Philosophy Discussion Forums

Jester Gren wrote:You replied to someone else's post of the name "It doesn't matter". I'm somewhat confused as to what you're suggesting though. If the scientific method depends solely on observation, how can one apply it to unobserved objects, and therefore prove inexistence beyond its domain?

They don't prove "inexistence", they prove the immaterial nature of phenomena.

What necessarily is so immaterial about it? Up to this point our observations have led us to think of what material is, and now a contradictory observation leads us to question whether it is material? Maybe the definition of material has simply undergone a working.

Jester Gren wrote:What necessarily is so immaterial about it? Up to this point our observations have led us to think of what material is, and now a contradictory observation leads us to question whether it is material? Maybe the definition of material has simply undergone a working.

Perhaps you should re-read the O.P. and the quotes and check out some of the references.

Meleagar wrote:

Jester Gren wrote:What necessarily is so immaterial about it? Up to this point our observations have led us to think of what material is, and now a contradictory observation leads us to question whether it is material? Maybe the definition of material has simply undergone a working.

Perhaps you should re-read the O.P. and the quotes and check out some of the references.

The only thing in the OP that gives a clue to what "immaterialism" means, in this context, is this:
"...the notion that ‘the physical environment’ is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind."

I still think all the psuedo-scientific nonsense is just a way to try to rationalize the irrational, to try to justify "faith": the desire to believe, without evidence.

This seems to suggest that "materialism" is the idea that there is a reality independent of human consciousness.

If reality, external to human consciousness, is not "material", could human consciousness then be the "material"? (Or, do you reject that notion as well?)

Keith Russell wrote:If reality, external to human consciousness, is not "material", could human consciousness then be the "material"? (Or, do you reject that notion as well?)

What I object to are equivocated, apologetic notions of "materialism" patched together to semantically salvage the idea.

What is the point of insisting on "materialism" when, as an idea, it was juxtaposed against mind-primary idealism, and then when science clearly proves our experience of the physical world to be mind-primary, try to claim the mind as "material"? At what point does one give up the long-dead ghost of materialism, if to salvage it one must coopt the very idea it was diametrically opposed to?

Materialism as a philosophy meant more than "experience is constructed of something"; it meant that experience is constructed of material. Not "energy" (which was later coopted into materialistic definition), not "potential", not "information", not "mind". IOW materialism meant that mind was not generating any fundamental aspect of what we experienced as physical reality, and we know precisely the opposite is true; mind generates everything we recognize as physical reality, because without mind not only does physical reality not exist, it never would have existed, and cannot ever have existed unless the observation of a mind collapsed quantum potential into physical experience.

Meleagar wrote:

Keith Russell wrote:If reality, external to human consciousness, is not "material", could human consciousness then be the "material"? (Or, do you reject that notion as well?)

What I object to are equivocated, apologetic notions of "materialism" patched together to semantically salvage the idea.

I'm not a materialist, but I can clearly see when just the opposite of what you accuse is being done as well.

Meleagar wrote:... and cannot ever have existed unless the observation of a mind collapsed quantum potential into physical experience.

You should really leave QM out of your arguments until you understand it. QM has nothing to do with materialism.

James S Saint wrote: You should really leave QM out of your arguments until you understand it. QM has nothing to do with materialism.

Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, two Nobel Laureates in physics, disagree with you:

The Universe is entirely mental. - Niels Bohr

The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however. - Werner Heisenberg

Meleagar wrote:

James S Saint wrote: You should really leave QM out of your arguments until you understand it. QM has nothing to do with materialism.

Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, two Nobel Laureates in physics, disagree with you:

The Universe is entirely mental. - Niels Bohr

The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however. - Werner Heisenberg

And the infallible Pope declared the Earth is the center of the universe.

Titles and public awards are the evidence for sheep, dogs, and weasels, not thinking people. Quoting them out of context and without understanding reveals which kind of non-thinker a person is.

James S Saint wrote: Quoting them out of context and without understanding reveals which kind of non-thinker a person is.

Please support your contention that I quoted them out-of-context.

I would like to know the context of the Niels Bohr quote... I know he did say that science cannot say what Nature is, only attempt to accurately describe how it operates.

Felix wrote:I would like to know the context of the Niels Bohr quote... I know he did say that science cannot say what Nature is, only attempt to accurately describe how it operates.

You mean, more context that is provided in the larger quote in the opening post?

You guys might want to note that Niels Bohr and Heisenberg knew no more about the mind nor metaphysics than the Pope knew about Science.

James S Saint wrote:You guys might want to note that Niels Bohr and Heisenberg knew no more about the mind nor metaphysics than the Pope knew about Science.

Would you care to support any of that?

Meleagar wrote:

James S Saint wrote:You guys might want to note that Niels Bohr and Heisenberg knew no more about the mind nor metaphysics than the Pope knew about Science.

Would you care to support any of that?

What were their Nobel Prizes for?

James S Saint wrote: What were their Nobel Prizes for?

I'll take that as a "no" on both cliams I've asked you to support.