Your vocabulary lends itself to some fascinating interpretations of what "IS" is. THAT is why any debate with you ends up in a hair splitting exercise. What you DO with words is, as RE has pointed out repeatedly, move the definition goal posts around so that you can say, uh, NO "I didn't say that" or "No, this thread has no relevance to eXternalism", etc.
Instead of just accusing me of moving the goalposts, show me where I have.
FOLLOWED by your apparent willingness to discuss an issue, that by your own words, is rather fruitless to discuss (i.e. the interaction). 
It is not fruitless to discuss it, and in fact I welcome discussion of it, since I am pretty sure that the more people think about it, the more people will realize that the interaction problem has no solution, and so take a look at the alternative -- idealism. Of course they might also fall into the error of materialism, in which case I would welcome discussion of the hard problem of consciousness, which they can't solve.
Here's the deal, Ka. EVERYTHING about your outlook on what you consider WHATEVER is impossible to argue against BECAUSE you DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE (yeah - I know you'll claim that about you is incorrect as well) WE are talking to each other here.
Yup, incorrect. See below.
Sure, you can come up with all sorts of erudite labels with "justification" for your claim that you believe we do have sensory apparatus and that you do actually engage in debate with other humans and recognize that we talk to each other, but it is NOT SO, according to your concept of reality.
My concept of reality is that there is nothingness (no-thingness) AND there is thingness, and each depends on the other, making them a unity. So it does not follow from my concept of reality that there is no sensory apparatus, or other humans, or biosphere.
This then taints absolutely every subject on the issue (i.e. cause and effect related) about integrating, analyzing and taking appropriate action on, INFORMATION about the OUTSIDE world that our sensory apparatus MUST have for us to remain as viable homeostatic biological entities.
There is just NO WAY for you to look at your belief system and seriously consider the possibility that you are a space cadet living in a totally erroneous private world. The biosphere is NOT accessible through a meditation chamber, and never will be, IMHO. You have provided zero evidence that it is.
?? What does meditation have to do with the existence of anything?
Furthermore, you may even claim that "looking for evidence" is evidence 
of an incorrect approach to "perceiving" the biosphere or anything else. 
The only (non)-thing for which one cannot look for evidence is no-thingness. The biosphere is a thing, so there is no problem perceiving it, or studying it scientifically.
It's kind of like saying that jumping out of a window of a multistory building is not dangerous; it's the concrete that kills you. And even that was a mere perception of smacking the concrete. 
Ah, now here there is something to say. Yes, smacking the concrete is just perceptions, very painful ones, resulting in death, which is to say the scrunched up body is no longer able to perceive physical reality (its sensory apparatus has been destroyed). After which (I think) one perceives non-physical reality, but I can't prove that. In any case, physical reality continues to exist as long as there are people or bacteria perceiving it. The problem I suspect you have with this is the word "just" as in "just perceptions". My task, if we are to actually debate this, is to show that saying that physical reality is "just perceptions" does not detract an iota from science, or how we should engage with physical reality, for example, it remains the case that jumping out of high windows results in death.
When I question your ability to perceive without accepting the fact that perceiving IS a sensory EVENT that INCLUDES integrating outside information, you DANCE by saying the, uh, "interaction is not explained".
As I said, I accept that perceiving is a sensory event, and have no idea why you think I would think otherwise. And it does integrate outside information, that is, information that was outside my ego consciousness, and moves inside it. However, I would also say that "inside" and "outside" are spatial metaphors, and that space has no independent existence, that we create space, time, and mass in the act of perceiving. And this, of course, is where discussion gets tricky, and calls for "hair-splitting", though I would call it precision. The moon really exists, but only exists located in spacetime when it is looked at.
I'll tell you what. When you agree that it is possible that you are a space cadet and do not have a clue of what you speak, then I will admit that SAME possibility is present in my worldview as well. But until you, a separate and distinct entity from me, are actually willing to GO THERE, you are fibbin' when you claim you ARE willing to "go there" on the issue of eXternalism.
I agree that it is possible that I am wrong. There is no certainty in metaphysics. All one can do is argue over what is most plausible. But then I have never claimed otherwise, so I really don't understand this talk about being unwilling to "go there". After all, until I was 37 I was just as much an externalist as you are now. So I've been there.
I challenge your claim that eXternalism is not related to, or relevant to, this thread. It is.
Of course it is highly relevant to this thread, which is why I made my first post in this thread attacking externalism. However, it is not relevant to the debate I had with RE over the usage of 'ad hominem', which is all I claimed.
People who BELIEVE that there is ZERO meaning in anything and everything they "do" OFTEN end up committing suicide (e.g. Buddhists). THIS SENSELESS ACT is born of nihilism. ANYONE that teaches others that there is NOTHING because there is NO THING is nurturing a potential nihilist who may end up committing suicide.
Then I'm off the hook, because I definitely believe there are things, such as you, me, and the biosphere, and that real people are doing real harm to it. What I do not believe is that there are any mindless things existing on their own.
DON'T hair split with me about the importance of MEANING and PURPOSE in human lives. Your worldview EXCLUDES BOTH MEANING AND PURPOSE. But of, course, you will claim that you never said any of that or represent any of that. Well, I think you do. And I think you should take responsibility for telling people there is NOTHING to FEAR out there because there is NO THING, or even an "out there".
I am afraid of disease, poisonous critters, of losing my savings to some bankster, etc. etc., since I consider viruses, critters, and banksters to all be real. I also think that MEANING and PURPOSE are names of God, and that things exist to express that Meaning and fulfill divine Purpose.
You say I am moving goalposts. Show me where I have. Show me where I have ever said or implied that "nothing is real" or anything like that. Some Buddhists say that, but I am not one of them.
Well, how can I show you that you have said it?
The only way, I suppose, which I am sure you will take issue with, is the "spatial metaphors" term and the alleged conditional "existence" of the moon (or any
thing -
atoms, molecules, people, etc.- else, for that matter).
Ka said (smileys are sins of Agelbert - Ka is innocent!): I would also say that "inside" and "outside" are spatial metaphors, and that space has no independent existence, that we create space, time, and mass in the act of perceiving. And this, of course, is where discussion gets tricky , and calls for "hair-splitting" 
, though I would call it precision.
The moon really exists, but only exists located in spacetime when it is looked at.
(emphasis mine
)
I don't like to use labels, but aren't you a type of monist?
Monism is the view that attributes oneness or singleness (Greek: μόνος) to a concept (e.g., existence). Substance monism is the philosophical view that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism
(emphasis mine
)
The issue of names for God is not something I ever associated MEANING and PURPOSE with. I agree that God has a lot to do with that in our lives, but I wasn't talking about God; I was talking about humans. You know, like Maslow's hierarchy and things like that. When you do that sort of subject classification rearrangement, it appears to me that you just moved a goal post. Can we stick to human meaning and purpose for a while? You are the scholar, but I know a thing or two about language as well. The word "vocation" is one I
would associate with God as linked to
meaning and purpose in our lives simply because I believe that we all have a mission. But that's at a level of mind far beyond avoiding pain, breathing, getting enough to eat, maintaining homeostasis, etc.
vo·ca·tion noun: vocation; plural noun: vocations
late Middle English: from Old French, or from Latin vocatio(n-), from vocare ‘to call.’
a strong feeling of suitability for a particular career or occupation.
"not all of us have a vocation to be nurses or doctors"
synonyms: calling, life's work, mission, purpose, function; More
profession, occupation, career, job, employment, trade, craft, business, line, line of work, métier
"forestry is my vocation"
•a person's employment or main occupation, especially regarded as particularly worthy and requiring great dedication.
Back to the window jump to concrete splat experience, to you, the concrete is only "there" because the jumper thought it would be there PRIOR to jumping out of the window. If, for example, the jumper firmly THOUGHT that a 12 ft deep swimming pool was down there prior to jumping, he would just splash into the pool and swim to the edge unharmed.
This "ability" you believe we conscious entiti(es
) possess to sort of create our physical universe on the fly as a function of perception (
which vanishes from existence just as quickly with our Trump like "attention" to perception) is a bit difficult to accept from the point of view of thermodynamics, if nothing else is at issue (
although there certainly ARE a lot of other controversial considerations to be explained).
Once I had appendicitis. I didn't know I had it. I just knew I had an upset stomach after eating at around 6:00 PM, which turned into a stomach ache that would not go away, but was not localized on my right side near the appendix. I went to the ER at around 9:00 PM. The doctor diagnosed my ache as gastritis and prescribed some shots I could give myself in the thigh (two shots).
Now why did he make that mistake? BECAUSE of the power of suggestion of my mind (
at least partly - the doctor that operated on me later on told me it's real hard to diagnose appendicitis when the pain isn't localized, and even then they can only confirm SOMETHING is wrong in one or more of your organs because of the high white blood cell count).
You see, when I arrived at the ER with that gut pain, the young doctor, after examining a 24 year old healthy male with a stomach ache, gave me a shot of something. The pain in my stomach vanished like it had never been there. This convinced the doctor that his gastritis initial diagnosis was correct, so no blood tests were ordered and I was sent home.
I got up at midnight with renewed pain in my stomach. I gave myself the shot. Within an hour it was worse. I gave myself the second shot. By two AM, I am pounding on the headboard to avoid dealing with the severe stomach pain and cramping.
WHY? Because I was poor, newly married, had been fired from an air taxi for organizing a union, was out of a job, and living in my parent's house. I DID NOT WANT to rack up some hospital expenses, comprende, amigo?
BUT, I had GREAT FAITH in doctors. But that "faith" didn't last too long as the organs did a duty dance in there. I finally went back to the hospital at around 4:00 AM and, within another 12 hours, and a LOT of pain, I had my appendix, which had
ruptured,
making it life threatening peritonitis, removed.
The doctor that operated on me later explained that some people, like me, never get a pain in their SIDE that helps doctors diagnose appendicitis. Gastritis is more common so that's the way young doctors frequently go when faced with patients like me. The shots for gastritis actually exacerbate the swelling of the infected appendix.
As the appendix swells, the other organs begin to swell as a defense mechanism. After the appendix ruptures, the other organs quickly sense this and try to limit the damage from toxins that will certainly damage them (and kill you) from septic conditions.
These other organs isolate the appendix as best they can by expanding through inflammation. It works for a while. THAT is when the pain becomes localized on your side. But if you are not operated on within a certain time period, the toxins and bacteria from the ruptured appendix attack the walls of the organs pushing against the appendix and THEY get severely infected too. Then the patient dies.
So, you can see why I have some issues with believing that my (allegedly
instant matter creating thought processes) had BEANS to do with anything but making a situation WORSE BECAUSE of the power of my mind to
incorrectly, but due to my faith in doctors,
believe the doctor who diagnosed me with gastritis and gave me a shot had fixed everything.
From the "perception is creation of cause and effect on the fly" view you claim is logical and reasonable, it makes no sense whatsoever. Ka, I was NOT in the conscious sensory loop. Everything that happened in my appendix and surrounding organs was an involuntary response that I knew nothing about until the doctor explained it to me AFTER THE FACT. It all happened, regardless of what I THOUGHT and the events were totally adverse to my perceived economic needs at the time.
You believe our minds are a creative force, with few limits. I am convinced that our bodies and minds are, in the scientific sense of the word, "irritable". That is a term, in this case, NOT related to "being in a bad mood or feeling bothered", as it is commonly used in the vernacular. I am referring to the ability to sense defined as "irritability". I learned that term in a mainframe computer class. The Sperry Univac missile tracker converted to an air traffic tracker was "irritable" because it had sensory response connections (IO - input output) from radar sites through PAMS (peripheral adapter modules).
My organs operate on a level that my thought processes rarely sense, yet they DO have a purpose and a meaning to their primitive but absolutely vital functions within me. I cannot accept your claim that, somehow, these irritability based cause and effect processes do not exist when I do not have them in my perception.
We have argued this stuff before. You have said, if I remember correctly, that my constructed universe is real for me so, even if I "created" all that cause and effect AFTER it happened, that's okay too because thought is not "limited" by time.
I disagree. And it is you that needs to do a bit of convincing here that you aren't making a circular argument. Think about it, Ka. Nobody can pin you down to flawed logic because your cause and effect creative horizons aren't even limited by time!
Now IF you accept that ignorance of a form of cause and effect such as my appendicitis/peritonitis on my part is inexplicable from the monist point of view, I would consider that a rational position. But that is "rational" from your point of view, ONLY if our creative
modus operandi is time limited. But that would mean that reality exists independent of thought perceptions. And that is why I believe the "unlimited time for creative tought cause and effect" thing is
sine qua non to your belief system.
Now, if you say you agree that our instant creative processes ARE time limited, as you imply when you say the moon no longer exists right after you stop thinking about the moon, then you should NOT keep denying, what I believe is a corollary, i.e. that, if I am in a space ship, I won't hit the moon, even if I'm flying at it in ignorance, because I don't THINK it's there.
Sorry Ka, it's THERE, whether I am thinking about it or not.
My appendix ruptured when it was the very last thing I wanted or was thinking about because the poison was THERE.
WELCOME TO KOLLAPSNIK.COM
Topic: Extreme examples, eternalism and nihilism (Read 4705 times)
August 01, 2016, 11:10:44 PM