Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 ~DREAMS~
Joined: 1/8/2007
Msg: 206
What is realPage 5 of 13    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)

No, not that either. I merely meant that, like all of us at this forum, I haven't died, and so I don't know what death is, from the personal _experiential_ point of view.


Oh well don't worry you will get your chance to experiance that... It will be your last lesson taught to you before your final exam
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 207
What is real
Posted: 4/14/2010 8:30:54 PM
wouldn't the experiential nature of death only be real to materialist???
 dalane75
Joined: 3/20/2009
Msg: 208
What is real
Posted: 4/14/2010 10:26:31 PM
Apps you said

Two definitions of Materialism:

My definition:

The belief that this physical universe is all of reality
(And, by my definition of ultimate reality, the above definition also implies a belief that this physical universe is the ultimate reality)

The definition in Simon & Schuster's New World Dictionary:

The doctrine that everything in the world, including thought, can be explained in terms of matter alone.

[end of two definitions]

Simon & Schuster's definition is equivalent to my own.


Tisk, tisk...it should be obvious that the two definitions are not equivalent. S & S states that whatever is in the world...

Your definition states that all reality...S&S reserves itself to what is in this world which can interpreted as the universe as well, but you go beyond this and claim that materialists have to believe that all reality....that is a big difference in meaning and I understand if you are not able to see that.

Please note also that the problem with definitions is that it creates a dogmatic position especially in regards to issues such as this. It is better to allow the definition some flexibility so it can be altered when necessary. Furthermore dictionaries are meant not as thee source for definition but definitions are built from how they are used etc etc etc and must be allowed to change since languages evolve and are meant as a guide.


By the dictionary definition, and by the definition on which this thread and its topic is based, Materialism doesn't study the physical world and give answers about it using evidence provided by the natural and other sciences.


That is a bold statement from your inequivalent definitions. Materialists reserve their claims to the physical world and is silent about what is not of the physical world. It is like the athiest who lacks a belief...they do not have one. Similarly materialists do not have a position outside the physical realm (of course these are generalities).


Absolutely not. Newton, Einstein and Schroedinger weren't Materialists. Science does not work from a Materialist position


To be a scientiest one does not need to be a materialist. However, that proves nothing since science is a process that provides evidence for a set of physical relations. This is a materialist method. When you go see a doctor they look for physical causes for your ailment. A neurologist will study brain scans, etc to determine problem pathways, a biologist looks for physical relationships of organisms between each other and to itself (its physical makeup), etc. Many materialists today prefer the term physicalists for this very reason because they are working from a set of physical relations and reserve themselves to the physical realm. Science is a physicalist method given science reserves itself to evidence of physial relations.


I don't know the nature of death. How could I? Are there any living persons who know death? If I don't know its nature, then I don't know what I'd be explaining if I explained death. How can I explain that which I don't know the nature of? If I knew death, then I wouldn't be available to explain it to you.


and then you said


You ask me to explain what happens if Experience ends. Experience doesn't end. Experience, The Self, Ultimate Reality, or however we refer to it, is eternal. Isn't in time. Never ends. Never began.

The innermost you isn't in time.


and in another post


Your innermost self is _you_, the center from which you look out. Itself is one thing it can't perceive. How could you expect to perceive that?


You are willing to argue that you know what the innermost you is so Reality, even though you cannot perceive this innermost self, so Reality, but you don't know what death is. If you have not perceived the ultimate nature of death it should not exclude you from stating what it is given you already know what Ulitmate Reality is without perceiving it. At least be consistent!


Only the universe and its contents are in time. If this universe isn't the ultimate reality, then ultimate reality isn't limited to this universe, and therefore is not in time.


I can conceive of possible universes that are not in time. They are eternal and unchanging where they exist as a static state. In fact one such universe in a static state is the universe as it existed in 1593 on May 6th at 2313131...n time. It has been in this state eternally so it is timeless and outside time. There also a infinite number of such universes such as 1593 on May 6th at 2313131:32...n.

Before you comment, I am using this as an example to show that 'only' lacks credibility and once you remove 'only' from the argument it becomes fallacious. Of course there are also the universes where it is possible they never existed. This is the silliness your position amounts too. Where does the non-existent universe as possibility play into Experience....


I just repeat that a Materialist says nothing about processes in the physical world, and, instead, merely makes a metaphysical claim, the one quoted in the above definitions.


Materialists believing in the physical processes as a basis in explaining physical events and that they reserve their beliefs to the physical world says a lot about those physical processes. Again materialists do not have to make a metaphysical claim but reserve their claims to the physical world.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 209
What is real
Posted: 4/14/2010 10:52:11 PM
Have any of you watched a dog chasing their tail? Thats physical. Your brain is a bonus and...well...watch it burn out from overuse of abstract overuse. Know when you should fold. Meta and physical are happy twins.
 dalane75
Joined: 3/20/2009
Msg: 210
What is real
Posted: 4/15/2010 10:17:13 PM
Apps


You're saying that the possibility worlds should be included in Reality, as part of Experience. And that that makes my Ultimate Reality arbitrary.

For one thing, it wouldn't make it arbitrary. That's because there are infinitely many of those possible instances of Experience. Nothing arbitrary there. Arbitrary would be if I said that only _one_ of those possibilities was Reality or part of Reality.

And I suggest that there's no particular justification for the claim that the possibilities for instances of Experience have to be called "part of Experience". The possible instances of Experience aren't its parts. Instances aren't parts.


You have already excluded some possibility worlds as being part of Experience. Using the same logic that you misapply to materialism makes it arbitrary because why these possiblities worlds. It is just as arbitrary to experience a specific set of infinite possibility worlds as it is to say only one.

Experience has relationships to possibilities, if they did not then it would not experience. This implies that Experience must include those possibilities as part of Reality and as such Reality is subsumed by a more basic reality that includes relationships to possibilities. This leads to a question why these relationships and not others, so your position breaks down into being arbitrary.


Does that mean that your dreams are real? You're experiencing them, and you're real. That doesn't mean that your dreams, their events, or the places where they take place, are real?


That is a good example of why your position fails. Eating a muffin and dreaming of eating a muffin are vastly different. In eating a muffin I am actually eating a muffin. Only dreaming of eating a muffin is not actually eating a muffin. The same goes for your possibility worlds and my world of being actual. In one world I experience in your possibility worlds it is only possible...sort of like eating a muffin or dreaming of eating a muffin.


If, by "how the universe came to be", you're referring to the big bang, then yes, scientists do tell us that there was a big bang that was the beginning of this universe.


I am also refering to not just the big bang but the historical processes that lead to current states such as life on earth, global warming, early agriculture, etc. In this sense there are some aspects of this universe that can be experienced, but as you aptly said there are certian aspects that we will not know because we cannot experience such processes. This calls into doubt your position Experience as Reality given there are certain parts of this universe that we are not able to experience and is part of reality.


Of course. That's because they're speaking as physicists, not as Materialists. They're talking about physics. Materialists are talking about metaphysicis.


Not all scientists are physicists. Neurologists, psychologists, and sociologists have more to say of the human condition than physicists. Maybe that is part of the issue here. You are misapplying fields of studies to areas that are not necessary.


Why take up Materialism? In particular, why should science-enthusiasts butt into philosophy threads, to arrogantly assert their own metaphysical belief (Materialism), accompanied by a claim that, as Materialists, they're more scientific, skeptical, questioning and unbelieving?


Materialism as a belief system has done more good for the world than IM, Christianity, and other religions. Materialism makes no absolute claims but reserves itself to physical relations. You forget that IM also created the caste system built from the prinicple of innermost self with its preoccupation of the innermost self and nurturing the innermost self state. This preoccupation of the self is common in religions and is also dangerous to society. Materialism in this sense is better at addressing morality by reserving itself to physical relations and not preoccupied with self status.


Now you're saying that nothing is real.


Materialism not believing in Reality still believes there is reality. There is nothing Ultimate about it.


I've told you my definition and that of Simon & Schuster. Your definition is different, and disagrees with the dictionary, and the definition at the basis of this thread


The defintion(s) that I have been working from are closer to the dictionay's than yours. Please see previous post and why your definiton is vastly different than the dictionary's.


But all possibility worlds are equally possible.


The following is an answer to your others comments in the post because I do not want to cut and past that much.

Not all possibilities are equal because some are more probable than others and the possibilities that happen have the highest probability since it actually happened. For instance it is possible that there is a unverse in which everything is the same as this one except that when coin flipping the coin always lands on heads. It is less probable than ours since not only is our world actual but also obeys the tendencies of this world. According to you the universe exactly like ours that uses the coin flip to decide such things as kickoffs in NFL games is equally possible which is absurd. The people of heads only universe interpret some flips as landing on tails so all outcomes are the same except for the reality that the coin lands on heads. Such a universe does not have a high probability rate because it violates the processes of that universe except in that one regard.

Materialism by restricting itself to the physical world seeks explanations of why this world and not others. Your position does not search for answers to that question but adds possibilites and innermost self as the reason. Your position adds more than is necessary. Furthermore, by restricting yourself to innermost self as Reality dismisses a certain set of possibility worlds because it does not consist of your Experience. If all possibility worlds are just as real then they should be included as well. This also shows that your position lacks a unity as you argue because it argues for possibilities as being equal yet leaves out some on the basis that they cannot be experienced and so outside Reality. You cannot argue that all possibilities are equal but some are less relevant since you argue that this actual world is only a possibility and so just as equal as other possibilities. If you do argue such an approach why not take it one step further and say that this world is the only world.

The essence of that argument is to show that Materialism does provide answers to why this world and not others. While your position excludes some while including others as relevant possibility worlds so succumbs to your arbitrary problem. I myself do not see arbitrariness as a problem but since you do I think it is important to show why your position is just as arbitrary as materialism according to you.

What I am attempting to establish is that you simply saying actuality could have been different and so actuality is arbitrary avoids the question of why it is not different. You ask the question, leave the question unanswered, and declare well I guess it could be different....aha its arbitrary. That is why it is a cop-out.

Your reasoning is also circular. You treat Ultimate Reality, Experience, and innermost self as being a tautology. By throwing in experience and possiblities you hope to show a complete and closed system. Example:

Innermost self experiences and so it is Experience, experiences are what I only know and consists in what is possible so it is Ultimate Reality. Ultimate Reality is my experiences so it is innermost self. Innermost self is what experiences so it is Experience, experiences are what I only know and consists in what is possible so it is Ultimate Reality. Ultimate Reality is my experiences so it is my innermost self....n.....

Materialism as what has been argued before, even accepting S & S's definition, is far more simple, elegant, less stringent, more flexible, less dangerous, more fruitful, more relevant, etc. That is why materialism is a better belief system and why positions such as yours are attacked. It should be obvious.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 211
What is real
Posted: 4/15/2010 10:58:31 PM
Materialism is what possibly killed the relationship between a child and their parents if the child believed that the world was more than what you gathered and clothed and lived in and acquired. Materialism is ugly and self-serving. Materialism is what murders the quest for truth. Materialism is NOT simple, elegant, less stringent, more flexible, etc. Materialism is the death of art, beauty, the soul. Materialism is akin to any ism...Nazi, Stalin, capital, ...etc. What gives? Stand on guard against any flippin...ISM.!!! Hey..know the one about swamp land in Florida. Now that is materialism at its best. The genesis and absolute root of materialism is greed...BUT there are the disciplined who benefit from their materialistic urges and only feed, clothe and foster their families...for their alloted time span. If they get very lucky in their span of time...they acquire enough so that they travel and really travel and get high because the world is such a friggin neat place. Oh well. You cannot choose your space and your time.
 dalane75
Joined: 3/20/2009
Msg: 212
What is real
Posted: 4/16/2010 10:04:46 AM
60to70

We were discussing materialism as a belief that involves physical processes as being reality not materialism as the pursuit of greed or the accumulation of material things.
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 213
What is real
Posted: 4/16/2010 11:07:01 AM
however an experience of eating a muffin occured?? no?? was that not added to the psyche??? does that not become an experience in the brain chemicals.. which are indeed matter???a dream experience of a muffin in an altered state? the muffin an inanimate object with no perception does not experience the dreamer, however. It does not experience being eaten.
 dalane75
Joined: 3/20/2009
Msg: 214
What is real
Posted: 4/16/2010 11:47:35 AM
inicia


however an experience of eating a muffin occured?? no?? was that not added to the psyche??? does that not become an experience in the brain chemicals.. which are indeed matter???a dream experience of a muffin in an altered state? the muffin an inanimate object with no perception does not experience the dreamer, however. It does not experience being eaten.


I think that shows the limits of experience as being a basis for saying what is real and what is not. Dreaming of eating a muffin happens through the brain but it does not mean that one has actually ate a muffin and the muffin being eaten nonetheless existed as a muffin without experiencing being a muffin.
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 215
What is real
Posted: 4/16/2010 2:48:53 PM
Is reality constituted by the experience or the inanimate object? IMO If one wishes to limit ones existence through the stability of inanimate objects one is surely entitled to do so... Yet our brains can inform us of many experiences whether we have had them or not? Why can we create that which does not exist??? and surely through the natural objects in existence should never exist. Experience can limit us however most frequently any form of experience(conscious, altered, semi conscious) IMO expands our reality.....
A muffin never existed until someone dreamt of it>>>>>
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 216
What is real
Posted: 4/16/2010 4:13:25 PM
Following along with this discussion, I can see it is following ever-decreasing rhetorical circles. Much like the mythical Woozle bird that flew in ever-decreasing circles until, finally, it flew up it's own ass.

Just saying is all.
 dalane75
Joined: 3/20/2009
Msg: 217
What is real
Posted: 4/17/2010 5:16:02 PM
Inicia


Is reality constituted by the experience or the inanimate object?


I don't think it has to be an either or question. I think experience is what makes reality for me that much more important and I venture to say for the majority of people. We are able to create things that did not exist before and experience does expand our understanding of reality. I just think that reality is more than myself or my experiences.
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 222
What is real
Posted: 4/23/2010 9:30:06 AM
You know the older I get the more I realize there is contradiction in everything including what some believe reality to be. Things that make sense to me might not make sense to anyone eles ever. Few things even in nautre are perfect.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 224
What is real
Posted: 4/25/2010 8:11:33 PM
Science absolutely supports and enhances materialism and the alternatives are not really alternatives. Alternatives such as religion and a belief in God and the variety of the experiences of alternatives are also necessary. Otherwise it is only Science and etc. Not that satisfying. If you feel constricted by the material universe...feel free to check out the alternatives. Otherwise, be bemused by the makings of man, but do not feel that this then is the very end of what cleverness is really. Man has the fine ability to pull the mask over human eyes, mind, soul and heart.
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 226
What is real
Posted: 4/26/2010 6:25:47 PM
^^^ Thanks for this post. Even though I need to read it a few more times to get it all to sink in it actually makes sense! Woo Hoo! Man I learn lots of stuff from all you guys.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 227
What is real
Posted: 4/26/2010 8:44:34 PM
Materialism is birth and death and what happens in between....contextually...what you experience first hand wherever you are and the fundamental economic and political reality you were plunked into by virture of your birth. Then you either begin to question or reinforce the materialism that furthermore supports your body and its needs. After that...keep checking out the alternatives...you will need them because your wide open eyes count more than any abstract argument. We drown forever in words and questionable pathways. We thrive when we stop! Intellect is just another stopgap measure before you drown in your own values, beliefs and fallacies.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 229
What is real
Posted: 4/30/2010 8:39:17 PM

And this is your version of taking the high road or making some sort of intellectual commentary? I have to stand by the opinion that you are a hypocritical pinhead.


Hey, if you can't beat 'em, eh?

And I stand by my opinion that you equate arrogance and bully-tactics as valid debate tactics. Well, believe me when I say, I have no problem standing up to bullies.


Let's try this again: science can't make metaphysical conclusions because it is the wrong tool for the task at hand, just like listening for the sound of a tree falling by using a radio telescope. Now, our knowledge of air pressure and sound waves is the right set of tools, which is a different issue all together. But that went over your head and under your feet. And I'm not bright? Sheesh!


Wow! You sure know how to state the obvious. And the very thing I've said on numerous occasions. Well, at least you're learning something from me. So there's hope for you yet.


Of course you don't see anything because you are blinded by your own idiocy, which - you are correct - is pathetic on your part.


No, what's pathetic is that, at your age, you've actually yet to grow up and learn that name calling is only evidence of your own intellectual shortcomings. Which is definitely pathetic on your part. Oh well. I'm sure if you ask Santa very nicely, he'll bring you a clue at Christmas.
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 230
What is real
Posted: 5/1/2010 5:47:13 AM
Good morning gentlemen~ Can we all play nice together in the playground before we all get sent to the office and another perfectly good thread gets closed for review?
Come on now lighten up dude~ I happen to enjoy reading lots of these threads even if it takes a while to have some make sense. Im a sponge and enjoy learning new things I otherwise would never get a chance to.
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 231
What is real
Posted: 5/1/2010 3:04:08 PM
I was speaking of all the threads combined in the science forums. I tend to question everything by nature. Yes these online forums provide different perspectives on so many different subjects its kind of hard not to. When interesting philosphies cause me to think, my mind is so creative Im bound to come up with new possibilties for change.
I therefore thrive on the knowledge about myself they ultimately provoke.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 232
What is real
Posted: 5/1/2010 7:09:37 PM

Good morning gentlemen~ Can we all play nice together in the playground before we all get sent to the office and another perfectly good thread gets closed for review?


I'm prepared to be as civil - or uncivil - as anyone else wants to be. If posters like scorpio think they can bully their way over other people's opinions, then I'm more than prepared to step up and give it right back. The key to stopping bullies is to stand up to them.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 235
What is real
Posted: 5/2/2010 3:31:23 PM

I commend you when you say that it's obvious to you that science can't make metaphysical conclusions. So that means that you won't any longer try to use science to support or justify the metaphysics of Materialism.


Feel free to offer a direct quote, not inferredexample of where I have actually said this and I'll amend it. Looking forward to seeing that! Since, as far as I am aware, my position has always been one supporting the assertion that science and materialism aren't necessarily the same thing. In fact, I have frequently stated that science's only job is to provide evidence for real phenomenon. Materialism is a philosophy. Philosophy might be reflected in the personal beliefs of the scientist but it has nothing to do with accomplishing the job of science.

Near as I can tell, the length of this thread has been little more than a vanity-based blog post in which anyone who challenges your assumptions is subject to little more than your barely concealed contempt and forced to endure your affectations of intellectual superiority.

In the meantime...

Please point out anywhere where I have called you an "ass" or scorpy a "pinhead," or had anything to say negative about your particular professions.

Hypocrite, clean thy own house first.
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 236
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 5/3/2010 4:47:40 PM
appreciative9809 said:
I say that because I was getting tired of hearing that "more scientific or rational than thou" claim from science-enthusiasts, when comparing themselves to those who don't share their belief in the Materialism metaphysics.


Keep this in mind:

Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.

- Kant
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 239
Science doesn't support Materialism or contradict the alternatives
Posted: 5/3/2010 6:52:26 PM

Tell Mr. Kant that much reference to experience has been made in this thread, by me, as well as others.


I just thought that Kant would be great to post here because he showed how both pure rationalism and empiricism were fail, and his quote seemed to put it in better words than I ever could on my own.

He didn't seem to understand that religion exemplifies both experience without theory, and theory without experience. He never attacked religion... even though by his own rule... its blind intellectual play
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 240
What is real
Posted: 5/5/2010 4:10:33 PM
Man you guys crack me up with how some of you think your intellectually arguing. I think sometimes you all just try to out wit each other for sport~ I find it quite entertaining actually... pop corn anyone?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 241
What is real
Posted: 5/5/2010 4:46:05 PM

Man you guys crack me up with how some of you think your intellectually arguing. I think sometimes you all just try to out wit each other for sport~ I find it quite entertaining actually... pop corn anyone?


Very likely true. Guess testosterone isn't just for sports anymore, eh?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >