Idealism and Identity

Dancing David · 29th September 2003, 08:54 AM

On a number of threads, immaterialists have pointed out that they feel materialism should not allow for seperate identity of the individuals having awareness.

But I really thing this is more of an issue for idealism! So how, do you define seperate awareness in the philosphical sense.

It seems to me that if you say all things are part of mind then all minds would be the same. Not a point taken by the materialists.

Thanks for enlightening me!

Upchurch · 29th September 2003, 09:16 AM

Interesting thread topic, DD. I'm interested in hearing an immaterialist's reply to it.

(note: I would have PM'd this as to avoid the appearence of baiting, but DD turned off his PM.)

UndercoverElephant · 29th September 2003, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David
On a number of threads, immaterialists have pointed out that they feel materialism should not allow for seperate identity of the individuals having awareness.

But I really thing this is more of an issue for idealism! So how, do you define seperate awareness in the philosphical sense.

It seems to me that if you say all things are part of mind then all minds would be the same. Not a point taken by the materialists.

Thanks for enlightening me!

If you aren't aware of anything other than the inputs from your own senses then you are individually aware. What is the problem?

It is quite obvious that under normal cirumstances our minds operate as those of individuals, even under an idealist metaphysic where all minds are ultimately one. As for how you get from individual awareness to "cosmic awareness" - well that has been the primary subject-matter for 3000-years-worth of mysticism. The relationship between individuality and unity is a central theme in the whole of idealistic and mystical philosophy.

I don't really understand what you are asking, DD.

Upchurch · 29th September 2003, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff

As for how you get from individual awareness to "cosmic awareness" - well that has been the primary subject-matter for 3000-years-worth of mysticism. The relationship between individuality and unity is a central theme in the whole of idealistic and mystical philosophy.

I believe this is what he is asking. (or at the very least, I would like to know) Could you summerize the current thinking behind it and/or why immaterialism would be preferable or more probable to materialism?

Dancing David · 29th September 2003, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff

If you aren't aware of anything other than the inputs from your own senses then you are individually aware. What is the problem?

Ah, dear respondant, I have read that that is materialist circular logic. How do you know that you aren'y infuenced by someone else's immaterial? (Just answering while waiting, I am a materialist)

It is quite obvious that under normal cirumstances our minds operate as those of individuals, even under an idealist metaphysic where all minds are ultimately one.
But that is not obvious , which is why I asked the question.

As for how you get from individual awareness to "cosmic awareness" - well that has been the primary subject-matter for 3000-years-worth of mysticism.
It wouls seem that idealism goes the otherw ay from cosmic muffin to individual crumbs.
The relationship between individuality and unity is a central theme in the whole of idealistic and mystical philosophy.

I don't really understand what you are asking, DD.

Well, I was hoping an idealist who believes in the immaterial nature of mind would answer.

UndercoverElephant · 29th September 2003, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
I believe this is what he is asking. (or at the very least, I would like to know) Could you summerize the current thinking behind it and/or why immaterialism would be preferable or more probable to materialism?

Preferable? Probable?

The fact that we a born with an individual viewpoint on the world is a given fact - a starting point. From it we can deduce nothing about ontology since both materialism and idealism developed quite happily with everybody accepting the fact that normal human consciousness is individual, not collective. It isn't relevant.

Dancing David · 29th September 2003, 11:25 AM

I can point you to a number of discussion where it seems relevant to some people. There is currently a thread discussing how materialism can not distinguish between two brains.

Right here!

UndercoverElephant · 29th September 2003, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David
I can point you to a number of discussion where it seems relevant to some people. There is currently a thread discussing how materialism can not distinguish between two brains.

Right here!

OK. I didn't realise the context of the question. I will stcik to its context within this thread. There is no point in repeating the stuff going on in the other one.

Loki · 29th September 2003, 05:29 PM

Dancing Dave,

Quote:

But I really thing this is more of an issue for idealism!

I was about to post something similar For Ian in (one of) the 'duplicate mind' threads.

Materialism states that 'one mind' is *always* linked to 'one brain' - no exceptions. 'Minds' cannot interact directly with each other because they are linked to brains, which are always separate.

Ian's Idealism state that 'one mind' is *frequently* linked to 'one brain', but not always. Occasionally during physically stressful events our minds want a better view of proceedings, so they jump to the ceiling to watch (NDE's). At other times, the mind decides to "get some fresh air" and wander the countryside (Astral projection). After we die, some 'minds' like to hang around where their body used to live, and scare young children. Other disembodied minds like to sit in on TV talk shows and play charades by sending cryptic clues to their relatives. If Titus is correct, then after we die (and presumably once our mind has spent long enough in the waiting line) we get to attach to another brain (not necessarily human) so we can 'learn' some more.

Given the Idealist mind's ability to traverse, observe, and even interact with the material world while "disembodied" I'm sort of confused as to why the body is even needed at all.

And there's something very similar to the Christian Trinity going on with the claim that we are both "unique and individual" and "part of a single whole".

By the way, Hi Geoff!

Dancing David · 29th September 2003, 05:33 PM

Pardon me Hi Geoff, are you really the infamous UCE?

c4ts · 29th September 2003, 07:03 PM

That's funny. I work on a new Franko comic and all the woo woos start coming back. It's like they could sense it or something...

UndercoverElephant · 30th September 2003, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David
Pardon me Hi Geoff, are you really the infamous UCE?

Yes, that'll be me. But I'm only on a social visit.

hammegk · 30th September 2003, 05:25 AM

DD, are you acquainted with the Atman/Brahman concept?

Is any part of infinity also infinite? Or not?

We are at the "if it can be spoken/written/thought that is not the way" stage, imo.

Dancing David · 30th September 2003, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hammegk
DD, are you acquainted with the Atman/Brahman concept?

Is any part of infinity also infinite? Or not?

We are at the "if it can be spoken/written/thought that is not the way" stage, imo.

Yes I am somewhat familiar with the concept of atman and the concept of Trimurti, Bramha being a trinity. Unless you mean brahmin? Which is the upper-est caste in the indian system.

On infinity: depends on how large a part of the infinity. Is it an infinite oart or a finite part.

The word that can not be spoken, the thought that can not be thought. Back to the dao.

Dancing David · 1st October 2003, 09:26 AM

So how does idealism allow for seperate identities?

davidsmith73 · 1st October 2003, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David
So how does idealism allow for seperate identities?

I think that would be up to science under an idealistic framework to find out. Under Idealism, separate consciousnesses would actually be part of the same single realm of consciousness. How they appear to be separate might then be the question. Just like physical things appear to be separate but actually are not under materialism.
Its a tricky one

hammegk · 1st October 2003, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David

Yes I am somewhat familiar with the concept of atman and the concept of Trimurti, Bramha being a trinity.

Umm, if you say so.
fyi: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/ATMAN.HTM

RE: Individuality: First, are *you* your id/ego/etc (or however you care to think of it)?

It would appear all bags-o-bones=*me*'s (id/ego/etc) are "individual"; no problem there, huh? Different stimuli including genetics to provide each specific *bag-o-bones* different wiring.

But is there a Real, unchanging, *you*, the part that an idealist could term the *I* that "thinks". And are *you* & *I* "different"? I'd say 'the same'.

Loki · 1st October 2003, 05:32 PM

davidsmith73,

Quote:

Just like physical things appear to be separate but actually are not under materialism.

Hmmm... I suppose it depends upon why you mean by "separate". Two physical "things" are separate in terms of their properties and attributes even if they "share" interactions. Are you using "separate" to mean "never, under any conditions, interacts with anything else"?

Suggestologist · 1st October 2003, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loki
davidsmith73,

Hmmm... I suppose it depends upon why you mean by "separate". Two physical "things" are separate in terms of their properties and attributes even if they "share" interactions. Are you using "separate" to mean "never, under any conditions, interacts with anything else"?

It's a question of how one punctuates their reality. What gets grouped together in order to make thought processes easier to carry out and predict future states of experience.

Dancing David · 1st October 2003, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hammegk

Umm, if you say so.
fyi: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/ATMAN.HTM

Well that is certainly one monotheistic trait attributed to Bramha, but the conventeion portrayal is three faced, strangely enough. And I think that a good case could also be made for the interpretation of atman in a less than universal sense. As the 'self' that is ubject to reincarnation, etc..

Cool thing about historic religions I can look at them and find polytheism, someone else can look and find monotheism. Sivites would want Shiwa to take the place that Bramha held for the Bramahites/Vishnites.

RE: Individuality: First, are *you* your id/ego/etc (or however you care to think of it)?

It would appear all bags-o-bones=*me*'s (id/ego/etc) are "individual"; no problem there, huh? Different stimuli including genetics to provide each specific *bag-o-bones* different wiring.

But is there a Real, unchanging, *you*, the part that an idealist could term the *I* that "thinks". And are *you* & *I* "different"? I'd say 'the same'.

Depends on the shape of the room and the furniture of the room where the lamp is lit. My personal beliefs come from materialism and relearned spirituality. In the past I did believe in the more universal aspects of human nature, but the more *I* listen to other people the more I hear an underlying uniqueness to the experiences of the various *I*s and have come to believe in a wide variety of *I*s.

So perhaps the meat machines manifest different aspects of the universal mind, each given thier own portion?

c4ts · 1st October 2003, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
I believe this is what he is asking. (or at the very least, I would like to know) Could you summerize the current thinking behind it and/or why immaterialism would be preferable or more probable to materialism?

Immaterialism supports a theistic God-mind easily, giving any kind of belief in a certain monotheistic religion a philosophical starting point.

davidsmith73 · 2nd October 2003, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loki
davidsmith73,

Hmmm... I suppose it depends upon why you mean by "separate". Two physical "things" are separate in terms of their properties and attributes even if they "share" interactions. Are you using "separate" to mean "never, under any conditions, interacts with anything else"?

A "things" properties and attributes depends upon what you demarkate as the "thing" in the first place. For example one could consider the properties and attributes of a single atom. From your reasoning you could then conclude that an atom is a separate thing. However, we know that atoms consist of interacting parts, namely protons, neutrons etc, so what you initially conclude to be a separate thing turns out not to be. In fact using your reasoning, one could classify the planets of our solar system as separate "things" if we could describe the properties and attributes of each and aslo still maintain that they "share" interactions (gravitational attraction etc).

So by separate, I suppose I don't really mean anything in an objective sense! Such a concept cannot truly exist according to materialism. If we were to conceive of an entity that never under any conditions interacted with anything else, we would never be able to know about its existence. In effect this entity would be a separate universe. Perhaps this is the only way for separate to have an objective meaning.

Dancing David · 2nd October 2003, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by davidsmith73

A "things" properties and attributes depends upon what you demarkate as the "thing" in the first place. For example one could consider the properties and attributes of a single atom. From your reasoning you could then conclude that an atom is a separate thing. However, we know that atoms consist of interacting parts, namely protons, neutrons etc, so what you initially conclude to be a separate thing turns out not to be. In fact using your reasoning, one could classify the planets of our solar system as separate "things" if we could describe the properties and attributes of each and aslo still maintain that they "share" interactions (gravitational attraction etc).

So by separate, I suppose I don't really mean anything in an objective sense! Such a concept cannot truly exist according to materialism. If we were to conceive of an entity that never under any conditions interacted with anything else, we would never be able to know about its existence. In effect this entity would be a separate universe. Perhaps this is the only way for separate to have an objective meaning.

Sorry. maybe I rode the short bus to work today, but aren't Jupiter and saturn different things? They seemed to have clearly marked boundaries. You can also set up an atom trap to have just one atom in it.

You can have seperation and still interact, saturn and Jupiter are not the same as the sun, while they do all sit in the galaxies gravity well.

By your theory, particle accelerators should not work, because the magnets could not acclerate a proton with out accelerating the coils.

Could you rediagram this, please?

Loki · 2nd October 2003, 03:40 PM

davidsmith73,

DancingDavid has pretty much given my reply!

Quote:

In fact using your reasoning, one could classify the planets of our solar system as separate "things" if we could describe the properties and attributes of each and aslo still maintain that they "share" interactions (gravitational attraction etc).

Yes.

Quote:

Perhaps this is the only way for separate to have an objective meaning.

Perhaps I agree, perhaps I don't! If by "objective meaning of the term 'separate'" you are going for "a definiton that applies at all times to all physical things" then I think I agree. Although, as you say, this simply means that "separate" has no meaning at all in the physical realm. Again, I'd say that "separate" is a contextual term that must be used in relation to a physical object. Once you determine the object you are referring to (atoms, planets) then you *can* define an objective meaning for "separate".

On other words, "planets" are separate/separated from each other by a different boundary to the one which separates "atoms". The "planet boundary" is objectively measurable, as is the "atom boundary" - the boundaries are different because they are expressed in terms of the attributes and properties of the things being "separated".

It seems like you want to push the conversation down to the ontological level of "what separates one element of the 'substance of matter' from any other"? I'm not sure that question has meaning, or is answerable (ontology does seem rather pointless).

29th September 2003, 08:54 AM	#1
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,724	Idealism and Identity On a number of threads, immaterialists have pointed out that they feel materialism should not allow for seperate identity of the individuals having awareness. But I really thing this is more of an issue for idealism! So how, do you define seperate awareness in the philosphical sense. It seems to me that if you say all things are part of mind then all minds would be the same. Not a point taken by the materialists. Thanks for enlightening me!
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

29th September 2003, 09:40 AM	#3
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	Re: Idealism and Identity Quote: Originally posted by Dancing David On a number of threads, immaterialists have pointed out that they feel materialism should not allow for seperate identity of the individuals having awareness. But I really thing this is more of an issue for idealism! So how, do you define seperate awareness in the philosphical sense. It seems to me that if you say all things are part of mind then all minds would be the same. Not a point taken by the materialists. Thanks for enlightening me! If you aren't aware of anything other than the inputs from your own senses then you are individually aware. What is the problem? It is quite obvious that under normal cirumstances our minds operate as those of individuals, even under an idealist metaphysic where all minds are ultimately one. As for how you get from individual awareness to "cosmic awareness" - well that has been the primary subject-matter for 3000-years-worth of mysticism. The relationship between individuality and unity is a central theme in the whole of idealistic and mystical philosophy. I don't really understand what you are asking, DD.

29th September 2003, 10:14 AM	#4
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,426	Re: Re: Idealism and Identity Quote: Originally posted by JustGeoff As for how you get from individual awareness to "cosmic awareness" - well that has been the primary subject-matter for 3000-years-worth of mysticism. The relationship between individuality and unity is a central theme in the whole of idealistic and mystical philosophy. I believe this is what he is asking. (or at the very least, I would like to know) Could you summerize the current thinking behind it and/or why immaterialism would be preferable or more probable to materialism?

29th September 2003, 10:39 AM	#5
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,724	Re: Re: Idealism and Identity Quote: Originally posted by JustGeoff If you aren't aware of anything other than the inputs from your own senses then you are individually aware. What is the problem? Ah, dear respondant, I have read that that is materialist circular logic. How do you know that you aren'y infuenced by someone else's immaterial? (Just answering while waiting, I am a materialist) It is quite obvious that under normal cirumstances our minds operate as those of individuals, even under an idealist metaphysic where all minds are ultimately one. But that is not obvious , which is why I asked the question. As for how you get from individual awareness to "cosmic awareness" - well that has been the primary subject-matter for 3000-years-worth of mysticism. It wouls seem that idealism goes the otherw ay from cosmic muffin to individual crumbs. The relationship between individuality and unity is a central theme in the whole of idealistic and mystical philosophy. I don't really understand what you are asking, DD. Well, I was hoping an idealist who believes in the immaterial nature of mind would answer.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

29th September 2003, 10:53 AM	#6
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	Re: Re: Re: Idealism and Identity Quote: Originally posted by Upchurch I believe this is what he is asking. (or at the very least, I would like to know) Could you summerize the current thinking behind it and/or why immaterialism would be preferable or more probable to materialism? Preferable? Probable? The fact that we a born with an individual viewpoint on the world is a given fact - a starting point. From it we can deduce nothing about ontology since both materialism and idealism developed quite happily with everybody accepting the fact that normal human consciousness is individual, not collective. It isn't relevant.

29th September 2003, 09:16 AM	#2
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,426	Interesting thread topic, DD. I'm interested in hearing an immaterialist's reply to it. (note: I would have PM'd this as to avoid the appearence of baiting, but DD turned off his PM.)

29th September 2003, 11:25 AM	#7
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,724	I can point you to a number of discussion where it seems relevant to some people. There is currently a thread discussing how materialism can not distinguish between two brains. Right here!
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

29th September 2003, 11:49 AM	#8
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	Quote: Originally posted by Dancing David I can point you to a number of discussion where it seems relevant to some people. There is currently a thread discussing how materialism can not distinguish between two brains. Right here! OK. I didn't realise the context of the question. I will stcik to its context within this thread. There is no point in repeating the stuff going on in the other one.

29th September 2003, 05:29 PM	#9
Loki Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,406	Dancing Dave, Quote: But I really thing this is more of an issue for idealism! I was about to post something similar For Ian in (one of) the 'duplicate mind' threads. Materialism states that 'one mind' is always linked to 'one brain' - no exceptions. 'Minds' cannot interact directly with each other because they are linked to brains, which are always separate. Ian's Idealism state that 'one mind' is frequently linked to 'one brain', but not always. Occasionally during physically stressful events our minds want a better view of proceedings, so they jump to the ceiling to watch (NDE's). At other times, the mind decides to "get some fresh air" and wander the countryside (Astral projection). After we die, some 'minds' like to hang around where their body used to live, and scare young children. Other disembodied minds like to sit in on TV talk shows and play charades by sending cryptic clues to their relatives. If Titus is correct, then after we die (and presumably once our mind has spent long enough in the waiting line) we get to attach to another brain (not necessarily human) so we can 'learn' some more. Given the Idealist mind's ability to traverse, observe, and even interact with the material world while "disembodied" I'm sort of confused as to why the body is even needed at all. And there's something very similar to the Christian Trinity going on with the claim that we are both "unique and individual" and "part of a single whole". By the way, Hi Geoff!
Loki Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,406	__________________ (Red Dwarf Newsreader): Good evening. Here is the news on Friday the 27th of Geldof. Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental'. .

29th September 2003, 05:33 PM	#10
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,724	Pardon me Hi Geoff, are you really the infamous UCE?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

29th September 2003, 07:03 PM	#11
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	That's funny. I work on a new Franko comic and all the woo woos start coming back. It's like they could sense it or something...
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

30th September 2003, 04:07 AM	#12
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	Quote: Originally posted by Dancing David Pardon me Hi Geoff, are you really the infamous UCE? Yes, that'll be me. But I'm only on a social visit.

30th September 2003, 05:25 AM	#13
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	DD, are you acquainted with the Atman/Brahman concept? Is any part of infinity also infinite? Or not? We are at the "if it can be spoken/written/thought that is not the way" stage, imo.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

30th September 2003, 05:41 AM	#14
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,724	Quote: Originally posted by hammegk DD, are you acquainted with the Atman/Brahman concept? Is any part of infinity also infinite? Or not? We are at the "if it can be spoken/written/thought that is not the way" stage, imo. Yes I am somewhat familiar with the concept of atman and the concept of Trimurti, Bramha being a trinity. Unless you mean brahmin? Which is the upper-est caste in the indian system. On infinity: depends on how large a part of the infinity. Is it an infinite oart or a finite part. The word that can not be spoken, the thought that can not be thought. Back to the dao.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

1st October 2003, 09:26 AM	#15
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,724	So how does idealism allow for seperate identities?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

1st October 2003, 09:51 AM	#16
davidsmith73 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1,697	Quote: Originally posted by Dancing David So how does idealism allow for seperate identities? I think that would be up to science under an idealistic framework to find out. Under Idealism, separate consciousnesses would actually be part of the same single realm of consciousness. How they appear to be separate might then be the question. Just like physical things appear to be separate but actually are not under materialism. Its a tricky one

1st October 2003, 04:51 PM	#17
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Quote: Originally posted by Dancing David Yes I am somewhat familiar with the concept of atman and the concept of Trimurti, Bramha being a trinity. Umm, if you say so. fyi: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/ATMAN.HTM RE: Individuality: First, are you your id/ego/etc (or however you care to think of it)? It would appear all bags-o-bones=me's (id/ego/etc) are "individual"; no problem there, huh? Different stimuli including genetics to provide each specific bag-o-bones different wiring. But is there a Real, unchanging, you, the part that an idealist could term the I that "thinks". And are you & I "different"? I'd say 'the same'.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

1st October 2003, 05:32 PM	#18
Loki Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,406	davidsmith73, Quote: Just like physical things appear to be separate but actually are not under materialism. Hmmm... I suppose it depends upon why you mean by "separate". Two physical "things" are separate in terms of their properties and attributes even if they "share" interactions. Are you using "separate" to mean "never, under any conditions, interacts with anything else"?
Loki Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,406	__________________ (Red Dwarf Newsreader): Good evening. Here is the news on Friday the 27th of Geldof. Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental'. .

1st October 2003, 06:39 PM	#19
Suggestologist Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 922	Quote: Originally posted by Loki davidsmith73, Hmmm... I suppose it depends upon why you mean by "separate". Two physical "things" are separate in terms of their properties and attributes even if they "share" interactions. Are you using "separate" to mean "never, under any conditions, interacts with anything else"? It's a question of how one punctuates their reality. What gets grouped together in order to make thought processes easier to carry out and predict future states of experience.
Suggestologist Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 922

1st October 2003, 07:39 PM	#20
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,724	Quote: Originally posted by hammegk Umm, if you say so. fyi: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/ATMAN.HTM Well that is certainly one monotheistic trait attributed to Bramha, but the conventeion portrayal is three faced, strangely enough. And I think that a good case could also be made for the interpretation of atman in a less than universal sense. As the 'self' that is ubject to reincarnation, etc.. Cool thing about historic religions I can look at them and find polytheism, someone else can look and find monotheism. Sivites would want Shiwa to take the place that Bramha held for the Bramahites/Vishnites. RE: Individuality: First, are you your id/ego/etc (or however you care to think of it)? It would appear all bags-o-bones=me's (id/ego/etc) are "individual"; no problem there, huh? Different stimuli including genetics to provide each specific bag-o-bones different wiring. But is there a Real, unchanging, you, the part that an idealist could term the I that "thinks". And are you & I "different"? I'd say 'the same'. Depends on the shape of the room and the furniture of the room where the lamp is lit. My personal beliefs come from materialism and relearned spirituality. In the past I did believe in the more universal aspects of human nature, but the more I listen to other people the more I hear an underlying uniqueness to the experiences of the various Is and have come to believe in a wide variety of Is. So perhaps the meat machines manifest different aspects of the universal mind, each given thier own portion?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

1st October 2003, 07:42 PM	#21
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	Re: Re: Re: Idealism and Identity Quote: Originally posted by Upchurch I believe this is what he is asking. (or at the very least, I would like to know) Could you summerize the current thinking behind it and/or why immaterialism would be preferable or more probable to materialism? Immaterialism supports a theistic God-mind easily, giving any kind of belief in a certain monotheistic religion a philosophical starting point.
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

2nd October 2003, 05:14 AM	#22
davidsmith73 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1,697	Quote: Originally posted by Loki davidsmith73, Hmmm... I suppose it depends upon why you mean by "separate". Two physical "things" are separate in terms of their properties and attributes even if they "share" interactions. Are you using "separate" to mean "never, under any conditions, interacts with anything else"? A "things" properties and attributes depends upon what you demarkate as the "thing" in the first place. For example one could consider the properties and attributes of a single atom. From your reasoning you could then conclude that an atom is a separate thing. However, we know that atoms consist of interacting parts, namely protons, neutrons etc, so what you initially conclude to be a separate thing turns out not to be. In fact using your reasoning, one could classify the planets of our solar system as separate "things" if we could describe the properties and attributes of each and aslo still maintain that they "share" interactions (gravitational attraction etc). So by separate, I suppose I don't really mean anything in an objective sense! Such a concept cannot truly exist according to materialism. If we were to conceive of an entity that never under any conditions interacted with anything else, we would never be able to know about its existence. In effect this entity would be a separate universe. Perhaps this is the only way for separate to have an objective meaning.

2nd October 2003, 10:20 AM	#23
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,724	Quote: Originally posted by davidsmith73 A "things" properties and attributes depends upon what you demarkate as the "thing" in the first place. For example one could consider the properties and attributes of a single atom. From your reasoning you could then conclude that an atom is a separate thing. However, we know that atoms consist of interacting parts, namely protons, neutrons etc, so what you initially conclude to be a separate thing turns out not to be. In fact using your reasoning, one could classify the planets of our solar system as separate "things" if we could describe the properties and attributes of each and aslo still maintain that they "share" interactions (gravitational attraction etc). So by separate, I suppose I don't really mean anything in an objective sense! Such a concept cannot truly exist according to materialism. If we were to conceive of an entity that never under any conditions interacted with anything else, we would never be able to know about its existence. In effect this entity would be a separate universe. Perhaps this is the only way for separate to have an objective meaning. Sorry. maybe I rode the short bus to work today, but aren't Jupiter and saturn different things? They seemed to have clearly marked boundaries. You can also set up an atom trap to have just one atom in it. You can have seperation and still interact, saturn and Jupiter are not the same as the sun, while they do all sit in the galaxies gravity well. By your theory, particle accelerators should not work, because the magnets could not acclerate a proton with out accelerating the coils. Could you rediagram this, please?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

2nd October 2003, 03:40 PM	#24
Loki Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,406	davidsmith73, DancingDavid has pretty much given my reply! Quote: In fact using your reasoning, one could classify the planets of our solar system as separate "things" if we could describe the properties and attributes of each and aslo still maintain that they "share" interactions (gravitational attraction etc). Yes. Quote: Perhaps this is the only way for separate to have an objective meaning. Perhaps I agree, perhaps I don't! If by "objective meaning of the term 'separate'" you are going for "a definiton that applies at all times to all physical things" then I think I agree. Although, as you say, this simply means that "separate" has no meaning at all in the physical realm. Again, I'd say that "separate" is a contextual term that must be used in relation to a physical object. Once you determine the object you are referring to (atoms, planets) then you can define an objective meaning for "separate". On other words, "planets" are separate/separated from each other by a different boundary to the one which separates "atoms". The "planet boundary" is objectively measurable, as is the "atom boundary" - the boundaries are different because they are expressed in terms of the attributes and properties of the things being "separated". It seems like you want to push the conversation down to the ontological level of "what separates one element of the 'substance of matter' from any other"? I'm not sure that question has meaning, or is answerable (ontology does seem rather pointless).
Loki Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,406	__________________ (Red Dwarf Newsreader): Good evening. Here is the news on Friday the 27th of Geldof. Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental'. .