Materialism.

[FilmSnob]

Because when you die, everything will be exactly the same. See? No dependance on your mind. Other than some grieving friends and family and a little extra food for the worms, I guess...

This is a horrible argument, if it is an argument to even begin with. You have no idea that when you[i] die that everything will be exactly the same. So no, one cannot see that the world does not depend on your mind, nor anyone elses. We cannot even find any other minds, strictly speaking, besides "yours". And no one said anything about dependence on [i]your mind. It says none outside of all minds, hence mind-dependent and not mind-independent.

Oh...

I didn't see that before. You are absolutely right.

Still, materialism can work within this framework. In other words, even though it is mind-dependent, materialism is the only theory of existance that makes sense.

[ZenKitty]

Still, materialism can work within this framework. In other words, even though it is mind-dependent, materialism is the only theory of existance that makes sense.

I doubt you would find that if existence makes sense under such a position. I would just ask you if pain and pleasure are found in the mind-independent world that you are talking about.

[FilmSnob]

I am not talking about a mind-independent world, you already convinced me that reality is quite mind-dependent.

[ZenKitty]

I am not talking about a mind-independent world, you already convinced me that reality is quite mind-dependent.

I honestly have no idea if you are being sarcastic or not. If you are being sarcastic and not sincere, then my question still stands. If you are being sincere, then I do not see how you arrived at that materialism makes sense. In many ways, it goes against what common people typically believe and it makes no sense to them. They have to go through a long processes of instruction into that belief, in some cases. And I do not find it to make sense, as my personal point of view.

[FilmSnob]

I am being sincere.

I think materialism still makes sense in a mind dependent world. It explains perfectly why you feel pleasure and pain, as well as anything else within the realm of the real and even the imaginary. The fact that there have to be minds around to think about materialism for materialism itself to exist is no argument against it.

[ZenKitty]

I think materialism still makes sense in a mind dependent world. It explains perfectly why you feel pleasure and pain, as well as anything else within the realm of the real and even the imaginary. The fact that there have to be minds around to think about materialism for materialism itself to exist is no argument against it.

As a tool for thinking about things, I do not have a disagreement on that, with some caveate. If you want to call those sensible qualities that you find to form a certain pattern that becomes something like what we call a cat, and designate it as "matter", then that is fine.



The only problem becomes when you take this idea of "matter" to be something abstract that exists independent of a mind. And when you inspect most of these things to be considered as "matter", they are of the most abstract nature that they have no sensible qualities at all or found in experience itself from reflection on our experiences. For example, think of a geometrical line or point. I am willing to bet that you cannot think of them. I bet you will say that you have drawn a point like this . , but that is not a point. A point in geometry, and mathematics, cannot be experienced. This is because they have no length or width. When you see a triangle drawn on a board, that is not really a triangle in geomery. That is what matter is like, an abstract idea. Abstract ideas are useful for things, but you can never forget that abstract ideas only exist in a mind, unless you are a Platonist and even Plotinous (Neo-Platonic) came up that these abstracts would exist in a mind as well.

[FilmSnob]

Maybe...

But it is the best damn abstract idea produced so far.

[ZenKitty]

Maybe...But it is the best damn abstract idea produced so far.

Right, and completely meaningless and no empirical content, and I mean literally no empirical content. It is completely devoid of sensory qualities that we find in experience. Just like geometry. It is actually a very empty notion that is the best at being nothing. Maybe you have been confused with language, which happens a lot when people get stuck on abstract idea.

[FilmSnob]

Now you are being disingenuous.

At least answer me with the same careful argumantation that I answered you with.

I explained why materialism works... Can you explain why it doesn't?

[ZenKitty]

Now you are being disingenuous.

At least answer me with the same careful argumantation that I answered you with.

I explained why materialism works... Can you explain why it doesn't?

It does not do anything. What does it even offer? That would be my question. As far as I understand it, it is something that gives rise to these sensible qualities that we experience, and at the same time it is not the same as the sensible qualities. change them all you like and it is not found in them but they are qualities of it. Next you try to come up with it in your imagination and find out it constantly changes there as well, but they are not the same as imagination either. What is it? Remember that you would not even be experiencing it but it some how gave rise to what you experienced, while not like most of what you experience, if you come to it indirectly. But come up with all these abstract ideas that are so general that you do not see them in your experience, and yet these are suppose to best systems. mathematics is best systems and simple, and yet most of it is not even about particular things, even though they can be applied. But what is being applied is nothing like what is being applied to and vice versa. It just about explains nothing. This is not to mean that people cannot get caught up in it, it sounds good

[Moreno]

Maybe...But it is the best damn abstract idea produced so far.

Right, and completely meaningless and no empirical content, and I mean literally no empirical content. It is completely devoid of sensory qualities that we find in experience. Just like geometry. It is actually a very empty notion that is the best at being nothing. Maybe you have been confused with language, which happens a lot when people get stuck on abstract idea.

I hesitate to say it - in case it leads to our disagreeing - but in some major sense we agree, and I appreciate the concise way you get to this point, holding empiricism strictly to empiricism from the get go. Nipping the abstraction in the bud.

[Moreno]

double post

[FilmSnob]

By that logic, all words are useless.

Welcome, both of you, to the world of common human understanding.

We are currently unable to effectively point out empirical things to each other unless we are face to face, so we use generalizing abstractions. Don't like it?

Stop using words.

[ZenKitty]

By that logic, all words are useless.

Welcome, both of you, to the world of common human understanding.

We are currently unable to effectively point out empirical things to each other unless we are face to face, so we use generalizing abstractions. Don't like it?

Stop using words.

Words mean what you want them to mean. Go out into your yard and see what you observe. Do you apply names to them? I do. I was even taught how to apply words and I was taught with particular ones, like this particular pen besides me. I was taught to point at things, and applied a word that became a sign for that particular thing I experienced which is not signified by that sign (i.e. word). We are taught language and learn to use it in a group, and we speak extremely well with one another. You just have to be careful on the words that you take to be actual things. Let me give you one example. In the english language we turn adjectives into nouns. Take these two sentences, which make sense in English: (1) A horse gallops and (2) a horse has a good gallop. The second one says that a horse possesses a gallop like it posses horse shoes. It is a complete abstraction in that sense, and we next come to think it exists because it is so useful to talk that way. Just because talking a certain way is easier does not mean that those words signify anything sensible or in experience. We have a world of common language and our language is infected with some abstract terms that we take to signify existing things just because it is part of our common language. And I did not say that we do not generalize, but when you talk about humans, do you not think of a particular one that is, say, male and while, a certain height and certain weight, and maybe a certain hair color and color of eyes? I do, but these abstractions have none of that stuff. We do notice some similarities, but those are particular things while "human" or gallop are abstractions that have nothing particular.

The problem is not about stop using words, its about using words properly and not getting caught up in language where you take certain words to signify something that actually exists, while just an abstract idea.

[Only_Humean]

It does not do anything. What does it even offer? That would be my question.

It allows us to make predictions about the existence of things not currently perceived by minds. Which very often turn out to be true, and sometimes even useful. What does the idea of mind-dependent reality offer?

[Chester]

I'm in a cardboard box. Cardboard is just a name for it, I could have called it shoe. The box is all I know. It's all I have experienced. Inquisitiveness or boredom causes me to pick at it and I find that it is not solid at all. It's made up of smaller parts. It has lots of voids and a wavy interior. But it's still what I called cardboard.

One day, I may make a hole all the way through the cardboard and I may find that I am surrounded by a larger box made of something completely different. Smooth and transparent - I may call it plexiglass.

Today, I only know a little about cardboard.

Materialism is more than just a name (like cardboard) , it is an assumption about the nature of existence.

[Chester]

I think that a simpler way to describe reality is to say that there are laws that govern this experience...no requirement for that mind independent stuff at all.

You know what those laws are called? Uniformity of Nature. No need for mind-independent stuff with the uniformity of nature, as it is typically called. Uniformity of nature is just the uniformity of my experiences or uniformity of human experiences.

Yep, we live in a predictable universe, that's what science recognises (and makes use of).Science certainly does not indicate that the world is mind independent. It seems that some people equate "material" with "real", it's a very simplistic mistake in my opinion (even though materialism may be a correct assumption). Nice to know that some of us can see beyond the dogma.

[Chester]

It does not do anything. What does it even offer? That would be my question.

It allows us to make predictions about the existence of things not currently perceived by minds. Which very often turn out to be true, and sometimes even useful. What does the idea of mind-dependent reality offer?

Materialism does not do that, the fact that we recognise laws is what builds knowledge.

A mind dependent reality offers profound possibilities relating to the existence of God.The existence (or not) of God is The central question for humanity.

[phyllo]

Materialism is more than just a name (like cardboard) , it is an assumption about the nature of existence.

It's a conclusion drawn from observations. You have reached a different conclusion.

[Chester]

Materialism is more than just a name (like cardboard) , it is an assumption about the nature of existence.

It's a conclusion drawn from observations. You have reached a different conclusion.

The only observation that you can make is that reality isn't dependent on all minds...that's it mate, everything else is an assumption.

[phyllo]

A mind dependent reality offers profound possibilities relating to the existence of God.The existence (or not) of God is The central question for humanity.

Just to be clear, by mind dependent... you mean the mind of God, right?

[Chester]

A mind dependent reality offers profound possibilities relating to the existence of God.The existence (or not) of God is The central question for humanity.

Just to be clear, by mind dependent... you mean the mind of God, right?

Well, imo I think the universe could be a part of a mind , yes. That's not to say that I know it is, it's just that such a situation would explain a lot and be simpler than the materialism theory.

[ZenKitty]

It does not do anything. What does it even offer? That would be my question.

It allows us to make predictions about the existence of things not currently perceived by minds. Which very often turn out to be true, and sometimes even useful. What does the idea of mind-dependent reality offer?

Really? It would be perceived by another mind, even though not mine or yours or human minds. We also do not need it to make predictions now. All predictions come to human observation. Like biologist Humberto Maturana brings up, 'Scientific prediction, like all prediction, is not predicting what is going on in the objective world; rather, it is the prediction of our experience. We do not predict where the moon will be on a certain evening and time; we predict where we will experience the moon on a certain evening and time." So where is this "matter" when we do not use it to predict anything? And how does "matter" allow you to make predictions about things not currently perceived by minds when you have never perceived this thing to begin with to even say it allows you to do that or exists? As far as I am aware, conceptual systems and past experience allows you to make predictions of what you will observe, and both things are mind-dependent. No need for matter and does nothing. Looks like the appendix, just a dangler that only hurts you and does not benefit you.

[statiktech]

It does not do anything. What does it even offer? That would be my question.

It allows us to make predictions about the existence of things not currently perceived by minds. Which very often turn out to be true, and sometimes even useful. What does the idea of mind-dependent reality offer?

Fallibility; no?

[Only_Humean]

So where is this "matter" when we do not use it to predict anything?

Presumably tucked away somewhere with your non-human minds.

"We do not predict where the moon will be on a certain evening and time; we predict where we will experience the moon on a certain evening and time."

What is this "predicting where the moon will be" that we are not doing? It's playing with language, pathological philosophy, that's all.

For example: "we do not predict where we will experience the moon on a certain evening and time; we predict where it will be on a certain evening and time, regardless of whether we experience it or not". Given our prediction methods, that's more true. We can predict where the moon will be after all life on earth has been sterilised by a massive catastrophe - our methods don't stop predicting just because there will be no-one there to check them.