Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Material World

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 1:03:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The strict materialist who believes the mind is merely equivalent to the brain must also believe the products of the mind are merely physiological.

Being physiological, they must have objectivity, meaning, merely, the products of physical mechanisms, and nothing more. Just as no true medical doctor would question physical maladies as being anything other than direct results of the failings of biological mechanisms, so likewise mental processes that don't correlate to the world of objectivity, such as one's own subjectivities, are nothing more than the failings of physiological mechanisms.

Being failings, they must be the products of mental defects and must be treated as such. For by definition, that which is subjective does not correlate to the world of objectivity; in other words, it is not a product of the five senses. Being objective, it would necessarily be an aberration; and, being an aberration, it would necessarily be defective, which in itself would constitute a malady of the mind. Being there are no true subjectivities, all thought is objective; any deviation from that which is found in the world of objectivity is, merely, a misrepresentation and seen as suspect.

Being subjectivity is (according to this rationale) found suspect, it must be discouraged for the sake of one's mental hygiene; all thoughts must be in lockstep with the five senses. A truly objective mind has the faculty of concreteness and has no diversion from the world around it, at least not in a state of wholeness.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 7:01:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 1:03:13 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The strict materialist who believes the mind is merely equivalent to the brain must also believe the products of the mind are merely physiological.

The word you're looking for is not 'materialist', but instead possibly biologist, neurosurgeon or some other discipline that understands how the brain works. The products of the mind are called, "thoughts", fyi.

Being physiological, they must have objectivity, meaning, merely, the products of physical mechanisms, and nothing more. Just as no true medical doctor would question physical maladies as being anything other than direct results of the failings of biological mechanisms, so likewise mental processes that don't correlate to the world of objectivity, such as one's own subjectivities, are nothing more than the failings of physiological mechanisms.

Sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever. thoughts can be based on the objective or subjective, and the brain is working just fine.

Being failings, they must be the products of mental defects and must be treated as such. For by definition, that which is subjective does not correlate to the world of objectivity; in other words, it is not a product of the five senses. Being objective, it would necessarily be an aberration; and, being an aberration, it would necessarily be defective, which in itself would constitute a malady of the mind. Being there are no true subjectivities, all thought is objective; any deviation from that which is found in the world of objectivity is, merely, a misrepresentation and seen as suspect.

That's just silly, it is when subjective thoughts are claimed to be objective, something you theists constantly attempt to do, which is where the "maladies of the mind" arise.

Being subjectivity is (according to this rationale) found suspect, it must be discouraged for the sake of one's mental hygiene; all thoughts must be in lockstep with the five senses. A truly objective mind has the faculty of concreteness and has no diversion from the world around it, at least not in a state of wholeness.

There is nothing wrong with subjective thoughts, it's when you theists try to claim your subjective thoughts are objective.

Hope that clears up your confusion.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 7:23:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 1:03:13 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The strict materialist who believes the mind is merely equivalent to the brain must also believe the products of the mind are merely physiological.
mental processes that don't correlate to the world of objectivity, such as one's own subjectivities, are nothing more than the failings of physiological mechanisms.

The first point is a strawman, Anthony, while the second is hyperbole.

Firstly, saying the mind is equivalent to the brain is like saying that the game of football is equivalent to the inflated pigskin with which it's played. I don't know anyone who argues that.

Mind is a product of process; the process is executed neurologically. Without brain the mind fails, but mind isn't brain for the same reason that football isn't pigskin. Mind is a product of neurological function, the information and experiences it acquires, and the executive decisions mind itself makes.

Secondly, empiricism -- rejecting the authority of emotional and intuitive apprehensions -- is a) not materialism and b) not the same as considering all subjective thought a dysfunction.

Many good scientific ideas begin as subjective apprehensions -- intuitions that might or might not work. Also, virtually all art either begins as or develops through aesthetic and emotional intuitions. I don't know of any scientist who'd be without intuition, and no artists either.

However, science needs to eliminate confusion, incoherence, imprecision and error, and intuition contains a great deal of this. So science has a process for either transforming unreliable intuitions into robust models -- or else realising that they can't so transform, and discarding them.

(Art has analogous processes too by the way -- authors often produce fiction by subtracting ideas from verbose intuitive expression, while painters often produce art by adding detail toward an emerging intuition.)

So rejecting the poor focus, incoherence, imprecision and error of the subjective isn't the same as saying it's worthless. It's saying that emotion, prejudice and intuition shouldn't be worshiped as a source of truth. And it's not just scientists saying that: artists may too.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 8:12:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The word you're looking for is not 'materialist', but instead possibly biologist, neurosurgeon or some other discipline that understands how the brain works.

No. I intentionally chose materialist over scientist or medical technician; because, I do not believe all scientists and medical technicians necessarily try to equivocate the mind with the brain.

Sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever. thoughts can be based on the objective or subjective, and the brain is working just fine.

So, are thoughts able to represent things not occurring in the material world?

That's just silly, it is when subjective thoughts are claimed to be objective, something you theists constantly attempt to do, which is where the "maladies of the mind" arise.

Are thoughts physical or metaphysical?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 8:28:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Mind is a product of process; the process is executed neurologically. Without brain the mind fails, but mind isn't brain for the same reason that football isn't pigskin. Mind is a product of neurological function, the information and experiences it acquires, and the executive decisions mind itself makes.

Is this product physical or metaphysical?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 10:30:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 8:12:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The word you're looking for is not 'materialist', but instead possibly biologist, neurosurgeon or some other discipline that understands how the brain works.

No. I intentionally chose materialist over scientist or medical technician; because, I do not believe all scientists and medical technicians necessarily try to equivocate the mind with the brain.

The real scientists and medical folks who understand how the brain works most certainly do understand the mind is the workings of the brain.

Sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever. thoughts can be based on the objective or subjective, and the brain is working just fine.

So, are thoughts able to represent things not occurring in the material world?

What does that even mean?

That's just silly, it is when subjective thoughts are claimed to be objective, something you theists constantly attempt to do, which is where the "maladies of the mind" arise.

Are thoughts physical or metaphysical?

Physical, of course.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 10:42:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 8:28:11 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Mind is a product of process; the process is executed neurologically. Without brain the mind fails, but mind isn't brain for the same reason that football isn't pigskin. Mind is a product of neurological function, the information and experiences it acquires, and the executive decisions mind itself makes.

Is this product physical or metaphysical?

The metaphysical manifests physically. Properties like conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum are in all likelihood metaphysical properties. Planck's constant is metaphysical, as is the speed of light in vacuum. If these properties were not metaphysical, by what agency would they be universally observable?

Therefore, for a property to be physically observed does not prevent it from being metaphysically determined. By corollary, for a property to be metaphysically determined doesn't mean it cannot be physically explored.

Consequently, metaphysics are not an excuse to privilege magical thinking or sanctify the subjective. We can use empiricism to invalidate bad metaphysics just as we can use it to invalidate bad physics.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2015 11:05:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The real scientists and medical folks who understand how the brain works most certainly do understand the mind is the workings of the brain.

Ok.

So, are thoughts able to represent things not occurring in the material world?

What does that even mean?

Can you imagine something that does not exist in the physical world?

Are thoughts physical or metaphysical?

Physical, of course.

Then all thoughts are objective. Correct?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 12:07:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The metaphysical manifests physically. Properties like conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum are in all likelihood metaphysical properties. Planck's constant is metaphysical, as is the speed of light in vacuum. If these properties were not metaphysical, by what agency would they be universally observable?

None.

Therefore, for a property to be physically observed does not prevent it from being metaphysically determined. By corollary, for a property to be metaphysically determined doesn't mean it cannot be physically explored.

That which is physical is not metaphysical even though one cannot be known without the other. In other words, we know the metaphysical exists because we know the physical exists.

That which is physical has substance; it is material; that which is metaphysical is not substantial; it is immaterial. It is the absence of the physical world. It is the womb, the vacuum, and the void which fills alls things and in which all things exist.

Consequently, metaphysics are not an excuse to privilege...

No one has privilege; privilege speaks of exclusivity; no one is excluded.

...magical thinking...

Magic speaks of mystery; not all that which puzzles the mind has been solved; neither do I believe it ever will be. As long as mystery remains, the world will be full with magic.

or sanctify the subjective.

That which is set apart is sanctified.

That which is complete is holy.

The part is known by that which is whole, and the whole is known by that which is in part.

We can use empiricism to invalidate bad metaphysics just as we can use it to invalidate bad physics.

We can't invalidate something that has no meaning, in and of itself.

That which isn't gives meaning to that which is.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 12:38:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/8/2015 12:07:31 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Magic speaks of mystery;
Mystery doesn't require magic, only ignorance.

What differentiates magical thinking from honest ignorance isn't wonder, but conceit.

Your issue isn't with materialism, Anthony. In the end, it's with empiricism, which has destroyed virtually all the magical thinking it has ever encountered.

You want to isolate your magical thinking from such criticism, so you've declared the special domain of your own mind as simultaneously self-consistent (it's not), absolutely self-knowledgable (it isn't) and quarantined from empirical exploration (it ain't.)

The rest is sophistry.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 12:53:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/7/2015 10:42:56 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

The metaphysical manifests physically. Properties like conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum are in all likelihood metaphysical properties. Planck's constant is metaphysical, as is the speed of light in vacuum. If these properties were not metaphysical, by what agency would they be universally observable?

- "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means". LOL!

Therefore, for a property to be physically observed does not prevent it from being metaphysically determined. By corollary, for a property to be metaphysically determined doesn't mean it cannot be physically explored.

- "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means"

Consequently, metaphysics are not an excuse to privilege magical thinking or sanctify the subjective.

- Magical thinking? You mean like yours?

We can use empiricism to invalidate bad metaphysics just as we can use it to invalidate bad physics.

- Wrong. First, your entire reasoning is erroneous: equivocation. Second, your conclusion is senseless, empiricism itself doesn't act on metaphysical entities, it acts on physical entities. You're basically saying, for instance, something like we can use physics to invalidates bad maths. Third, indeed, our understanding of physics may very well help us understand metaphysics, this much is quite obvious.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 1:44:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/8/2015 12:53:05 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/7/2015 10:42:56 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

The metaphysical manifests physically. Properties like conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum are in all likelihood metaphysical properties. Planck's constant is metaphysical, as is the speed of light in vacuum. If these properties were not metaphysical, by what agency would they be universally observable?

- "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means". LOL!

Yassine, I'm glad your humour is entertaining you, but I'm sorry to tell you that it's not registering with me. It's not that it's offending me; it's just not illuminating anything interesting for me.

I've suggested this before, but if you want a serious conversation about something I've posted, you'll need to begin by paraphrasing your understanding so I can be clear on what you believe you're replying to. Else, I may not be able to respond substantively, or at all.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 2:08:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Mystery doesn't require magic, only ignorance.

Mystery is not merely ignorance. If one were completely ignorant of a thing, there would be no mystery about it; for, he, or she, would not even know of its existence.

Magic on the other hand has knowledge combined with ignorance, knowing something is there but not knowing about the way in which it came or from where it came. Science tells us the world had its beginning with the Big Bang, but it does not tell us from where it came. However, from where did it come? And, is it appropriate to use the term where, being before the Big Bang, itself, there was no where? Being there was no where, there was also no when; for, space and time are essential to each other. Being the universe from nowhere came and at no time, this, to me, is mystery and magic.

What differentiates magical thinking from honest ignorance isn't wonder, but conceit.

No. Conceit is believing the world fits, nicely, into a little box or obeys the rules of some particular system of thought or philosophy. Conceit is thinking some empirical construct orders and contains the world. Believing the world is subservient to the principles or precepts of any empirical system, no matter the degree of objectivity in which it was devised, is conceit. Believing a finite system can apprehend a boundless world is conceit.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 3:07:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/8/2015 1:44:51 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/8/2015 12:53:05 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/7/2015 10:42:56 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Yassine, I'm glad your humour is entertaining you, but I'm sorry to tell you that it's not registering with me. It's not that it's offending me; it's just not illuminating anything interesting for me.

- That should concern you!

I've suggested this before, but if you want a serious conversation about something I've posted, you'll need to begin by paraphrasing your understanding so I can be clear on what you believe you're replying to. Else, I may not be able to respond substantively, or at all.

- I notice you do this with other members too. If you have something to say, say it. Don't expect others to do so in your stead. Otherwise, we would have a monologue, not a conversation.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 4:24:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/8/2015 2:08:37 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Mystery doesn't require magic, only ignorance.
Mystery is not merely ignorance. If one were completely ignorant of a thing, there would be no mystery about it; for, he, or she, would not even know of its existence.
Magic on the other hand has knowledge combined with ignorance, knowing something is there but not knowing about the way in which it came or from where it came.
No, that's to marvel -- to know enough to wonder, but not enough to explain.

Magic claims control: to know enough to predict, explain or even command. Yet magic is opaque, evasive and dishonest, privileging its successes, dismissing its failures, always claiming authority yet never accepting accountability, and admitting neither ignorance nor error.

Claiming the subjective as a private domain you alone prescribe is magical thinking, Anthony. It's Peter Pan telling grown-ups that he owns a private Never Never Land of which he's King.

Science tells us the world had its beginning with the Big Bang, but it does not tell us from where it came.
Actually, physics has some conjectures on that too, but it's true in general that empiricism may not be able to answer all physical questions to satisfactory precision.

Being the universe from nowhere came and at no time, this, to me, is mystery and magic.
It's mysterious and marvellous, but not necessarily magical. The reason it's mysterious and marvellous is that it doesn't accord with our intuitions. Yet our intuitions are built on limited experiences, so there's no reason that the physical world should always accord with human intuition.

Moreover, our apprehensions of space and time work well at human-sized concerns. Yet there's no reason to suppose that they're exactly the right frames for the very big or the very small, or that they should apply to a universe when they may be constructions of a universe.

And finally, magic is claiming that intuition controls consequence while ignoring every evidence that it doesn't. Whatever's happening metaphysically, intuition is bankrupt as a reliable source of knowledge at any testable scale. How is it supposed to be authoritative metaphysically when it's so appallingly bad physically?

What differentiates magical thinking from honest ignorance isn't wonder, but conceit.
No. Conceit is believing the world fits, nicely, into a little box or obeys the rules of some particular system of thought or philosophy.
Yes; if someone did that it'd be conceited.

But fighting to evade such scrutiny is also conceited. Likewise, conflating personal intuitions with metaphysical insight is tantamount to magical thinking, and full of vanity about one's own innate wisdom and self-worth.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 4:28:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/8/2015 3:07:33 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/8/2015 1:44:51 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/8/2015 12:53:05 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 11/7/2015 10:42:56 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Yassine, I'm glad your humour is entertaining you, but I'm sorry to tell you that it's not registering with me. It's not that it's offending me; it's just not illuminating anything interesting for me.
- That should concern you!
Because it occurs at all, or because it occurs with you in particular?

I've suggested this before, but if you want a serious conversation about something I've posted, you'll need to begin by paraphrasing your understanding so I can be clear on what you believe you're replying to. Else, I may not be able to respond substantively, or at all.
- I notice you do this with other members too
Not many, but I would do it with some other members.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 2:41:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yet magic is opaque, evasive and dishonest...,

True magic is not dishonest. Magic, in the past, was used to describe the wonderful workings of a deity, in other words miracles. The miracle was something that could not be explained by natural causes. The phenomenon itself may have been opaque and evasive to the believer, but opaqueness and evasiveness was not the product of the phenomenon but the subjective mind.

The subjective mind, because of its limitations, creates magic. Opaqueness and evasiveness are the products of limited understandings.

Now, throughout history, there have been charlatans, fraudsters, and entertainers who have claimed to be magicians; and, because of their ability for deception and illusion, to the audience they were.

However, true magic lies within the subjective mind. In saying that, I'm not saying the mind wishes to fool others but the mind fools itself.

Claiming the subjective as a private domain you alone prescribe is magical thinking, Anthony. It's Peter Pan telling grown-ups that he owns a private Never Never Land of which he's King.

You mean to tell me you and everyone else agree with me? My opinions are not my own?

But fighting to evade such scrutiny is also conceited. Likewise, conflating personal intuitions with metaphysical insight is tantamount to magical thinking, and full of vanity about one's own innate wisdom and self-worth.

I asked you if the mind was physical or metaphysical. You replied by saying, "The metaphysical manifests physically." Are not intuitions a product of the mind? Being they are a product of the mind would that make them physical or metaphysical?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 7:50:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/8/2015 2:41:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Yet magic is opaque, evasive and dishonest...,
True magic is not dishonest.
Let's suppose that might be so. Yet true magic has never been demonstrated clinically.

Why, when apprehensions of magic are historically so commonplace?

It's because ignorance, intuition and bias -- the functions that construe magic -- have no assurance of what's true. All they know is what they want to be true. And pronouncing a poorly-understood phenomenon miraculous or magical without having investigated diligently using suitable means is both a claim of unearned authority and an appeal to self-satisfaction.

Which is why pronouncing magic is conceited.

Opaqueness and evasiveness was not the product of the phenomenon but the subjective mind.
Why resort to opacity and evasion in the first place?

It's simple: the subjective mind spends most of its existence self-absorbed, anxious, ignorant, self-soothing and wrong.

Opacity and evasion are tools of denial, used by the anxious mind to preserve its authority to defend the indefensible. For when a proposition is true, you don't need to evade evidentiary accountability, since when taken together, all evidence will point toward its truth.

So when a mind gets opaque about methods and evasive about rationale, it's not just a sign that the claims are false, but that the mind itself doubts its own veracity. For if it were more confident of its conclusions, it would be less obscurant in its methods, and less evasive about ignorance and error.

The subjective mind, because of its limitations, creates magic.
Invents it rather than creating it, but yes.

Opaqueness and evasiveness are the products of limited understandings.
Ignorance along with laziness, anxiety and self-importance, yes.

Throughout history, there have been charlatans, fraudsters, and entertainers who have claimed to be magicians; and, because of their ability for deception and illusion, to the audience they were.
Regardless of audience belief, they were charlatans, since they put claims to authority above evidentiary accountability. This led to the use of theatrical tools such as pomp, pageantry, flattery and appeals to audience fear, along with the use of stage illusionist's tools of distraction, obscurantism and evasion. Anything but submitting to independent accountability for evidence.

Those very tools I've mentioned -- pomp, pageantry, flattery, fear, distraction, obscurantism and evasion -- are all tools that appeal to subjectivity while impeding objective appraisal.

Coincidentally, they're also the tools championed by formal religion in everything from magical ceremonies to theological apologetics.

However, true magic lies within the subjective mind. In saying that, I'm not saying the mind wishes to fool others but the mind fools itself.
That the undisciplined mind seeks, embraces and is swayable by pomp, pageantry, flattery, fear, distraction, obscurantism and evasion makes these manipulations morally and intellectually legitimate how?

And if they're not legitimate, how does calling their product 'true magic' make it true?

Claiming the subjective as a private domain you alone prescribe is magical thinking, Anthony. It's Peter Pan telling grown-ups that he owns a private Never Never Land of which he's King.
My opinions are not my own?
You're very fond of appealing to individualism, Anthony, but what makes you think the opinions you've produced have not been produced before? That the processes producing them have not appeared previously? That they are not informed by cultural milieu and psychology every bit as much as temperament and character? That you are not repeating the same errors, self-flattery and self-delusions that others have embraced themselves, for much the same reasons they did?

I asked you if the mind was physical or metaphysical. You replied by saying, "The metaphysical manifests physically."
Yes, that was my way of suggesting that your ontology was wrong. Having previously sought to separate the objective from the subjective when they don't separate so neatly, you've now tried to dualise physical and metaphysical, when they also don't pull apart like that.

The reason you need both, I believe, is that you want to make empiricial methods king of the physical, and insist (without being able to explain mechanism or validate it in any other way) that the obscurant intuitions of subjective thought must therefore rule the metaphysical.

That position would be wrong if either assumption were wrong, but in fact it's wrong because both assumptions are wrong.

The physical is an expression of the metaphysical. Therefore metaphysical thought can be validated in part by physical inquiry and objective explorations. There's no problem using empiricism to investigate metaphysics -- physicists do this all the time.

Meanwhile, the subjective experience is both a product of and a partial apprehension of objective reality. Thus, subjective thought can be gradually transformed into objective thought by making it increasingly accountable for methods, evidence, ignorance and error -- this is in fact precisely how the empiricism of science emerged from the intuitions of natural philosophy.

So subjective apprehensions have no dominion over the metaphysical -- or indeed any dominion at all. Subjective thought is so fragile and vulnerable it can be made to believe anything -- which makes it not a ruler, but a slave.

And you can tell just how much of a slave is subjective thought because it'll collude with other people of similar thought, in the conviction that sharing delusion makes it more powerful.

That's how individual magical thinking becomes collective religion: self-delusion clubbing together to make delusion normative. (I remind you of an early post in which you pronounced to the forum "God is in our souls".)

It's also why I hold individualistic subjectivity to be every bit as vain, ignorant and morally bankrupt as collective subjectivity.

Your claims to individualism are a sham, Anthony, while ever you make your consciousness servant to a vain, anxious, ignorant slave.

While ever you cannot examine, challenge or contest your own subjective apprehensions, but rather flatter and defend them as a first recourse, you're already running with the herd.

If you want specific examples, consider your language. You say 'God' -- a monotheistic invention beginning with the Zoroastrians, refined by the Israelites, and inherited from your own Christian milieu. There was no transcendental God before the Zoroastrians conceived monotheism. All gods arose from nature and contributed to nature -- and not every culture had gods anyway.

You're a product of your own unchallenged cultural assumptions, Anthony. Your intuitions suck up your own cultural influences and serve them back to you under pretext of false invention.

Not only that, but you've consistently misrepresented empirical scrutiny as a claim to authority. It's not: empiricism is a servant to honesty, diligently challenging intuition to find its own error.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 3:03:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You remind me of a dog chasing the end of its tail. Everything for you ultimately leads back to materialism. You said you weren't a materialist and you believed in metaphysics but only as long as metaphysics looks exactly like physics. You no more believe in metaphysics than you believe in the Man in the Moon.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 4:58:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 3:03:10 AM, s-anthony wrote:
You remind me of a dog chasing the end of its tail. Everything for you ultimately leads back to materialism. You said you weren't a materialist and you believed in metaphysics but only as long as metaphysics looks exactly like physics. You no more believe in metaphysics than you believe in the Man in the Moon.

I'm beginning to wonder about your definition of metaphysics, Anthony.

Quoted for your interest [http://plato.stanford.edu...]:

Twentieth-century coinages [...] encourage the impression that metaphysics is a study that somehow "goes beyond" physics, a study devoted to matters that transcend the mundane concerns of Newton and Einstein and Heisenberg. This impression is mistaken. The word "metaphysics" is derived from a collective title of the fourteen books by Aristotle that we currently think of as making up Aristotle's Metaphysics. [...]

Aristotle identifies the subject-matter of first philosophy as "being as such", and, in another as "first causes". If we assume this, we should be committed to something in the neighborhood of the following theses:

* The subject-matter of metaphysics is "being as such"
* The subject-matter of metaphysics is the first causes of things
* The subject-matter of metaphysics is that which does not change


This remains the core of metaphysical concerns, though they may extend beyond that.

You might hope metaphysics meant the freedom to be opaque, unaccountable, to appeal to intuition, and ignoring a history of ignorance and error in predicting the physical, to nevertheless claim the authority of the subjective over the metaphysical.

But why should anyone accept that proposition when the key focuses of the metaphysical have historically included prime causes of the physical, the nature of being, and any unchanging principles that may result in physical changes?

Anything to legitimise the invented magic of Anthony's private Never Never Land, yes?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 12:15:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 4:58:58 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/11/2015 3:03:10 AM, s-anthony wrote:
You remind me of a dog chasing the end of its tail. Everything for you ultimately leads back to materialism. You said you weren't a materialist and you believed in metaphysics but only as long as metaphysics looks exactly like physics. You no more believe in metaphysics than you believe in the Man in the Moon.

I'm beginning to wonder about your definition of metaphysics, Anthony.

Quoted for your interest [http://plato.stanford.edu...]:

Twentieth-century coinages [...] encourage the impression that metaphysics is a study that somehow "goes beyond" physics, a study devoted to matters that transcend the mundane concerns of Newton and Einstein and Heisenberg. This impression is mistaken. The word "metaphysics" is derived from a collective title of the fourteen books by Aristotle that we currently think of as making up Aristotle's Metaphysics. [...]

Aristotle identifies the subject-matter of first philosophy as "being as such", and, in another as "first causes". If we assume this, we should be committed to something in the neighborhood of the following theses:

* The subject-matter of metaphysics is "being as such"
* The subject-matter of metaphysics is the first causes of things
* The subject-matter of metaphysics is that which does not change


This remains the core of metaphysical concerns, though they may extend beyond that.

You might hope metaphysics meant the freedom to be opaque, unaccountable, to appeal to intuition, and ignoring a history of ignorance and error in predicting the physical, to nevertheless claim the authority of the subjective over the metaphysical.

But why should anyone accept that proposition when the key focuses of the metaphysical have historically included prime causes of the physical, the nature of being, and any unchanging principles that may result in physical changes?

Anything to legitimise the invented magic of Anthony's private Never Never Land, yes?

The study of metaphysics as being, or the state of existence: a thing has existence, or being, because a thing has meaning, or value. In other words, one does not make sense apart from contrasting values. To say the world is physical, or material, makes no sense unless you know the meaning of that which is not physical, or not material.

The study of metaphysics as first cause: first cause necessitates effect, which implies a process, or step. In other words, something must produce something else. In order for something to produce something else, it must go beyond itself; in other words, it must become something it is not. It must transcend its present physical state to effect, or consequence, something else.

Lastly, the study of metaphysics as that which does not change: all physical systems and bodies change; they go from order to disorder to order. Time does not exist apart from change.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 12:40:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Perhaps someone can direct me to an immaterial world?
You are a puddle that is contained within a material hole, there is no immaterial hole for your appraisal.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 1:13:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 12:40:48 PM, bulproof wrote:
Perhaps someone can direct me to an immaterial world?

The world of thoughts and ideas, the world of imagination. Or, do you believe one's imagination is objective, literal, and material?

You are a puddle that is contained within a material hole, there is no immaterial hole for your appraisal.

That which we know defines us, and that which we are defines that which we know.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 1:27:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 1:13:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/11/2015 12:40:48 PM, bulproof wrote:
Perhaps someone can direct me to an immaterial world?

The world of thoughts and ideas, the world of imagination. Or, do you believe one's imagination is objective, literal, and material?
Thank you. That is precisely my point. Imagination is not material nor literal nor objective. It is in fact imagination.
You are a puddle that is contained within a material hole, there is no immaterial hole for your appraisal.

That which we know defines us, and that which we are defines that which we know.
And yet you claim that the material, which includes our imaginations, is defeated by your pretend immaterial world in defining us.
Simply stupid.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 1:43:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 1:27:27 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/11/2015 1:13:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/11/2015 12:40:48 PM, bulproof wrote:
Perhaps someone can direct me to an immaterial world?

The world of thoughts and ideas, the world of imagination. Or, do you believe one's imagination is objective, literal, and material?
Thank you. That is precisely my point. Imagination is not material nor literal nor objective. It is in fact imagination.

Good. Then we agree. That which is immaterial, not physical, exists.

You are a puddle that is contained within a material hole, there is no immaterial hole for your appraisal.

That which we know defines us, and that which we are defines that which we know.
And yet you claim that the material, which includes our imaginations, is defeated by your pretend immaterial world in defining us.
Simply stupid.

No. I never claimed the material was immaterial. Secondly, I do not believe one defeats or masters the other, entirely. I believe they are essential to the existence of each other.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 3:44:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 12:15:09 PM, s-anthony wrote:

The study of metaphysics as being, or the state of existence: a thing has existence, or being, because a thing has meaning, or value. In other words, one does not make sense apart from contrasting values. To say the world is physical, or material, makes no sense unless you know the meaning of that which is not physical, or not material.

The meaning of not physical, or not material is quite simple; non-existent.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 3:51:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/8/2015 2:41:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Yet magic is opaque, evasive and dishonest...,

True magic is not dishonest. Magic, in the past, was used to describe the wonderful workings of a deity, in other words miracles.

Hence, miracles never existed because magic has never been shown to exist.

The miracle was something that could not be explained by natural causes.

That is not true, a natural cause most likely was the explanation, it simply was not in plain view of those who did not have the scientific knowledge and understanding to recognize it.

The phenomenon itself may have been opaque and evasive to the believer, but opaqueness and evasiveness was not the product of the phenomenon but the subjective mind.

No, it was the lack of knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon.

The subjective mind, because of its limitations, creates magic. Opaqueness and evasiveness are the products of limited understandings.

Ignorance and incredulity creates magic and the product of limited understanding.

Now, throughout history, there have been charlatans, fraudsters, and entertainers who have claimed to be magicians; and, because of their ability for deception and illusion, to the audience they were.

But, there was no magic.

However, true magic lies within the subjective mind. In saying that, I'm not saying the mind wishes to fool others but the mind fools itself.

No, ignorance and incredulity rule the mind of fools.

Claiming the subjective as a private domain you alone prescribe is magical thinking, Anthony. It's Peter Pan telling grown-ups that he owns a private Never Never Land of which he's King.

You mean to tell me you and everyone else agree with me? My opinions are not my own?

But fighting to evade such scrutiny is also conceited. Likewise, conflating personal intuitions with metaphysical insight is tantamount to magical thinking, and full of vanity about one's own innate wisdom and self-worth.

I asked you if the mind was physical or metaphysical.

The mind is entirely physical.

You replied by saying, "The metaphysical manifests physically." Are not intuitions a product of the mind? Being they are a product of the mind would that make them physical or metaphysical?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 4:51:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 1:43:09 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/11/2015 1:27:27 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/11/2015 1:13:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/11/2015 12:40:48 PM, bulproof wrote:
Perhaps someone can direct me to an immaterial world?

The world of thoughts and ideas, the world of imagination. Or, do you believe one's imagination is objective, literal, and material?
Thank you. That is precisely my point. Imagination is not material nor literal nor objective. It is in fact imagination.

Good. Then we agree. That which is immaterial, not physical, exists.
If you wish to claim that that which is immaterial is a product of human imagination, then I guess we do.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 6:45:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 12:15:09 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/11/2015 4:58:58 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/11/2015 3:03:10 AM, s-anthony wrote:
You remind me of a dog chasing the end of its tail. Everything for you ultimately leads back to materialism. You said you weren't a materialist and you believed in metaphysics but only as long as metaphysics looks exactly like physics. You no more believe in metaphysics than you believe in the Man in the Moon.

I'm beginning to wonder about your definition of metaphysics, Anthony.

Quoted for your interest [http://plato.stanford.edu...]:

Twentieth-century coinages [...] encourage the impression that metaphysics is a study that somehow "goes beyond" physics, a study devoted to matters that transcend the mundane concerns of Newton and Einstein and Heisenberg. This impression is mistaken. The word "metaphysics" is derived from a collective title of the fourteen books by Aristotle that we currently think of as making up Aristotle's Metaphysics. [...]

Aristotle identifies the subject-matter of first philosophy as "being as such", and, in another as "first causes". If we assume this, we should be committed to something in the neighborhood of the following theses:

* The subject-matter of metaphysics is "being as such"
* The subject-matter of metaphysics is the first causes of things
* The subject-matter of metaphysics is that which does not change


To say the world is physical, or material, makes no sense unless you know the meaning of that which is not physical, or not material.
Precisely. Does somebody authoritatively know that meaning, Anthony? If so, can you please point them out to me, and explain their methods? If not, then by what right are you calling anyone a materialist who does not so self-identify?

I keep telling you: I'm an empiricist. My interests relate to the observable, including observations about the subjective experiences of my fellow human beings.

It's you who keeps insisting (falsely) that the observable must be material. I've already given many examples of things that are not themselves material, but which could nevertheless be observed. And if it happened that subjective experiences were reliably predictive of the physical world (as might occur if there were a subjectively-apprehended, persistent, non-material world significantly influencing ours), I'd be perfectly fine with that.

The study of metaphysics as first cause: first cause necessitates effect, which implies a process, or step. In other words, something must produce something else. In order for something to produce something else, it must go beyond itself; in other words, it must become something it is not. It must transcend its present physical state to effect, or consequence, something else.
Or our intuitions about causality are wrong.

Cause is a narrative developed to fit the subjective human experience of time, but science itself doesn't require that particular meaning for causality. Our subjective apprehension of time is linear and unidirectional, for example, yet the accepted laws of physics reverse perfectly well. In another example, statistical methods happily accommodate correlation without cause. So popular though it is to say so, science isn't the study of cause and effect. It's a study of correlated behaviour.

I have no problems with this -- a fact you'd have learned sooner, had you not spent so much time trying to dismiss my arguments by imputing invented prejudices, despite my constant and ignored protests.

Lastly, the study of metaphysics as that which does not change: all physical systems and bodies change; they go from order to disorder to order. Time does not exist apart from change.
By what evidence can you say that time does or doesn't exist?

Informally, time is an intuitive linguistic construct used to fit a shareable but subjective human experience of change.

It happens that formally, this model also works reasonably well when you start taking measurements and correlating effects too -- except for the very fast, the very heavy, and the very small, which demand adjustments to the model.

One such adjustment involves relativitistic framing, but other adjustments are also required, related to wave/particle dualities.

hence we know that like nearly all our naive, intuitive models for nature, our intuitive model for time is wrong.

So there are already other models in operation, and if there were a 'final' model for time (i.e. one comprehensive and stable enough to be predictive and robust against everything we know), it's likely to emerge from developments in producing a Grand Unified Theory[https://en.wikipedia.org...] -- and quite conceivably, that will be a metaphysical model, in the full Aristotelian sense.

In any case, I don't myself have a preferred model. But I'm amenable to other models -- including models that express time as something else.

Aside from your constant ignorant and belligerent misrepresentation of my position, Anthony, my chief problem with your position is that you've conflated subjectivity with... anything else. There's no reason to suppose that subjectivity correlates with metaphysics, and every reason to think it doesn't. There's no reason to suppose that it's distinct from the observable world, and ample evidence to show that the observable world can intrude perfectly well into your subjective experiences -- influencing them, predicting them and monitoring them.

So your dogma about subjectivity is really just an appeal to your own conceits. You want to claim a domain in which you can think and say whatever you like, unaccountable for evidence, transparency of method, avoidant of your own ignorance and error, and to my mind, you've picked the wrong domain for doing that.

The domain you're looking for is not your own subjective experiences, and it's not religion either.

The domain you want is called fiction. It's the only domain I know of that works exactly as you wish.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 10:16:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 3:44:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/11/2015 12:15:09 PM, s-anthony wrote:

The study of metaphysics as being, or the state of existence: a thing has existence, or being, because a thing has meaning, or value. In other words, one does not make sense apart from contrasting values. To say the world is physical, or material, makes no sense unless you know the meaning of that which is not physical, or not material.

The meaning of not physical, or not material is quite simple; non-existent.

Even nonexistence has existence; for, a thing with meaning, value, and significance has existence. That which is defined as meaningless, valueless, and insignificant has meaning, value, and significance.

The problem arises as we assume that which is nonexistent is completely nonexistent; nonexistence has existence, and existence has nonexistence; it is meaningless and meaningful; it has value and no value; it is significant and insignificant. That which may be nonexistent to one may be existent to another. That which may be unknown may itself become known. A value left alone is no value at all; in other words, value in the absence of no value is valueless.