully defended" his argument in his own head, but I don't think anyone other than him can even reiterate what his argument IS.

[PixyMisa]

Ooh, I know:

1. Consciousness exists. I don't know what it is, but I do know that all research into neuroscience and psychology ever can be safely ignored. Because I say so.
2. Ganzfeld! Sheldrake! NDEs! Because I say so.
3. Therefore God exists. I don't know what it is, but it's not up to me to even define my terms. Because I say so.

[articulett]

Wasn't that the same argument Interesting Ian used to use?

(I tend to mix up my woos).

[Malerin]

Actually, Hypno's argument is very easy to understand. It's just that none of you agree with the premises:

1. There is no evidence matter exists.
2. If the physical universe does exist, it is either eternal or a cause in and of itself.
2.1 Nothing in the physical universe suggests it has the property "eternal"
or "cause in and of itself".
3. Consciousness exists, and is a non-physical phenemenon (it has none of the qualities of physical matter).
4. Under materialism, there is no coherent story to explain how an assemblage of physical matter can create a non-physical phenemenon (consciousness).

:. (therefore) Because there is no evidence of matter, no reason to believe matter is either a cause in and of itself or eternal, and no explanation how consciousness can arise from physical matter (or even why consciousness is possible under materialism), materialism contains more assumptions than theism, and is the less parsimonious theory.

The arguments from the materialists here have been less than persuasive. They attack (1) by basically kicking a rock and saying, "Did you see that? That's a material thing! I felt it, so it must be a physical object!" I haven't seen anyone yet take on (2). (3) and (4) have led to absurd claims of doubting your own consciousness and the existence of conscious toasters (the extra-fancy model actually possessing self-awareness).

[PixyMisa]

Actually, Hypno's argument is very easy to understand. It's just that none of you agree with the premises:
Not quite. His premises are false, and his reasoning is unsound.

1. There is no evidence matter exists.
Which is simply false.

2. If the physical universe does exist, it is either eternal or a cause in and of itself.
Which is a non-sequitur.

2.1 Nothing in the physical universe suggests it has the property "eternal"
Which is simply false.

or "cause in and of itself".
Which is a non-sequitur.

3. Consciousness exists, and is a non-physical phenemenon (it has none of the qualities of physical matter).
Which is simply false.

4. Under materialism, there is no coherent story to explain how an assemblage of physical matter can create a non-physical phenemenon (consciousness).
Which is a non-sequitur.

:. (therefore) Because there is no evidence of matter
False.

no reason to believe matter is either a cause in and of itself or eternal
Non-sequitur.

and no explanation how consciousness can arise from physical matter
False.

(or even why consciousness is possible under materialism)
False.

materialism contains more assumptions than theism
Absurd beyond measure.

and is the less parsimonious theory.
Ditto.

The arguments from the materialists here have been less than persuasive. They attack (1) by basically kicking a rock and saying, "Did you see that? That's a material thing! I felt it, so it must be a physical object!"
Nope.

My matter can take out your consciousness. Every single time. Matter meets consciousness, matter wins.

I haven't seen anyone yet take on (2).
It's just something HypnoPsi made up. Has no bearing on reality.

(3) and (4) have led to absurd claims of doubting your own consciousness and the existence of conscious toasters (the extra-fancy model actually possessing self-awareness).
Why is either of these suggestions absurd?

Once you understand why you think the first is absurd, grasshopper, you will have found the flaw in your own beliefs.

Once you have found the flaw in your own beliefs, you will come to understand why the second is no more nor less than objective truth.

[articulett]

I think that Malerin's mishmash could be used to prove that music doesn't make sense under materialism.

Music has the same nonphysical aspects associated with consciousness, but like consciousness, it is clearly reliant upon the movement of physical objects through time. I maintain that just as there is no sound without matter, there can be no consciousness without matter.

Malerin seems to think that consciousness is more "magical" than music. I guess he does this so he can make his god seem real. Long live the crazy semantics that allow the believer to believe their pet delusion has a basis in logic.

[Dancing David]

This cuts both ways, which seems to be a problem.


1. There is no evidence matter exists.

There is no evidence that consciousness exists.

2. If the physical universe does exist, it is either eternal or a cause in and of itself.
Nothing in the physical universe suggests it has the property "eternal" or "cause in and of itself".

Same:Same

3. Consciousness exists, and is a non-physical phenemenon (it has none of the qualities of physical matter).

Ooops, consciousness exists on the same evidentiary basis as matter.

4. Under materialism, there is no coherent story to explain how an assemblage of physical matter can create a non-physical phenemenon (consciousness).

Um and then under consciousness there is no mechanism that can create or explain the appearance of the universe.

You concede one and ignore the other.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I do not presume to have even the slightest idea what consciousness is.
Actually, you presume that it has all the attributes required for your god. Otherwise your parsimony argument goes to hell instantly.


1 and 2 are fine but I've never said there is evidence for a self-sustaining universal consciousness. I have no knowledge either way.
Yikes. Parsimony blown again.


No, I do not theorise that God has memory. Again, for all I know God might have just thought up the laws that are the Universe and individual consciousness and never looked back or even be aware of it in any self-conscious sense.
Then something else is maintaining the universe. Your model has deteriorated into a physicalist model.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No, I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you "can you name a single researcher who has experimental evidence as opposed to theoretical beliefs that consciousness is nothing more than the result of cellular computation?"
How is this not proving a negative?


I'm not saying the solution is perfect or that it solves all problems and leaves nothing unanswered. I agree it doesn't and that it isn't perfect. It is just that God is more parsimonious.
How can you claim your model is more parsimonious while agreeing that it is incomplete?

~~ Paul

[HypnoPsi]

Unless consciousness is self-sustaining, which you have argued that you have no evidence for, then there is something more fundamental than consciousness giving consciousness its "motion".


That would be correct. If the conscious-thinker (posited as "God") is not self-sustaining then naturally there would have to be something more fundamental.

My position here is that any guess either way is pure speculation - though I would point out that when we are positing something that sustains spacetime we are naturally implying that thing to be outside of spacetime.

The bottom line is - what that all means I don't know and fully admit that I don't know.

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if more people thought the same way.

Nobody "knows" what God is like.

~
HypnoPsi

[rocketdodger]

That would be correct. If the conscious-thinker (posited as "God") is not self-sustaining then naturally there would have to be something more fundamental.

wtf?

If God is "self-sustaining" then you have no basis to attack "self-sustaining" as applied to material. Why is the nonsensical property of "self-sustaining" acceptable for God but not material?

If God is not "self-sustaining" and there is something more fundamental, then you have become a materialist.

Either way it seems like you have taken a huge turn in the direction of your arguments here.

My position here is that any guess either way is pure speculation - though I would point out that when we are positing something that sustains spacetime we are naturally implying that thing to be outside of spacetime.

The bottom line is - what that all means I don't know and fully admit that I don't know.

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if more people thought the same way.

Nobody "knows" what God is like.

Is anybody else reading this as an admission that HypnoPsi realizes his/her arguments aren't holding up to scrutiny on this forum?

[HypnoPsi]

Isn't it amazing how people can really think that replacing "stuff we can't understand" with "magic we can't understand" solves any problems?


Neither theory (atheistic materialism or theistic amaterialism) gives us a complete and full solution without further questions.

If that is what you mean by "solves any problems" then I agree with you.

The only end in sight when working parsimoniously is to construct the most neat theory where less is best.

~
HypnoPsi

[Malerin]

I think that Malerin's mishmash could be used to prove that music doesn't make sense under materialism.

Music has the same nonphysical aspects associated with consciousness, but like consciousness, it is clearly reliant upon the movement of physical objects through time. I maintain that just as there is no sound without matter, there can be no consciousness without matter.

Malerin seems to think that consciousness is more "magical" than music. I guess he does this so he can make his god seem real. Long live the crazy semantics that allow the believer to believe their pet delusion has a basis in logic.

Music doesn't make sense under materialism. Sound makes sense under materialism, but music is the experience of listening to (or organizing) sound and also makes us feel a certain way. The experiential component of anything is going to be a problem for materialism.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

[quote=rocketdodger]
Is anybody else reading this as an admission that HypnoPsi realizes his/her arguments aren't holding up to scrutiny on this forum?]/quote]
I have the warm and fuzzy feeling that eventually we will all agree that something has to be self-sustaining and it's extraordinarily difficult to figure out what that something is. Then we will agree that we are all monists without a means of knowing what the fundamental existent is.

~~ Paul

[Malerin]

This cuts both ways, which seems to be a problem.

There is no evidence that consciousness exists.



If you're reduced to claiming you're a zombie, your argument is not going well.

[Ichneumonwasp]

That would be correct. If the conscious-thinker (posited as "God") is not self-sustaining then naturally there would have to be something more fundamental.

My position here is that any guess either way is pure speculation - though I would point out that when we are positing something that sustains spacetime we are naturally implying that thing to be outside of spacetime.

The bottom line is - what that all means I don't know and fully admit that I don't know.

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if more people thought the same way.

Nobody "knows" what God is like.

~
HypnoPsi


OK, with that I agree (with the proviso that I do not agree that whatever we are discussing is "outside spacetime", since that does not necessarily follow, the possibility of self-sustention, but not self-creation, always being a logical possibility). Either guess is speculation and neither is more parsimonious since the "sustainer of the universe" is certainly not proved by knowledge that thought exists while "something that causes motion" is. So we are left with deciding what we think the origin of motion and time *is* (both of which we also know by the cogito -- that there is motion and time, not what their origin is).

I see no way out of the dilemma, no more parsimonious solution. Choose God, choose "energy", they are both equally parsimonious solutions.

So, we are back to square one with it all being a wash and the decision resting on people's inclinations. The point is to decide and to know that it is a decision, so that we can stop all this bickering about "I know the ultimate truth and you guys are wrong."

[Dancing David]

If you're reduced to claiming you're a zombie, your argument is not going well.

If that is an argument, you might as well not try.

A zombie would 'think' is was conscious, it would 'feel' that it is conscious, it would 'behave' in all ways as though it is conscious. So it would have the internal sense of self awareness.

So how do you know you aren't a p-zombie, a p-zombie would do everything the exact same way.

This is a serious question that you are avoiding. There is a coherent resolution, but it states that the concept of a p-zombie is a fiction. And why toasters (at a low magnitude) are conscious.

[paximperium]

Neither theory (atheistic materialism or theistic amaterialism) gives us a complete and full solution without further questions.

If that is what you mean by "solves any problems" then I agree with you.

Finally.
As I've continually stated.
HypnoPsi's argument boils down to: "I don't know but magic involved just because I said so." as opposed to everyone elses, "I don't know".

The only end in sight when working parsimoniously is to construct the most neat theory where less is best.
Parsimony? Hypno don't know what the hell that word means, just what he/she/it wants it to mean.
Parsimony is not "neatly" fitting someone's already preconceived beliefs and delusions.

[Silentknight]

Music doesn't make sense under materialism. Sound makes sense under materialism, but music is the experience of listening to (or organizing) sound and also makes us feel a certain way. The experiential component of anything is going to be a problem for materialism.

Translation: "Music evokes emotions, and emotions are magical, therefore music is magical, so take THAT materialism! Thrrrppppppt!"

[PixyMisa]

Sound makes sense under materialism, but music is the experience of listening to (or organizing) sound and also makes us feel a certain way.
Emotions are brain function.

The experiential component of anything is going to be a problem for materialism.
Why?

[Dancing David]

Why?
Because he says so.

[PixyMisa]

Oh yeah. I forgot. ;)

[articulett]

It's the "hard" problem because it causes people to realize that they are just like all the other moral life on the planet. Finite... and not part of any "divine plan".

[articulett]

We organize sound and "listen to" music in our brains-- the organ that interprets all sensorial input.

It's ALL matter dependent, Malerin. We can affect it all by changing one link.

[HypnoPsi]

If the conscious-thinker (posited as "God") is not self-sustaining then naturally there would have to be something more fundamental.If God is "self-sustaining" then you have no basis to attack "self-sustaining" as applied to material. Why is the nonsensical property of "self-sustaining" acceptable for God but not material?


I wish you would try to understand this: my argument that a conscious-thinker of the Universe is the most parsimonious theory is only what it is, namely that the "thinker" argument is more parsimonious than the self-sustaining "matter" arguement.

I have no idea what qualities "God" has - none, zip. The Buddhists don't even like to personify this "thing" in the first place and the gnostics had their whole Demi-urge idea.

My view is that we don't have enough information to meaningfully speculate beyond "conscious-thinker". "God" may be the Christian trinitarian God or the something else for all I know.

The point I'm making is that I don't know if this "conscious-thinker" is self-sustaining or not.

If God is not "self-sustaining" and there is something more fundamental, then you have become a materialist.


I don't see how - and again, I'm not saying there is something more fundamental either. I'm saying I don't know.


Either way it seems like you have taken a huge turn in the direction of your arguments here.


No, my only argument has been that a conscious thinker of the Universe is more parsimonious than any idea about some self-sustaining matter/information stuff. Beyond that I don't know.


Is anybody else reading this as an admission that HypnoPsi realizes his/her arguments aren't holding up to scrutiny on this forum?


All that seems to have happened in this thread is that no matter however many different ways I try to explain my ideas you all seem to read something else, no doubt borne of your preconceptions about what "God" means.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

OK, with that I agree (with the proviso that I do not agree that whatever we are discussing is "outside spacetime", since that does not necessarily follow, the possibility of self-sustention, but not self-creation, always being a logical possibility). Either guess is speculation and neither is more parsimonious since the "sustainer of the universe" is certainly not proved by knowledge that thought exists while "something that causes motion" is. So we are left with deciding what we think the origin of motion and time *is* (both of which we also know by the cogito -- that there is motion and time, not what their origin is).

I see no way out of the dilemma, no more parsimonious solution. Choose God, choose "energy", they are both equally parsimonious solutions.


Okay, first, I would like to point that I'm very glad that you certainly seem to understand what I've been saying but, perhaps obviously, I cannot agree with your second conclusion.

Whatever you are defining "energy" as (and ultimately "uncuttable" thing or as pure information) I still say that a conscious thinker is a much more parsimonious solution to the question of its existence than it being self-sustaining; again, the point being that a conscious-thinker of the Universe is predicated on consciousness while any type of self-sustaining substance or information (which I see as much less likely) simply isn't predicated on anything.


So, we are back to square one with it all being a wash and the decision resting on people's inclinations. The point is to decide and to know that it is a decision, so that we can stop all this bickering about "I know the ultimate truth and you guys are wrong."


Yes, this is very true. Peoples inclinations seem to be driving a lot of the debate here due to the fact that we just don't have enough information about consciousness and the Universe (in terms of how it operates) to meaningfully answer the question of why it exists.

My offering is only that my solution is the most parsimonious theory given the current state of affairs.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

The arguments from the materialists here have been less than persuasive. They attack (1) by basically kicking a rock and saying, "Did you see that? That's a material thing! I felt it, so it must be a physical object!"


Unquestionably the biggest red herring of them all and I was truly surprised how long they held onto this given that there is very clearly nothing in either phenomenalism or idealism that says observables are less "real" somehow.


(3) and (4) have led to absurd claims of doubting your own consciousness and the existence of conscious toasters (the extra-fancy model actually possessing self-awareness).


The fascinating thing about all of these strange claims is how belief and reality have became blurred. Some have been arguing from a position that computational (sic physical) theories of consciousness seem almost like dogma to them.

~
HypnoPsi

[paximperium]

I wish you would try to understand this: my argument that a conscious-thinker of the Universe is the most parsimonious theory is only what it is, namely that the "thinker" argument is more parsimonious than the self-sustaining "matter" arguement.

I have no idea what qualities "God" has - none, zip. The Buddhists don't even like to personify this "thing" in the first place and the gnostics had their whole Demi-urge idea.

My view is that we don't have enough information to meaningfully speculate beyond "conscious-thinker". "God" may be the Christian trinitarian God or the something else for all I know.

The point I'm making is that I don't know if this "conscious-thinker" is self-sustaining or not.
Translation: My claim that "I don't know but god is involved and I don't know a thing about god" is more parsimonious than you materialists claim of "I don't know". :rolleyes:

Maybe if you keep repeating this line or reasoning it will make sense to a child.


I don't see how - and again, I'm not saying there is something more fundamental either. I'm saying I don't know.
So you claim you don't know a thing about this god and you don't know how this god sustains itself but it somehow sustains the cosmos...because you say so? Yeah.


No, my only argument has been that a conscious thinker of the Universe is more parsimonious than any idea about some self-sustaining matter/information stuff. Beyond that I don't know.
Keep claiming that and people will continue to think of that argument as completely stupid and dishonest garbage.


All that seems to have happened in this thread is that no matter however many different ways I try to explain my ideas you all seem to read something else, no doubt borne of your preconceptions about what "God" means.
No, you argument is very simple. You make a claim based on your definition of parsimony that no one else uses based on your ignorance and special pleading and you ignore any and all criticisms of your illogical thought process.

Very simple, very silly and not even that original.

[paximperium]

Okay, first, I would like to point that I'm very glad that you certainly seem to understand what I've been saying but, perhaps obviously, I cannot agree with your second conclusion.

Whatever you are defining "energy" as (and ultimately "uncuttable" thing or as pure information) I still say that a conscious thinker is a much more parsimonious solution to the question of its existence than it being self-sustaining; again, the point being that a conscious-thinker of the Universe is predicated on consciousness while any type of self-sustaining substance or information (which I see as much less likely) simply isn't predicated on anything.
False nonsense again
Energy=Available capacity of a system to perform work
Seems pretty parsimonious enough explanation for self sustaining. Energy sustains matter. Where this energy comes from? Don't know but no one else here seems to make bold unfounded claims except for theists.

And you can keep claiming that consciousness is magically self-sustaining without a brain without a hint of evidence and it won't make your reasoning any less nonsensical and stupid.

You can keep claiming an unknown process that is invariably linked to materialistic processes called consciousness somehow magically takes a leap of logic off a cliff and makes your god claim valid as somehow more parsimonious and we can keep calling such special pleading and non-sequiters silly.


Yes, this is very true. Peoples inclinations seem to be driving a lot of the debate here due to the fact that we just don't have enough information about consciousness and the Universe (in terms of how it operates) to meaningfully answer the question of why it exists.So why are making an unfounded claim based on absolutely nothing but your ignorance?

My offering is only that my solution is the most parsimonious theory given the current state of affairs.No. It is nonsense. Your continued claim of "Don't know but goddidit" is in no way more parsimonious than "Don't know." It is just dishonesty wrapped in nonsense.

[AkuManiMani]

Hey, I'm back. Been a bit busy over the last week or so but I'll try to continue where I left off in the discussion :-X

Another instance: I sometimes experience lucid dreams - that is, I am aware that I am dreaming, and have some control over the course of the dream. I can even voluntarily wake myself from this state. And yet, I'm in REM sleep.

Consicousness is self awareness. The rest is interesting, but it's not consciousness.

Okay, so it seems we're using two different definitions of 'consciousness'. Now that we've got that established, atleast, what I was driving at is that all the 'interesting' stuff I was mentioning is the part of the conscious experience that we don't fully understand yet. Its the hard part of the 'hard problem'. :covereyes

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I wish you would try to understand this: my argument that a conscious-thinker of the Universe is the most parsimonious theory is only what it is, namely that the "thinker" argument is more parsimonious than the self-sustaining "matter" arguement.
The damn thinker has to be self-sustaining, too! It's a self-sustaining thinker vs. self-sustaining matter. Let me factor it for you:

(self-sustaining) (thinker vs. matter)



~~ Paul

[Ichneumonwasp]

Okay, first, I would like to point that I'm very glad that you certainly seem to understand what I've been saying but, perhaps obviously, I cannot agree with your second conclusion.

Whatever you are defining "energy" as (and ultimately "uncuttable" thing or as pure information) I still say that a conscious thinker is a much more parsimonious solution to the question of its existence than it being self-sustaining; again, the point being that a conscious-thinker of the Universe is predicated on consciousness while any type of self-sustaining substance or information (which I see as much less likely) simply isn't predicated on anything.

Why do you know that thought exists in the first place? Because of the cogito. But that argument tells us more than you think. Thinking must take place in time or it wouldn't be possible and thinking requires some form of energy. So both time and energy are more fundamental than thought. Energy is most definitely predicated on the same argument that you are using. There is no way of telling how that energy is manifest -- consciousness, something more diffuse -- but it must be there by the cogito. There is no way to decide what that "stuff" is, though, so ultimately you must decide for yourself. In other words, your argument is not the most parsimonious. It is one of two independent arguments that are equally parsimonious.


Yes, this is very true. Peoples inclinations seem to be driving a lot of the debate here due to the fact that we just don't have enough information about consciousness and the Universe (in terms of how it operates) to meaningfully answer the question of why it exists.

My offering is only that my solution is the most parsimonious theory given the current state of affairs.

~
HypnoPsi


It's more fundamental than that. We can't know about the fundamental constituent of the universe. We can describe some of its attributes, but that is all. Any argument that supposes to know it is simply wrong.

Your solution is not the most parsimonious.

[PixyMisa]

I wish you would try to understand this: my argument that a conscious-thinker of the Universe is the most parsimonious theory is only what it is, namely that the "thinker" argument is more parsimonious than the self-sustaining "matter" arguement.
You don't have an argument. You have an assertion. Which happens to be false.

I have no idea what qualities "God" has - none, zip.
Then why do you keep claiming that you do?

My view is that we don't have enough information to meaningfully speculate beyond "conscious-thinker". "God" may be the Christian trinitarian God or the something else for all I know.
Like that, for example?

[HypnoPsi]

The damn thinker has to be self-sustaining, too! It's a self-sustaining thinker vs. self-sustaining matter. Let me factor it for you:

(self-sustaining) (thinker vs. matter)


The "damn thinker" only has to be self-sustaining to someone who adheres to judeo-christian-islamic traditions or similar.

For all I know the gnostics with their demi-urge could be right or the Buddhist taboo against ever personifying the source of reality could be the truth.

I don't know - or claim to know who is right or wrong.

All I've been trying to do here is strip things down to the bare essentials in regards to answering the question of why the Universe exists as best as we can (i.e. parsimoniously) given the very limited circumstances we find ourselves in.

My conclusion that a distinct conscious thinker is more parsimonious than any self-sustaining substance (matter) or self-sustaining information (physicalism) is just what it is - no more and no less.

As I see it, further speculation about the nature and/or properties of said thinker are just that - speculation; or, more precisely, belief.

That said, let me be clear that I, on a personal level, will not hesitate to state that my personal belief is that the thinker is self-sustaining and self-aware (in otherwords, "God"). The difference I'm pointing out to you is that I accept there is a difference between logically formed theory and my personal beliefs.

Why can you not accept that?

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Translation: My claim that "I don't know but god is involved and I don't know a thing about god" is more parsimonious than you materialists claim of "I don't know". :rolleyes:


Agnositicism is the claim that we don't know. Materialism has a completely different history (and common currency) than you consistenly seek to use the word for.

So you claim you don't know a thing about this god and you don't know how this god sustains itself but it somehow sustains the cosmos...because you say so? Yeah.


No. I am saying, that all things considered, the most parsimonious solution to the question of existence is a conscious thinker of reality rather than some self-sustaining substance (materialism) or self-sustaining information (physicalism) since only the former and neither of the latter is predicated on anything known.

I don't even know if this "God" is sustaining itself or if it's some kind of demi-urge like the agnostics used to (still to?) claim. For all I know it could be Gods all the way down. I don't personally believe that reality is sustained by a series of ever more powerful Gods or that the cause of our universe is the demi-urge but I do not hesitate to say that I don't know one way or the other.

Atheistic materialism (or whatever you choose to call it) isn't like that. That is the affirmative belief that the physical laws of the Universe are all there is (or that there is some ultimate substance or other). Ergo, that is the affirmative belief that it is self-sustaining.

~
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

Energy=Available capacity of a system to perform work


Which is perfectly fine for a purely physical system...

Seems pretty parsimonious enough explanation for self sustaining. Energy sustains matter. Where this energy comes from? Don't know but no one else here seems to make bold unfounded claims except for theists.


I don't think you speak for everyone here at all.

What I have to ask though is why you don't make any bold assumption beyond "don't know"? Are you afraid of criticism?

Science is found in thesis defence not in sitting on the fence. Skepticism is the easy half of science. I could sit here all day pointing out the flaws in believing in some self-sustaining substance or other and/or conscious toaster ovens.

The reason we insist in science upon thesis defence is to separate those who can produce and defend theories from those who can't - because it is only by advancing ideas that we move forward.

So, I ask again, are you afraid of criticism or are you merely incapable of formulating and/or defending a theory?

And you can keep claiming that consciousness is magically self-sustaining without a brain without a hint of evidence and it won't make your reasoning any less nonsensical and stupid.


Aside from the fact that I have never claimed consciousness is magically self-sustaining, comments like these only show that my views are getting to you and you know it.


Peoples inclinations seem to be driving a lot of the debate here due to the fact that we just don't have enough information about consciousness and the Universe (in terms of how it operates) to meaningfully answer the question of why it exists.So why are making an unfounded claim based on absolutely nothing but your ignorance?


Sheesh... truly unbelievable. Constructing a parsimonious theory is precisely about filling in what we are "ignorant" about with what currently seems like the most logical conclusion.

The practice has a firm foundation and necessary purpose in science.

The reason we insist upon thesis defence is so that we can move forward. Nobody can move forward if everybody just insists upon using language in such a way that they are only skeptical of the other guys theory (or completely agnostic about the matter at hand).

For example, I might disagree with Pixy for any number of reasons. But I cannot and will not fault him on his willingness to advance and defend his theory that toaster ovens are self-aware no matter how ludicrous a proposal I find it to be.

Your whole "I don't know" fails as science as you have no "but I consider the best theory to be.... for the following reasons" on the end of it.

Your continued claim of "Don't know but goddidit" is in no way more parsimonious than "Don't know." It is just dishonesty wrapped in nonsense.


I have never once claimed that "Goddidit" is more parsimonious than "Don't know". Nor would I for the very obvious and simple reason that "Don't know" isn't a theory - parsimonious or otherwise.

~
HypnoPsi

[paximperium]

Agnositicism is the claim that we don't know. Materialism has a completely different history (and common currency) than you consistenly seek to use the word for.
Maybe now you'll get it and stop projecting your nonsense onto materialism. Most Materialists are also agnostics. Most materialists believe that "matter" is all there is but what "matter" really may never be ultimately be known.


No. I am saying, that all things considered, the most parsimonious solution to the question of existence is a conscious thinker of reality rather than some self-sustaining substance (materialism) or self-sustaining information (physicalism) since only the former and neither of the latter is predicated on anything known.
Nope, complete and utter garbage as usual as mentioned by everyone. This is the reason people laugh at your nonsense, you ARE ASSERTING this nonsense without one hint of evidence. "Just because Hypnopsi says so" is not a good reason.

It is NOT more parsimonious to overlay "magic" onto stuff. Stuff exists, you then assert that this stuff somehow MUST(just according to you) be sustained or it will somehow dissipate without a mind to sustain it. So you have created a problem by "hand-waving" idealism into the argument WITH ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BACK UP THIS ASSERTION. It is nonsense and continues to be nonsense.

As asked many many many times and which you seem unable to answer, how do you know you are conscious? How do you know your consciousness is yours and not someone elses?

I don't even know if this "God" is sustaining itself or if it's some kind of demi-urge like the agnostics used to (still to?) claim. For all I know it could be Gods all the way down. I don't personally believe that reality is sustained by a series of ever more powerful Gods or that the cause of our universe is the demi-urge but I do not hesitate to say that I don't know one way or the other.
So why do you keep asserting this nonsense? All I can smell is dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Claiming "I don't know the characteristics of god" and then turning around and claiming "God sustains the cosmos because I say so" smells kinda odd.


Atheistic materialism (or whatever you choose to call it) isn't like that. That is the affirmative belief that the physical laws of the Universe are all there is (or that there is some ultimate substance or other). Ergo, that is the affirmative belief that it is self-sustaining.
Yes...so?

For some reason you believe that agnosticism and a positive claim is somehow exclusive.

You see, materialism(or monism or even more accurate a-dualism as it is more accurate description) believes that there is only one substance in this world because we reject the idea of magic/god/overmind being laid on top of what is known. We don't know if we will ever know what this ultimate "material" is but we keep searching.


Which is perfectly fine for a purely physical system...
EXACTLY. Makes great parsimonious sense huh?

I don't think you speak for everyone here at all.
Now, that's very obvious. You've created a meandering self-contradictory pseudo-philosophy that no one else believes in order to reject reality. Bravo.

What I have to ask though is why you don't make any bold assumption beyond "don't know"? Are you afraid of criticism?
Because I don't know? Because unlike certain people who enjoy making stuff up, I don't make assertions I can't back up. I'm not well versed enough in physics to come up with my own hypothesis that won't contradict all that is already known about matter. I'm honest like that.

Science is found in thesis defence not in sitting on the fence. Skepticism is the easy half of science. I could sit here all day pointing out the flaws in believing in some self-sustaining substance or other and/or conscious toaster ovens.
And? That was a criticism how?
Are you going to claim to be some pioneer now based purely on your useless and baseless assertions? Yeah, what an ego.

I'll keep to my medical research and defend my research in that area.

The reason we insist in science upon thesis defence is to separate those who can produce and defend theories from those who can't - because it is only by advancing ideas that we move forward.
Yeah, and continuong to harp of useless, unfalsiable magic thinking moves us backwards. Why don't you try bringing back to "Aether" Hypotheisis of "Demon possession causes seizures" hypothesis?

So, I ask again, are you afraid of criticism or are you merely incapable of formulating and/or defending a theory?
So, you asserting that I don't get to criticize crap if I can't formulate my own crap? Sorry, I care about quality not quantity.

So that's all you have left? The wonderful Tu Quoque Fallacy.


Aside from the fact that I have never claimed consciousness is magically self-sustaining, comments like these only show that my views are getting to you and you know it.
What an ego. So all you have left is an attempt to "hand-wave" away arguments to prevent your cognitive dissonance.

Oh yeah, your god/overmind argument that this disembodied conciousness must somehow magically sustains reality but somehow has some unknown mechanism to explain how it sustains itself basically is your entire argument. A big pile of begging the question and special pleading.


Sheesh... truly unbelievable. Constructing a parsimonious theory is precisely about filling in what we are "ignorant" about with what currently seems like the most logical conclusion.
Yes indeed, so why is your claim neither based on what is known or logic. So why do you keep claiming this pile of garbage?

The practice has a firm foundation and necessary purpose in science.
Hallelujah, bless Science.

The reason we insist upon thesis defence is so that we can move forward. Nobody can move forward if everybody just insists upon using language in such a way that they are only skeptical of the other guys theory (or completely agnostic about the matter at hand).
Okay. Evidence? Any at all?
You don't get to defend your thesis based on semantic juggling alone.
So how do you falsifly your nonsense anyway?

For example, I might disagree with Pixy for any number of reasons. But I cannot and will not fault him on his willingness to advance and defend his theory that toaster ovens are self-aware no matter how ludicrous a proposal I find it to be.
That's because YOU refuse to define Conciousness or Self-Awareness despite being asked many many times.


Your whole "I don't know" fails as science as you have no "but I consider the best theory to be.... for the following reasons" on the end of it.
Nope, don't have to. I don't have to put forth a claim to counter yours.
I don't have to put forth any other explanation to be able to reject your claim that you saw bigfoot.

BTW: Your nonsense continues to be nonsense. Stop attempting to weasel in your magic claim as some sort of scientific claim. It isn't in the same league because it is Not-parsimonious, not verifiable and not falsifiable. It is fantasy.

I have never once claimed that "Goddidit" is more parsimonious than "Don't know".
Suuuure, you didn't. Anyone can easily read your posts to see otherwise.

Nor would I for the very obvious and simple reason that "Don't know" isn't a theory - parsimonious or otherwise.
No, it is not a hypothesis but is intellectual honesty.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The "damn thinker" only has to be self-sustaining to someone who adheres to judeo-christian-islamic traditions or similar.
The external world is clearly self-sustaining. It sustains itself. It lasts beyond your conscious awareness of it. It sits there and exists.

(self-sustaining) (thinker vs. matter)


~~ Paul

[Silentknight]

Agnositicism is the claim that we don't know. Materialism has a completely different history (and common currency) than you consistenly seek to use the word for.
Oh, I get it now. Your repeated claims of low-level psi ability are based on your belief that you can read other people's minds, aren't they? Otherwise, how could you tell them what they believe with such profound accuracy? Quick, guess how many fingers I'm holding up! Guess which finger I'm holding up. :D

No. I am saying, that all things considered, the most parsimonious solution to the question of existence is a conscious thinker of reality rather than some self-sustaining substance (materialism) or self-sustaining information (physicalism) since only the former and neither of the latter is predicated on anything known.
So your unsupported claim wins in a black vs. white contest against a strawman. Big surprise you'd actually repeat that. :rolleyes:

I don't even know if this "God" is sustaining itself or if it's some kind of demi-urge like the agnostics used to (still to?) claim. For all I know it could be Gods all the way down. I don't personally believe that reality is sustained by a series of ever more powerful Gods or that the cause of our universe is the demi-urge but I do not hesitate to say that I don't know one way or the other.
Then why do you impose such a ridiculous requirement on materialism while letting your own God off the hook?

Atheistic materialism (or whatever you choose to call it) isn't like that. That is the affirmative belief that the physical laws of the Universe are all there is (or that there is some ultimate substance or other). Ergo, that is the affirmative belief that it is self-sustaining.
Didn't I already explain to you that it's perfectly sensible to accept the conclusions that the evidence currently points to, even if it turns out to be incomplete or proven wrong at a later time? You seem to be assuming that agreement with the current scientific model is tantamount to chiseling one's beliefs in stone. To that I say, quit projecting. You're talking to people who would be willing to change their minds if shown new evidence.

Which is perfectly fine for a purely physical system...
I hope you know that ellipses are used to indicate an omission or truncation, rather than a spoken delay at the end of a complete thought the way you seem to be using it.

Science is found in thesis defence not in sitting on the fence. Skepticism is the easy half of science. I could sit here all day pointing out the flaws in believing in some self-sustaining substance or other and/or conscious toaster ovens.

The reason we insist in science upon thesis defence is to separate those who can produce and defend theories from those who can't - because it is only by advancing ideas that we move forward.
Your God-mind consciousness that is exempt from the rules, as well as your idea that consciousness is independent of physiology, are non-falsible assertions. They also run headlong into the wall of evidence that causality runs from physiology to consciousness, not the other way around.

Sheesh... truly unbelievable. Constructing a parsimonious theory is precisely about filling in what we are "ignorant" about with what currently seems like the most logical conclusion.

The practice has a firm foundation and necessary purpose in science.

The reason we insist upon thesis defence is so that we can move forward. Nobody can move forward if everybody just insists upon using language in such a way that they are only skeptical of the other guys theory (or completely agnostic about the matter at hand).
You don't have a theory. At most, you have an untestable hypothesis. You have no way of supporting it other than the argument from incredulity, the tu quoque fallacy, and your argument from persecution. The God-mind consciousness claim doesn't do anything to "move science forward" any more than intelligent design does, so the parade you're throwing is rather premature.


By the way, the number I was thinking of, between 1 and 3, was 2.71828.

[rocketdodger]

I wish you would try to understand this: my argument that a conscious-thinker of the Universe is the most parsimonious theory is only what it is, namely that the "thinker" argument is more parsimonious than the self-sustaining "matter" arguement.


I fully understand your argument. All the smart people here do.

The problem with your argument is that it only works if you constrain the context of reality to whatever is between this conscious thinker and our own consciousness.

Outside of those bounds, your theory looses steam rapidly. And everyone is pointing out to you why it looses steam.

You can't claim magic is more parsimonious without also analyzing the magic.

I mean, seriously. Your argument is that what we experience is best explained by a universal consciousness. O.K.... what is a universal consciousness? You just give up at this point. How can you expect that to fly in a forum with intelligent people?

You are saying your theory makes more sense... except for the universal consciousness, because you have no idea what that might be.... but still, it makes more sense. We say our theory makes less sense in a narrow context but makes more sense in the broader one. Your theory doesn't even have a broader context. And that is why it utterly fails.

You think the universe rests on the back of a giant turtle. But what does the turtle rest on?

[tsig]

I fully understand your argument. All the smart people here do.

The problem with your argument is that it only works if you constrain the context of reality to whatever is between this conscious thinker and our own consciousness.

Outside of those bounds, your theory looses steam rapidly. And everyone is pointing out to you why it looses steam.

You can't claim magic is more parsimonious without also analyzing the magic.

I mean, seriously. Your argument is that what we experience is best explained by a universal consciousness. O.K.... what is a universal consciousness? You just give up at this point. How can you expect that to fly in a forum with intelligent people?

You are saying your theory makes more sense... except for the universal consciousness, because you have no idea what that might be.... but still, it makes more sense. We say our theory makes less sense in a narrow context but makes more sense in the broader one. Your theory doesn't even have a broader context. And that is why it utterly fails.

You think the universe rests on the back of a giant turtle. But what does the turtle rest on?

It is sustained by his faith.

[Ichneumonwasp]

By the way, the number I was thinking of, between 1 and 3, was 2.71828.


Damn, I knew it. Or I was close, really close. I thought it might be 42.

[HypnoPsi]

I mean, seriously. Your argument is that what we experience is best explained by a universal consciousness. O.K.... what is a universal consciousness? You just give up at this point. How can you expect that to fly in a forum with intelligent people?


This is not an accurate assessment of my views at all. I am saying - for very good reason - that valid theory stops, in terms of parsimony, at the point of the "universal consciousness" theory. Questions and further investigation most definitely do not stop at this point.

I have never claimed this theory answers all the questions we have. I have only ever claimed that a conscious thinker of the Universe is much more parsimonious than either a self-sustaining substance (materialism) or self-sustaining information (physicalism) due to the fact that the former is predicated on something known unlike the latter theories.

Without evidence to base ideas "God as a person" or "God as self-sustaining" on, for example, I don't see how they can legitimately be part of the theory.

Against the argument that my theory leads to X, Y and/or Z things for which we have no evidence I can only respond by saying that so to materialism and/or physicalism.

Nobody has the answer - and why people are getting so incredibly uptight about a theory presented as pure theory and accepted as such by the proponent as well as being declared as not able to answer all the questions we have is trully stunning.

I am being called for everything in this thread by more than a few people for no reason other than having a theory that they disagree with.

Given such, I am now beginning to lessening my participation in this thread and becoming more active (time permitting) on another forum that I believe a few of you are familiar with http://forum.mind-energy.net/ trusing that the moderators there will help to keep things in check.

~
HypnoPsi

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I have never claimed this theory answers all the questions we have. I have only ever claimed that a conscious thinker of the Universe is much more parsimonious than either a self-sustaining substance (materialism) or self-sustaining information (physicalism) due to the fact that the former is predicated on something known unlike the latter theories.
But parsimonious is not the right word.


I am being called for everything in this thread by more than a few people for no reason other than having a theory that they disagree with.
You don't have a theory. You have an undeveloped idea.


Given such, I am now beginning to lessening my participation in this thread and becoming more active (time permitting) on another forum that I believe a few of you are familiar with http://forum.mind-energy.net/ trusing that the moderators there will help to keep things in check.
Say hello to the dogs who know when their owners are coming home!

~~ Paul

[paximperium]

This is not an accurate assessment of my views at all. I am saying - for very good reason - that valid theory stops, in terms of parsimony, at the point of the "universal consciousness" theory. Questions and further investigation most definitely do not stop at this point.
No, it is a completely accurate assessment of your nonsense. You've answered a mystery by claiming another mystery and answering it with a mystery. You have no idea what parsimony is.

I have never claimed this theory answers all the questions we have. Completely 100% true. It doesn't answer any questions we have about reality at all except for some nonsensical question that you created yourself.


I have only ever claimed that a conscious thinker of the Universe is much more parsimonious than either a self-sustaining substance (materialism) or self-sustaining information (physicalism) due to the fact that the former is predicated on something known unlike the latter theories. Which continues to complete and utter nonsense based on nothing but your assertion and ignorance.


Against the argument that my theory leads to X, Y and/or Z things for which we have no evidence I can only respond by saying that so to materialism and/or physicalism.
Translation: Materialism doesn't answer question X, Y and Z therefore I get to makeup some nonsensical pile of crap with no evidence that also doesn't answer X, Y and Z.

This is called the Tu Quoque Fallacy and it is a joke.

Nobody has the answer - and why people are getting so incredibly uptight about a theory presented as pure theory and accepted as such by the proponent as well as being declared as not able to answer all the questions we have is trully stunning.
So claiming nonsense because people doesn't have the ultimate answer somehow makes the nonsense automatically exempt from criticism?

So some moron who claims that cancer is caused by little demons or that Syndrome X is caused by psychic powers must be respected because it is "pure theory"?

I am being called for everything in this thread by more than a few people for no reason other than having a theory that they disagree with.
No, you've been called everything you deserve. You are dishonest, you refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with you and you are as closed minded and ignorant as many true believers.

Given such, I am now beginning to lessening my participation in this thread and becoming more active (time permitting) on another forum that I believe a few of you are familiar with http://forum.mind-energy.net/ trusing that the moderators there will help to keep things in check.
Hey, if all you ever wanted was to have a bunch of other true believers to agree with you then why ever bother talking to anyone else? It must make you feel good to have a bunch of other nobodies pat you in the back.

Keep to your little fringe. The scientists and science will continue to march forward even as you huddle in your caves and keep thinking magic and monsters are the cause for lightning.

[HypnoPsi]

But parsimonious is not the right word.


Yes it is. Consciousness is not an unknown thing. Prima materia/hyle or information that can sustain itself (physicalism) are unknown things.

Theists posit God-consciousness based upon self-consciousness. Atheism has nothing to predicate a self-sustaining Universe on.

Now my question is - so what? Nothing is being proven here and we all, surely, know that parsimony is only a method of producing a theory rather than a conclusion and that it can be wrong if the data you start with is insufficient.

So why all the fuss?

You don't have a theory. You have an undeveloped idea.


Of course it's a theory - and a better one than materialism or physicalism.

It's a tentative answer as to how (but not why) the universe exists and is, in principle, testable for falsifiability should someone ever show that prima materia/hyle exists (and is self-sustaining; i.e. uncreated) or that information can sustain itself.

~
HypnoPsi

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes it is. Consciousness is not an unknown thing. Prima materia/hyle or information that can sustain itself (physicalism) are unknown things.

parsimony: economy of explanation in conformity with Occam's razor

You have no explanation. Parsimony is irrelevant.


~~ Paul

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes it is. Consciousness is not an unknown thing. Prima materia/hyle or information that can sustain itself (physicalism) are unknown things.

You keep saying this. It was wrong the first time you said it. It's wrong now. We've shown you specifically why it is wrong. I will repeat, by the cogito we know that thought exists. For thought to exist as it is demonstrated in that argument both time and energy must exist or the entire prospect of the cogito would be impossible. Time and energy are, therefore, prior to thought, they are more fundamental than thought. You can argue that energy is tied into thought as some form of consciousness, but you can't demonstrate this. No one can. So that idea is a construction on your part.

It is actually more parsimonious to suggest that energy -- proved by the very argument you are using to demonstrate what you think is fundamental and the very argument that demonstrates that what you think is fundamental is, in fact, not the fundamental aspect of reality -- to say that energy is the fundamental constituent of the universe.

You know that stuff that can neither be created nor destroyed.

Whether it is true that energy is the fundamental constituent is a whole other matter.

So why all the fuss?


You tell me. You're the one persisting when logical argument shows you wrong.

[rocketdodger]

Theists posit God-consciousness based upon self-consciousness. Atheism has nothing to predicate a self-sustaining Universe on.

*sigh*

WHAT SUSTAINS THE GOD-CONSCIOUSNESS?

You don't know? Your "theory" is more "parsimonious" and you don't know?

wtf

[Dancing David]

Wow, the same assertion again:

the evidence of consciousness is real, the evidence of matter is not.

But the evidentiary basis is the exact same.

[HypnoPsi]

You keep saying this. It was wrong the first time you said it. It's wrong now. We've shown you specifically why it is wrong. I will repeat, by the cogito we know that thought exists. For thought to exist as it is demonstrated in that argument both time and energy must exist or the entire prospect of the cogito would be impossible.


I've never said that time and energy don't exist - their fundamental nature is another question.

That said, if you want to continue discussing this issue with me just hop on over to the moderated forum at http://forum.mind-energy.net/

~
HypnoPsi

[Ichneumonwasp]

I've never said that time and energy don't exist - their fundamental nature is another question.

That said, if you want to continue discussing this issue with me just hop on over to the moderated forum at http://forum.mind-energy.net/

~
HypnoPsi


Thank you for the invitation. This place takes up so much of my time, that it is unlikely, but it is very nice of you to invite me.

I say that time and energy are more fundamental than thought because thought cannot occur without them, but they can theoretically occur without thought. We wouldn't know that they occur without thought, but that's an epistemic issue.

I still say we are left with two possibilities and no way to distinguish between the two. It is either the case that there is a self-sustaining thinker that has as basic consituents to its being time and energy (God), or it is the case that we have time and energy as fundamental with no thinker.

In other words, when it comes to the fundamental constituent of the universe, we cannot understand ultimate reality, but it is either a person or it isn't. The universe is either teleological or it isn't. Without a way to tell, like Neo, we must choose.

It's all a matter of how you want to approach the world. Neither is more correct than the other from where we sit, but one is right and one is wrong. Neither is more parsimonious.

[rocketdodger]

That said, if you want to continue discussing this issue with me just hop on over to the moderated forum at http://forum.mind-energy.net/

For what possible reason would you prefer to continue this discussion on that forum?

This forum is also moderated.

Does it somehow change the quality of your arguments? Because if so then I am game.

But if so, I have to ask, why would you be able to argue better there than here?

I think it really has to do with being surrounded by people who share the same fallacies as you.

[articulett]

It's all a matter of how you want to approach the world. Neither is more correct than the other from where we sit, but one is right and one is wrong. Neither is more parsimonious.

I disagree... I think the one that doesn't involve an invisible undetectable immeasurable form of consciousness is the most parsimonious.

Injecting such is superfluous. It explains nothing, and tends to give the believer a backwards perception regarding how consciousness evolved. It's a dead end conclusion that keeps one from finding out more.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I disagree... I think the one that doesn't involve an invisible undetectable immeasurable form of consciousness is the most parsimonious.

Injecting such is superfluous. It explains nothing, and tends to give the believer a backwards perception regarding how consciousness evolved. It's a dead end conclusion that keeps one from finding out more.


From looking at fundamental reality, how can you distinguish between "energy", which is a garbage term that we simply lay on something that we can't really define and "God", which is a garbage term that we lay on something that we really can't really define?

The problem I glossed over, to be nice, is that views that see God as a person limit the definition of God, so they are derivative and do not describe ultimate reality.

We can't describe ultimate reality, so it is not superflous to define it as God. It is simply a definition.

Basically you are telling me that you choose "energy", and that's fine with me.

[articulett]

But nobody is talking about "just energy" when they are talking about god... they imbue it with "purpose"-- thought... human characteristics.

You may not... you're a pantheist, right? But how can consciousness without matter make more sense than sound without matter? Sound is "just energy" too-- but without matter, there can be no sound. Running is "energy", but without matter, nothing can "run".

[Ichneumonwasp]

But nobody is talking about "just energy" when they are talking about god... they imbue it with "purpose"-- thought... human characteristics.

You may not... you're a pantheist, right? But how can consciousness without matter make more sense than sound without matter? Sound is "just energy" too-- but without matter, there can be no sound. Running is "energy", but without matter, nothing can "run".


Consciousness without matter would be a situation in which everything we see around us -- what we call matter -- is actually thought from a universal mind. It would bear no relation to the way that "we" think, except that it would be the ultimate cause.

One of the problems that idealists run into is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to cast ultimate reality as a univesal mind and they want humans to be independent of that mind somehow. But if there is one substance, this is not possible. So, if there is a single universal consciousness, it's thoughts are matter. And that matter arranges in certain ways to produce "us", so our thinking is simply the universal consciousness thinking about itself through some inferior means ("us"). For it to plan that is really strange and makes no sense.

Idealists who want to believe that we have an obligation to meditate about this greater consciousness haven't thought it through. If we have such an obligation, it can only occur if there are two types of substance -- the universal consciousness and us. If they want to be consistent and stick to one substance, then "we" are just that consciousness doing what it does.

Imbuing the ultimate substance with human characteristics is a mistake. It is a way of relating to "all that is", but it is necessarily a limitation on "God".

[articulett]

Agreed. But I wouldn't call that "god"... though I understand why some would. In a way, it's like saying "god is all the cool stuff about nature that I'm too limited to understand"...

I just call that, "all the cool stuff about nature that I'm too limited to understand... yet".

[Ichneumonwasp]

Agreed. But I wouldn't call that "god"... though I understand why some would. In a way, it's like saying "god is all the cool stuff about nature that I'm too limited to understand"...

I just call that, "all the cool stuff about nature that I'm too limited to understand... yet".

That's fine. I don't really think it matters what words we use. The important thing is the wonder of nature and our relationship to it. 'God' is just short-hand for all that.

The further insight is that this is just nature relating to itself.

But awe and wonder feels good, so why not?

[articulett]

Well, I used to think that way... and I called it "god"... but I think that was just a way to ease my mind into the fact that there really couldn't be consciousness without a brain. It allowed me to "fit in" and think fuzzily without having to really say what I thought or face what I was hiding from myself.

It does make relating to believers easier, and takes away the immediate tendency they have to mishear what you are saying... but that's because they can twist what you are saying into what they want to believe.

IRL, I might do that. But when people say they "believe in god", they usually mean consciousness without a brain--an invisible form of consciousness-- undetectable yet they've "detected" it. I think that's arrogant, and I won't pay heed to the notion that it's not. I understand why people "believe in" that, but I do not find it rational no matter how many semantic games are played.

Yes, there is much we don't know... I am just not willing to call "that" god. I mean, I'd do it if faced with recrimination for expressing my atheism... but I don't like living in a world where I'm judged on the invisible entities I don't believe in and where people "need" to hear me saying things I'm not saying in order to keep this idea that "belief in god" is a good thing.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, I used to think that way... and I called it "god"... but I think that was just a way to ease my mind into the fact that there really couldn't be consciousness without a brain. It allowed me to "fit in" and think fuzzily without having to really say what I thought or face what I was hiding from myself.

It does make relating to believers easier, and takes away the immediate tendency they have to mishear what you are saying... but that's because they can twist what you are saying into what they want to believe.

IRL, I might do that. But when people say they "believe in god", they usually mean consciousness without a brain--an invisible form of consciousness-- undetectable yet they've "detected" it. I think that's arrogant, and I won't pay heed to the notion that it's not. I understand why people "believe in" that, but I do not find it rational no matter how many semantic games are played.

Yes, there is much we don't know... I am just not willing to call "that" god. I mean, I'd do it if faced with recrimination for expressing my atheism... but I don't like living in a world where I'm judged on the invisible entities I don't believe in and where people "need" to hear me saying things I'm not saying in order to keep this idea that "belief in god" is a good thing.


That's fine. I've let go all the stuff attached to the word and don't use it to "get by". I work around more fundamentalist types than you -- Adventists everywhere -- and they all view me as an atheist because I certainly do not believe in a personal God. I generally don't discuss this stuff with that many people in real life anyway. You can call me an atheist, you can call me a pantheist, whatever, it amounts to the same thing. One thing I am not is a theist.

I also do not, from my personal history, hold onto old labels. I became a complete non-believer around age 14. My position now is something that I slipped back to once I realized that when we think down to a fundamental level there is a choice waiting there and not truth. I don't see any problem taking back the word God. It signifies the central mysteries of existence as well as any other word.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

To clarify, idealism on its own (IMO) seems identical in observation to materialism. Materialism relies on laws predicting how information will be perceived. That's the best that can be done. Beyond that, every speculation is the same as the last.

That's a good appreciation, still, I believe it goes beyond this. For the record and for a start (for those who do not have an idea of what I believe, or those who have been deluded in to thinking I believe something I don't), I'm not an idealist but I'm also far fromb being a materialist. I believe that every camp (including dualists, monists and every other ists) is simply deluded by shiny words, and that we should be proud and happy just by the fact that we can make fantastic descriptions and imaginary depictions about what it is 'really' going on.

Some people, for the sake of economy, like to call what they imagine as the ultimate reality "mater" good for them. With the same authority and certainly the same accuracy I can call it "immanent reality" or "noumena" or "Tao" (this one is elegant to say the least),

or...

I can chose to stop right before having to make an ontological commitment, and this is, exactly, my position regarding the subject.

As for the question that names this thread, I believe everyone is confused, so, the same as materialists defining "physical" with their choice of words, idealists choice of words would be absurd ;)


BTW I'm really late to the discussion and I have no time to read it all, sorry for that.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Hmm,
A couple os thoughts:
If under idealism, things ‘only exist’ in a moment of existence created by perception or thought. It still becomes the equivalent of materialism.

If a photon comes into existence at the point of perception, then it comes into existence with an intact history and behaves as though it has travelled all the way from some distant object. It behaves as though there was a gravitational body that intercepted it if it is part of a ring event.

If on the other hand the photon is in existence for that whole time, because it is perceived by some meta-mind (the godthought proposal), then the rules of materialism still apply. It behaves as though it is made of energy/matter. It may exist only because of the meta-mind bur it still behaves the same.

So again, what difference is there between materialism and idealism?



Yet is behaves as though it has been there the whole time, yes or no?



And what difference does it make? You can not tell one from the other. Quanta of energy, godthought, ideas, butterfly dreams, they all will act the same.

Brilliant. Yes. Exactly.

[Dancing David]

Brilliant. Yes. Exactly.

Hiya BDZ!

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I am not the one making ontological claims. You are. My stance is that we can't make any such claims. We may begin with assumptions. The assumption I accept is that everything is ultimately one substance.

That's correct, we can't make ontological claims, it is silly to even attempt one, yet, people do it all the time. Some claim about the immaterial others (believing their are superior or more intelligent) claim about the material. But in the end both camps are simply making castles in the air.

Sure, we have to have assumptions, stands from where we can begin to ask good questions, but to pretend that we can answer what is beyond the observable its simply pointless... Comfortable, yes, but futile.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I am not the one making ontological claims. You are (Malerin). My stance is that we can't make any such claims. We may begin with assumptions. The assumption I accept is that everything is ultimately one substance.

Oh, and btw, I even reject this about "ultimately one substance", I believe it is futile (no matter how interesting it is) to claim anything.

... I don't know is name, but I call it TAO... Poetry, is a better way.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Maybe now you'll get it and stop projecting your nonsense onto materialism. Most Materialists are also agnostics. Most materialists believe that "matter" is all there is but what "matter" really may never be ultimately be known.

Make up your mind, either is matter or it is not, either they know or they can't know what it is this "final substance". If they cannot know (agnosticism), then WHY call it "matter"??? if they believe they can they are simply naive. I believe you are claiming here to be an agnostic, care to tell us then why do you use the word "matter" to refer to "all there is"?

What is "matter"?

You see, materialism(or monism or even more accurate a-dualism as it is more accurate description) believes that there is only one substance in this world because we reject the idea of magic/god/overmind being laid on top of what is known. We don't know if we will ever know what this ultimate "material" is but we keep searching.

Complete and utter rubbish, you said you knew you couldn't know (check agnosticism meaning) so you know or you don't know if the world is "material"? You know or you don't know if all that there is is "matter"?

[Malerin]

That's correct, we can't make ontological claims, it is silly to even attempt one, yet, people do it all the time.

Would you claim other people exist?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Would you claim other people exist?

Entirely different realm of question. "What's the world made of?" is what you should ask, and my answer would be that it is irrelevant. Answering "matter" does not really add anything useful (except "peace of mind" for some people). I can claim that it is the "TAO"* or "the unknown" or "what lies beyond concepts" and these answers have the same practical value.

* The concept of Tao differs from conventional (western) ontology (http://www.answers.com/topic/ontology), however; it is an active and holistic (http://www.answers.com/topic/holism) conception of the world, rather than a static, atomistic (http://www.answers.com/topic/reductionism) one. In Taoism (http://www.answers.com/topic/taoism), Tao both precedes and encompasses the universe. As with other nondualistic (http://www.answers.com/topic/nondualism) philosophies, all the observable objects in the world - referred to in the Tao Te Ching (http://www.answers.com/topic/tao-te-ching) as 'the named' or 'the ten thousand things' - are considered to be manifestations of Tao, and can only operate within the boundaries of Tao. Tao is, by contrast, often referred to as 'the nameless', because neither it nor its principles can ever be adequately expressed in words. It is conceived, for example, with neither shape nor form, as simultaneously perfectly still and constantly moving, as both larger than the largest thing and smaller than the smallest, because the words that describe shape, movement, size, or other qualities always create dichotomies, and Tao is always a unity.


From Wikipedia, emphasis mine. Simply, elegant and, if you ask me, a more intelligent answer than "matter" which is am ontological term that has deeply changed throughout history.

[Malerin]

Entirely different realm of question.

Solipsism (or the rejection of) is an ontological claim.

[nescafe]

Solipsism (or the rejection of) is an ontological claim.

It is also completely self-contained and totally boring.

I mean, everyone enjoys* Materialists vs. Idealists vs. Neutral Monists vs. Naturalists vs. Even Crazier Ontological Stances threads, but threads about solipsism? One seldom sees them go past a single page of comments.

* at least, this board usually has one stupidly huge thread that consistently stays on the front page, so it must be an awesome discussion, right?

[paximperium]

Make up your mind, either is matter or it is not, either they know or they can't know what it is this "final substance". If they cannot know (agnosticism), then WHY call it "matter"??? if they believe they can they are simply naive. I believe you are claiming here to be an agnostic, care to tell us then why do you use the word "matter" to refer to "all there is"?

What is "matter"?
Matter is a label. I choose to label whatever makes up the substance of the cosmos matter. You can call it pixie dust or super goo, it doesn't matter to me. Super goo acts a specific way. We don't have any evidence there is anything but super goo. It may be composed of super strings, membraines, pixie dust or maybe ten ultimate different things; WHO CARES? It is all matter.

What is your brain? Why call your brain a brain? Why not call it astrocytes and neurons? Or even MORE accurate, why not call it atoms? Quarks? Your entire line or argument is nothing more than semantic nit picking. Why even use labels at all?

Oh, because you don't like it?


Complete and utter rubbish, you said you knew you couldn't know (check agnosticism meaning) so you know or you don't know if the world is "material"?
No. Why don't you check up on it. You are one of the funniest fundie "agnostics" I've met in some time. Most of these guys are usually anti-atheist agnostics but you're a sadder version; someone building up an argument based on nothing but ignorance.

Agnosticism is claim of knowledge. It does not automatically equate to the acceptance or rejection of an ontology.

I don't know for sure or all there is to know about MATTER but there is a lot of evidence for MATTER and no evidence for NON-MATTER therefore I accept the ontology that MATTER is likely all there is.

I don't know for sure or all there is about GOD, but I know there is a lack of evidence for GOD therefore I reject the claim of a god.

You know or you don't know if all that there is is "matter"? At present there is only matter. Nothing else. I'm well justified in this assertion.

I do not claim it as an absolute, I claim it as our current best understanding of reality. I will revise it as more information becomes available.

Now, do you have any justification for your position or do you just enjoy straddling the middle and sucking up to both sides? Do you have any evidence there is anything to consider from the other side or is it just based on your no-balls and no-knowledge approach?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Solipsism (or the rejection of) is an ontological claim.

Thing is, I'm not a solipsist... a rejection of an ontological claim means that I don't accept things like "the universe is made of matter" or "the universe is a dream of god". I feel, I can touch, I can make predictions based on science, I can even describe in a functional way the relation between some observables, but, I don't claim to know what is the universe made of. In fact I claim that the question is absurd and attempting to answer it is mere woo.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

* at least, this board usually has one stupidly huge thread that consistently stays on the front page, so it must be an awesome discussion, right?

What is awesome is to notice how persistent are some kinds of woo, like believing in immaterial ghosts or some mysterious "substance" called matter!

[paximperium]

What is awesome is to notice how persistent are some kinds of woo, like believing in immaterial ghosts or some mysterious "substance" called matter!
That sounds about as intelligent as when Creationists claim that it is impossible for dead substances to become "alive".

His entire argument(if you can even call it that) is an Argument from Ignorance and Incredulity. Essentially he is stating that believing in something called or labeled "matter" is as woo-ish as believing in immaterial beliefs(Solipsism, Dualism etc.) because we don't know EVERYTHING about matter. That sounds about as intelligent as someone stating that it is woo to believe in evolution/physics/quarks because we don't know everything about that topic.

BDZ has no argument. Just whiny semantic nit picking. He never justify any of his nonsense, just proclaims some high and mighty proclamation and then act all huffy when challenged on it. Pathetic.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Matter is a label. I choose to label whatever makes up the substance of the cosmos matter. You can call it pixie dust or super goo, it doesn't matter to me. Super goo acts a specific way. We don't have any evidence there is anything but super goo. It may be composed of super strings, membraines, pixie dust or maybe ten ultimate different things; WHO CARES? It is all matter.

Rubbish. You contradict yourself as a sport? If matter is a label (I agree btw) then why later you say who cares if matter is matter? I care because "matter" is so full of historical baggage that it is an obsolete term. It's like an Atom, we still use it to mean something, but we forget that now it is a noun, not a description. In the same way matter is a noun, just a noun, a ver old term that has changed its meaning through history.. we skeptics should be able to do better than this.

But heck, maybe not all of us are skeptics.. can you define matter in NON CIRCULAR way?

What is your brain? Why call your brain a brain? Why not call it astrocytes and neurons? Or even MORE accurate, why not call it atoms? Quarks? Your entire line or argument is nothing more than semantic nit picking. Why even use labels at all?

Labels are useful, unless we attempt to draw absolutes with them, that is as woo as believing in voodoo, deal with it.

Agnosticism is claim of knowledge. It does not automatically equate to the acceptance or rejection of an ontology.

:rolleyes: Lets see:

Agnosticism (Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language): α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism)) is the philosophical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) view that the truth value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_value) of certain claims — particularly metaphysical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics) claims regarding theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology), afterlife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife) or the existence of deities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity), ghosts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts), or even ultimate reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality) — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism) and atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#cite_note-0)

bolds are mine. And you are a woo. Sorry.

I don't know for sure or all there is to know about MATTER but there is a lot of evidence for MATTER and no evidence for NON-MATTER therefore I accept the ontology that MATTER is likely all there is.

What is matter? I know you accept it, you are a woo.

I don't know for sure or all there is about GOD, but I know there is a lack of evidence for GOD therefore I reject the claim of a god.
At present there is only matter. Nothing else. I'm well justified in this assertion.

You said you were an agnostic, make up your mind. O wait, you have, you just dont even know what "agnostic" means. There is only matter? what matter? again... what is matter?

I do not claim it as an absolute, I claim it as our current best understanding of reality. I will revise it as more information becomes available.

So you are kind of an agnostic after all, but wait, you were accusing me for not embrace materialism! so, are you a materialist or not? do you have any doubt in your mind? Do you realize now how woo you are? you sound like a dogmatic religious individual!

Now, do you have any justification for your position or do you just enjoy straddling the middle and sucking up to both sides? Do you have any evidence there is anything to consider from the other side or is it just based on your no-balls and no-knowledge approach?

:rolleyes:

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Essentially he is stating that believing in something called or labeled "matter" is as woo-ish as believing in immaterial beliefs(Solipsism, Dualism etc.) because we don't know EVERYTHING about matter.

Leaving aside the fun of your emotional remarks, I claim you don't know ANYTHING about matter. What is this "something" called "matter"? Illustrate me. What is matter?

[paximperium]

Rubbish. You contradict yourself as a sport? If matter is a label (I agree btw) then why later you say who cares if matter is matter?
Because matter exists and the immaterial does not?

I care because "matter" is so full of historical baggage that it is an obsolete term. It's like an Atom, we still use it to mean something, but we forget that now it is a noun, not a description. In the same way matter is a noun, just a noun, a ver old term that has changed its meaning through history.. That's complete and utter nonsense. you can make a similar retarded argument for ANYTHING.

"Atheism"/"Socialism"/"Science" is so full of historical baggage that it is an obsolete term. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I find such semantic attacks rather boring. You are not discrediting the idea in any way, you are attacking its wording. Not very intelligent or even interesting,

we skeptics should be able to do better than this. Really? Do tell. Better in what way or are you going to claim this and never justify this like you always do?


But heck, maybe not all of us are skeptics.. can you define matter in NON CIRCULAR way? Ouch. A poisoning the well attack. 12hit points down!!!

Matter is all there is. Full stop, end of story.


Labels are useful, unless we attempt to draw absolutes with them, that is as woo as believing in voodoo, deal with it.
Nonsense. I absolutely claim that the brain exist. Is that woo?


:rolleyes: Lets see:

Agnosticism (Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language): α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism)) is the philosophical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) view that the truth value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_value) of certain claims — particularly metaphysical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics) claims regarding theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology), afterlife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife) or the existence of deities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity), ghosts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts), or even ultimate reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality) — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism) and atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#cite_note-0)
Yawn. What an infantile understanding of the "label".

Agnosticism/Gnostism is an epistemolgical position. It is a statement of the certainty of knowledge. Your little cut and paste was a nice little cherry picking act with no relevance to my underlying position.

You are attacking YOUR own misunderstanding(or more accurately ignorance). Unless you want to keep project your nonsense onto me and attack that nice little straw figurine, go ahead. It is much easier for you do so than to actually figure out what others are saying.

bolds are mine. And you are a woo. Sorry.

What is matter? I know you accept it, you are a woo.
Hahahahahaha...to Quote some moron, "Labels are useful, unless we attempt to draw absolutes with them, that is as woo as believing in voodoo, deal with it."

You said you were an agnostic, make up your mind. O wait, you have, you just dont even know what "agnostic" means. There is only matter? what matter? again... what is matter?
Matter is all that exist. Unless you have evidence for things that don't exist, there is only matter.

So you are kind of an agnostic after all, but wait, you were accusing me for not embrace materialism! so, are you a materialist or not? do you have any doubt in your mind? Do you realize now how woo you are? you sound like a dogmatic religious individual!
Yawn...done with your desperate flailing yet? Done with your sad little attempt at attacking some straw figurine? Why don't you go play with your straw figures in the corner somewhere?

I'm an Agnostic Materialist. I have stated that I do not have all the knowledge to determine what matter is, however there is only evidence for matter and nothing else. We will continue to study and determine the "ultimate" foundation of matter is, either energy, strings or something else although it is we may never know. I will modify and change my beliefs as more knowledge becomes available.

However, I reject the immaterial. Things that do not interact with what exists. I reject what essentially what does not exist.

I noticed you ran away like you usually do:
"Now, do you have any justification for your position or do you just enjoy straddling the middle and sucking up to both sides? Do you have any evidence there is anything to consider from the other side or is it just based on your no-balls and no-knowledge approach?"

[paximperium]

Leaving aside the fun of your emotional remarks,
Nothing emotional about it. It was a clear statement of how pathetic your arguments are.


I claim you don't know ANYTHING about matter. What is this "something" called "matter"? Illustrate me. What is matter?
Matter is everything that exists and interacts with each other.
It all acts a certain way and follows the known laws of physics.
It appears to be energy at its most basic component and some theorize it is vibrating strings or membranes but that is still being studied.
It follows causality at the macro level.
It exists in time and space.
etc. etc. etc. etc.

I would "illustrate" it to you but it would be illegal:
If I strike you in the head with a brick, your "immaterial" mind shuts off because it is a materialistic process. There is no evidence for the "immaterial" except for being byproducts of brain processes.

Now do you have anything as evidence for the "immaterial" or a justification for your no-balls approach to the issue or are you going to keep playing the sad Creationist game of attack the opposing argument but never have the balls to support your own?

[nescafe]

What is awesome is to notice how persistent are some kinds of woo, like believing in immaterial ghosts or some mysterious "substance" called matter!

Well, I usually use the term "matter" as shorthand for "that stuff described by physics in general", which has the advantage of being as ontologically neutral as science is. Calling it "woo" is a bit of a stretch.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Nothing emotional about it. It was a clear statement of how pathetic your arguments are.

:rolleyes:

I would "illustrate" it to you but it would be illegal:

:boggled: Careful there, I take this discussions as a fun way to think and relax, if you take it personal we are done my friend. If you are not having fun, relax, it is just words over the Internet dude.

Now do you have anything as evidence for the "immaterial" or a justification for your no-balls approach to the issue or are you going to keep playing the sad Creationist game of attack the opposing argument but never have the balls to support your own?

Riight now I want to make claims about immaterial, to become a woo like yourself. You have not understood at all what I have been talking about, do you. :rolleyes:

[paximperium]

:boggled: Careful there, I take this discussions as a fun way to think and relax, if you take it personal we are done my friend. If you are not having fun, relax, it is just words over the Internet dude.
You obviously don't get sarcasm.
Fun? Of course it is, otherwise I wouldn't do it.

I do find it exceeding sad to see the stupidity of certain people in this world. Maybe I'm getting cynical.

Riight now I want to make claims about immaterial, to become a woo like yourself. You have not understood at all what I have been talking about, do you. :rolleyes:
You can keep saying that as if by repeating it without any justification maybe, just maybe it'll magically become true.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well, I usually use the term "matter" as shorthand for "that stuff described by physics in general", which has the advantage of being as ontologically neutral as science is. Calling it "woo" is a bit of a stretch.

Exactly, a shorthand, and yes, your description is as good as it gets. Still I do not use it because of its historical baggage. Its meaning have change so profoundly that what we call now "matter" is NOT AT ALL what it was originally meant to mean. To see this any dictionary will serve:

n.



Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole.
Physics. Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.



You can also take circular notions like this one (which btw is not well written):

Matter is everything that exists and interacts with each other. It is ok to use it for simpler minds to understand that science studies objective stuff, rather than believe in immaterial fantasies (ghosts, voodoo, clarividence), but when dealing with skeptics claiming that "the world is made of matter" is woo. As skeptics I believe we have a duty, and this is to speak using the best words and most advanced concepts we can. Using a word that has historically change its meaning to accomodate whatever theory is in vogue, is comfortable, but I believe it is also obtuse.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You obviously don't get sarcasm.
Fun? Of course it is, otherwise I wouldn't do it.

Good! We are ok then because I am having fun. And you are right, sarcasm is not something I understand easily. That said, yes it is fun to discuss and to try to put the other guy in your shoes. This is the difficult thing in the end, because soon we start to take for granted that we know what the other guy is claiming, and most of the time, we don't.

We don't because we cant see the world from where he/she is seeing it, and we have different experiences. Still, I believe it is easier to spot a woo if you were a woo at some point of your life. When I was a child, to put an example, I did believe in immaterial souls, santa and even a personal god. Later I used to believe in this "final substance" called matter, but now as I evolve in my thinking I have realized that even this concept is woo.

Someone in the forums said that matter is "a good presumption" (I guess you would agree), well, IMO this assume to much. For me "matter" is a functional assumption, and nothing more.

We measure "events" or "rules of behavior", we can stablish correlations between observables, we can make predictions, calculate probabilities, hypothesize new rules, but not claim that "the universe is made of matter".

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

All thoughts and words are equally false and equally true. Some have greater predictive validity than others.

Exactly, I would just add that they also need to have a descriptive congruency within a concrete world view. These are the only differences between two propositions such as:

"The earthquake was a proof of my god being angry"

and

"The earthquake was a product of a movement under the pacific"

As the alleged historical buddha pointed out, that is all that there appears to be. The 'subjective sense of an I' is merely a conjecture that is placed over the five experients of being.

Buddhism was in so many ways more advanced than any other views at the time that it is almost painful to think what would happened to the history of philosophy and science if the most influential Buddhist philosophers were born in the west.

I really don't care if it is 'god' or 'matter'. Anything beyond a cursory glance at physics will tell you that 'matter' is just a label property ascribed to certain aspects of 'energy'. There is no 'wave/particle duality'. Quanta appear as waves all the time and in every place, the 'waveform' does not collapse, it is a 'waveform' all the time, it intersects with other waves forms to produce the effects that we label as 'matter'. Again only from appearance.

Interesting way to put it. Why the references to wave/particle duality and the collapse of the waveform?

But the models seems to suggest that 'it' is waveforms all the time, it is always 'energy'.

I would like to read more, specific readings in mind?

Whatever that is, again, I only am labeling the appearance, I think that if it is godthought, phenomena, butterfly dreams or quanta is meaningless.

Exactly, it is useless to even attempt to claim that we "finally know" what "it is".

It behaves as though it has 'subsatnce' although that 'substance' behaves as though it is 'quanta of energy'. It could be Magic Sky Pixie and the Fairy Horde. It doesn't have meaning, except as a way to label what appears to be.

We can't say anything beyond appearances and the concepts we draw to make them coherent. I don't know if it is a real story but I recall someone asking to Neils Bohr about the existence of the moon if we were not watching it, and his answer was something like: "It is irrelevant".

[Darth Rotor]

Time is absolute. Space is invariant. Light goes as fast as it likes and all's right with the Universe.

Christ, Athon, I don't know. Find a physicist, get him drunk and demand an explanation.
He'd most likely mutter that

"Goddidit, or maybe that other fella with the mustache did it. I forget. I'll have another Guinnes, if you please."

DR

[Dancing David]

....



Interesting way to put it. Why the references to wave/particle duality and the collapse of the waveform?

Because they are good examples of semantic conventions which have not apparent meaning. (INMNSHO)




I would like to read more, specific readings in mind?

Not really, it just seems that some labels are prefered by me, the coherency of the energy all the time, it makes sense to me.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Because they are good examples of semantic conventions which have not apparent meaning. (INMNSHO)

hehe ok, yes got it. I find it funny when people, even in this forum, begins to talk about quantum mechanics as if it proved some kind of woo (souls or telepathy) and if it was as simple as to talking about the objects of the everyday life. Both possitions are equally incredible.

Quantum mechanics are a good way to confront us with the limits of our imagination, reasoning, beliefs. Of course it is irrelevant if we understand or pretend to understand what is going on, as the rules we have depicted work. But it is funny to see how many people really believe that QM are an "explanation" and not merely a functional DESCRIPTION.

[tsig]

hehe ok, yes got it. I find it funny when people, even in this forum, begins to talk about quantum mechanics as if it proved some kind of woo (souls or telepathy) and if it was as simple as to talking about the objects of the everyday life. Both possitions are equally incredible.

Quantum mechanics are a good way to confront us with the limits of our imagination, reasoning, beliefs. Of course it is irrelevant if we understand or pretend to understand what is going on, as the rules we have depicted work. But it is funny to see how many people really believe that QM are an "explanation" and not merely a functional DESCRIPTION.

WOW if you got any more enlightened we could use you as a light bulb to see our way thru the impenetrable darkness of your convoluted grammar.

BDZ:
"I find it funny when people, even in this forum, begins to talk about quantum mechanics as if it proved some kind of woo (souls or telepathy)"

BDZ:
"Quantum mechanics are a good way to confront us with the limits of our imagination, reasoning, beliefs. Of course it is irrelevant if we understand or pretend to understand what is going on"


And woo to you.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Sorry about that English is not my first language.

[tsig]

Sorry about that English is not my first language.

Then maybe you should study it more so you won't have to use it as a crutch.

[Dancing David]

Sorry about that English is not my first language.

Really, I never would have guessed.
:)

[PixyMisa]

Really, I never would have guessed.
:)
Yeah, no irony intended, I never would have guessed either.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Really, I never would have guessed.
:)

Yeah, no irony intended, I never would have guessed either.

Really? whew thanks. I would want to be able to express myself more eloquently, as I feel limited by the extension of my vocabulary, specially when dealing with some complex subjects.