Philosophy Discussion Forums

Meleagar:
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—

Science hasn't “proved” any such thing--first, because science doesn't deal in proofs. Scientific theories are accepted--contingently--until they are disproved.

Also, speaking for myself, I don’t “insist” on materialism—semantically. I have defined “materialism” as opposed to “spiritualism”, “solipsism”, or “idealism”—-but if you have a problem with that particular word, we can certainly use another.

--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?

In what way is the mind not material? (Again, I have to ask, “If the mind is not “material”, what do you claim that it is?”

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—

What do you mean by “mind”? You aren’t talking about a specific human mind (are you)? Do you mean some sort of collective mind—as in a collective human consciousness?

Or, do you mean a more “transcendent” mind, such as the “mind of God”?

Second, “we don’t know precisely the opposite is true”, not at all. This is nothing but an utterly unsupported claim. You keep repeating it, hoping that the rest of us will simply accept it (as if that would change anything...)

—mind generates everything we recognize as physical reality, because without mind—

Without which “mind”? (And, if this “mind” is not made of a “material” substance, what is it made of?

--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.

You wish. First, you say that "not only does physical reality not exist", but then you say that it does, but only because this "mind" is generating it. Well, which is it? Does physical reality exist, generated by "mind", or does it not exist at all--mind or no mind?

Second, if there is a "transcendent mind" generating all this, then all the potential (potential what?) should be collapsed into actual (actual what?), at all times, already.

Our tiny little human "minds" shouldn't cause something to collapse into an actuality, if the "transcendent mind" that generates everything, wasn't powerful enough to do it!

Again, unsupported claims and wishful thinking.

Keith Russell wrote:
Science hasn't “proved” any such thing--first, because science doesn't deal in proofs. Scientific theories are accepted--contingently--until they are disproved.

I mean, of course, in the same sense that science "proves" anything which - as you say - is always conditional.

If quantum experiments really were to disprove the existence of the material world, no one would notice.

Why would no one notice?

No one would notice because nothing would change.

Tables would remain tables; chairs would remain chairs. Cars would still require fuel to move. People would continue to be born and to die.

If it were conclusively shown that the material world did not exist absolutely nothing would change.

To show that the material world doesn't exist would be like showing that the color 'red' doesn't exist.

* * * * * * * * *

Poindexter: Quantum physics has shown that red doesn't exist!

Felix: Really? Wow, and all this time I thought that apples were red. Guess I was mistaken, huh?

Um, BTW, if you don't mind my asking, since red no longer exists, what color are apples, anyway?

Poindexter: Oh, they're rem. Everything that was formerly thought to be red turned out to be rem instead.

Felix: So if red doesn't exist and if apples and robins and fire engines are rem, then what's the difference between red and rem?

Poindexter: Isn't the difference obvious? Red doesn't exist and rem does!

Felix: Oh.

The proper response to anyone's claim that the material world doesn't exist but that a wholly immaterial one does is . . . Oh.

Meleagar wrote:

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.

You can take it as a QED.

They, like you, had absolutely no information concerning exactly how a mind works. Their speculation about the mind producing reality is no different than the Pope saying "God did it". They and you merely say "Mind does it". It is just more superstition to fill in for ignorance.

If you had quoted Freud or Skinner, you might have been able to score a point or 2 of persuasion, but then you would be faced with the fact that they knew nothing of physics. Physicists know nothing of psychology or the mind (most psychologists don't either, but that's another issue).

Santini wrote:If quantum experiments really were to disprove the existence of the material world, no one would notice.

Why would no one notice?

No one would notice because nothing would change.

Tables would remain tables; chairs would remain chairs. Cars would still require fuel to move. People would continue to be born and to die.

If it were conclusively shown that the material world did not exist absolutely nothing would change.

To show that the material world doesn't exist would be like showing that the color 'red' doesn't exist.

Haha... exactly true.

Meleagar wrote:

Keith Russell wrote:
Science hasn't “proved” any such thing--first, because science doesn't deal in proofs. Scientific theories are accepted--contingently--until they are disproved.

I mean, of course, in the same sense that science "proves" anything which - as you say - is always conditional.

I really wish you'd addressed this:
"...if there is a "transcendent mind" generating all this, then all the potential (potential what?) should be collapsed into actual (actual what?), at all times, already.

Our tiny little human "minds" shouldn't cause something to collapse into an actuality, if the "transcendent mind" that generates everything, wasn't powerful enough to do it!"

The only thing that QM claims "collapses" is a statistical graph and it collapses because the newly observed information is added into the equation, thus "when an observation is made, the 'wave' collapses".

Seriously uneducated people thought they were talking about actual physical waves of something collapsing. It has become a part of QM superstition ever since. Same as witchcraft, burning candles, and chanting.

Seriously uneducated people thought they were talking about actual physical waves of something collapsing. It has become a part of QM superstition ever since. Same as witchcraft, burning candles, and chanting.

I want it on record that I don`t concur with Meleagars fantasies of quantum. That said JSS I don`t concur with your ideal that thought is superstition. If enough people think a certain way, it over-rides and nullifies the individuals thoughts. That is why we know the term brainwashing. Social engineering is a reality, not a fallacy. Ever walked into a room of people who don`t agree with you and felt their thoughts? its like feeling a Romanian winter without clothes on. On the scientific side, instinct is animal, no thought needed. Instinct is a survival mechanism animals know as do humans. Basic Instincts [Sharon Stone helped ]is not educated into a human or animal.

Vulcanised wrote: That said JSS I don`t concur with your ideal that thought is superstition.

I have no idea what that was supposed to mean.

Are you proposing that thought creates physical reality? Or perhaps, more sensibly, that thought effects people who then change environment?

Are you proposing that thought creates physical reality? Or perhaps, more sensibly, that thought effects people who then change environment?

Yes thoughts teach children what to learn. Do they learn about Monarchy or about Governments? do they learn to think in favour of their own Governement or do they learn to differentiate and think for themselves? Many lands teach their might is right, others allow their people to criticise them the West goes to far on it. Or wants to appear to be democratic when its obvious they don`t ask for referendums. They don`t ask their people, they just tell them like all might makes right does. Meleagar thinks his transcendent gods are the answer, I think people are. Evolved intelligent people.

Keith Russell wrote:I really wish you'd addressed this:
"...if there is a "transcendent mind" generating all this, then all the potential (potential what?) should be collapsed into actual (actual what?), at all times, already.

Our tiny little human "minds" shouldn't cause something to collapse into an actuality, if the "transcendent mind" that generates everything, wasn't powerful enough to do it!"

Human mind = transcendent mind. The creation of the universe (collapsing of potential experience into actual experience) is what the observing, transcendent human mind is doing.

Vulcanised wrote:Yes thoughts teach children what to learn. Do they learn about Monarchy or about Governments? do they learn to think in favour of their own Governement or do they learn to differentiate and think for themselves? Many lands teach their might is right, others allow their people to criticise them the West goes to far on it. Or wants to appear to be democratic when its obvious they don`t ask for referendums. They don`t ask their people, they just tell them like all might makes right does.

QM is strictly about subatomic particles.

Vulcanised wrote:Evolved intelligent people.

If within such lies the hope of Man, Man is truly hopeless.

Meleagar wrote:

Keith Russell wrote:I really wish you'd addressed this:
"...if there is a "transcendent mind" generating all this, then all the potential (potential what?) should be collapsed into actual (actual what?), at all times, already.

Our tiny little human "minds" shouldn't cause something to collapse into an actuality, if the "transcendent mind" that generates everything, wasn't powerful enough to do it!"

Human mind = transcendent mind. The creation of the universe (collapsing of potential experience into actual experience) is what the observing, transcendent human mind is doing.

And the fact that the universe is older than humanity doesn't bother you in the least? Nor does the question, "If the "human mind" is creating the universe, what is creating the "human mind"? How can any thing "create" existence? (To do so, the "thing" would have to be--first--outside of existence, meaning it would not exist...)

Keith Russell wrote
with regard to Meleagar's opinion about idealism(immaterialism, primacy of mind over brain etc)

Science hasn't “proved” any such thing--first, because science doesn't deal in proofs. Scientific theories are accepted--contingently--until they are disproved.

Not only this as KR says, but also, although the great majority of scientists are monists and of those most will be materialists, I guess,(is there a poll count somewhere?)it is metaphysical ontology that deals in primal substances, not science.Metaphysical ontology is done with rationalistic thinking, not empirical experiments and observation as for science.
**********************
Vulcanized wrote

I want it on record that I don`t concur with Meleagars fantasies of quantum. That said JSS I don`t concur with your ideal that thought is superstition. If enough people think a certain way, it over-rides and nullifies the individuals thoughts. That is why we know the term brainwashing. Social engineering is a reality, not a fallacy. Ever walked into a room of people who don`t agree with you and felt their thoughts? its like feeling a Romanian winter without clothes on. On the scientific side, instinct is animal, no thought needed. Instinct is a survival mechanism animals know as do humans. Basic Instincts [Sharon Stone helped ]is not educated into a human or animal.

I agree with Vulcanised that we humans construct truth, if that is what V is saying. I also agree that humans can be brain washed, although I guess a well trained scientist, poet, or philosopher are all less likely than untrained minds to be brain washed.However, truth/reality is a social construct.

"Truth" and "Reality" are 2 different things. Truth is a mental construct that accurately models reality.

The truth is that quantum mechanics merely tells something about materialism, that material particles quantise in subnuclear sizes. That should be no big surprise but it was 100 years ago.

James S Saint wrote

"Truth" and "Reality" are 2 different things. Truth is a mental construct that accurately models reality.

I confess to feeling a little confused about the difference if any between truth and reality. I agree with James about truth being a mental construct. I think that the one reality is the total of all the perspectives that ever were or are to come, and that this totality materially exists. Perhaps reality is one aspect of truth so that reality is also a social construct or even to some extent an individual's construct, although I bet that all humans have a lot of the same in their perspectives. Likewise I suppose that all dogs have much the same perspective. And all spiders. And all whales.

Actually, I think that I have to distinguish between a social reality, an individual's reality, and metaphysical reality.