AuthorTopic: Extreme examples, eternalism and nihilism  (Read 4719 times)

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Extreme examples, eternalism and nihilism
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2017, 11:23:09 AM »
Ka,
why do you think being motivated by fear is a negative concept? I agree that being motivated by GROUNDLESS fear is certainly to be disdained, but LOGIC based fear (e.g. some thing, being or event is to be feared because it has been conclusively proven to be deleterious to your continued biochemical activity.), IMHO, is, well, prudent, as well as logical.


Yes, but the question is, is eternalism true or not. To say that eternalists are eternalists only out of fear does not say anything about whether or not eternalism is true. Chapman wouldn't have put that statement in there except to cast doubt on eternalism. just as atheists bring up wish-fulfillment and such to question theism. Even if it were true that all eternalists are fearful of nihilism, that would not in itself make eternalism false. Hence his statement is a logical fallacy. And that kind of fallacy is called an ad hominem, because it refers to the character of the eternalist, and not eternalism itself.

Hmmmm. After all the polite debate between Ka and RE  , I feel the need to expose a fundamental intransigence on the party of the first, second and third (etc.  :icon_mrgreen:) parts in this eruption of erudite debating activity.


So,
It appears that Ka has attempted to dance around the FACT that it offends him for anyone to NOT question the validity of externalism.  ;D

RE is correct  :o  ;D that questioning Externalism to the point of saying it is totally invalid, useless, counterproductive and possibly destructive to human society (paraphrased  ;)) is certainly NOT Ad Hom to Ka, just because Ka thinks our plebian perception of reality is some sort of illusion that we cause and effect types are being fooled into believing. RE and I are on different sides of the universe in regard to SPIRITUAL cause and effect, but that's not relevant to this particular effort by da godfader, so I won't get caught up in that bag of worms here.

RE gets it about the connection between reality and what is external to us and what ain't. Ka not only doesn't get it, he is pissed at anyone who says Ka doesn't get it.

A few years ago I went through excruciating detail explaining the human sensory apparatus. The very ability of Ka to question our assumed cause and effect "externalism" is impossible without that sensory apparatus.

But Ka, even though he is a man I respect immensely, just don't wanna go there.

So, as Comey would say:

« Last Edit: May 15, 2017, 11:28:42 AM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 42014
    • View Profile
Re: Extreme examples, eternalism and nihilism
« Reply #31 on: May 15, 2017, 11:38:31 AM »
RE and I are on different sides of the universe in regard to SPIRITUAL cause and effect

I'll dispute that conclusion.

We're in entirely DIFFERENT Universes!  :icon_mrgreen:

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Extreme examples, eternalism and nihilism
« Reply #32 on: May 15, 2017, 12:03:43 PM »
RE and I are on different sides of the universe in regard to SPIRITUAL cause and effect

I'll dispute that conclusion.

We're in entirely DIFFERENT Universes!  :icon_mrgreen:

RE


Yup.   
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Ka

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
    • View Profile
Re: Extreme examples, eternalism and nihilism
« Reply #33 on: May 15, 2017, 03:09:50 PM »


So "You believe in God, but anyone who believes in God is an idiot" is not an ad hominem.

Correct.  That is a Gross Generalization, not an Ad Hom.

I suggest that we both just use "ad hom", and take it as, for you, being an abbreviation of "ad hominem", while for me it is an abbreviation for either "ad hominem" or "ad homines". Just curious, but would you have objected to my first post if I had said it was an ad homines fallacy?



Quote
Quote

It is true that I have not given every reason to accept Barfield's take on life -- to do so would pretty much require typing in all of Saving the Appearances -- but I have given some of the reasoning. Since no one has rebutted even that some, I think I'm in the clear on this one.

It's been rebutted on many occasions in different ways by different Diners.  You just never listen to the rebuttals.

Ashvin, I recall, did not agree with Barfield's conclusions, but he did not actually rebut the arguments for those conclusions. Nor, that I can recall, has anyone else. There has been rebuttal (and counter-rebuttal) about my arguments for idealism, but that is not directly what Barfield is about -- he's the evolution of consciousness guy, and though evidence for the evolution of consciousness is supportive of idealism, one can argue for one independently of the other.

Quote
Quote


Is so. (argumentum ad obstinatum)

That is a mirror of your ability to ignore anyone who rebuts BARField. :P


And here I thought I was just humorously pointing out that our "debate" has just been of a "'tis/'taint" sort.  Meanwhile, can you give an instance of where I have ignored anyone who rebuts Barfield? Because I am pretty sure I haven't.


Offline Ka

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
    • View Profile
Re: Extreme examples, eternalism and nihilism
« Reply #34 on: May 15, 2017, 03:22:34 PM »

So,
It appears that Ka has attempted to dance around the FACT that it offends him for anyone to NOT question the validity of externalism.  ;D

?? In this thread there has been no debate concerning the validity of externalism. I did state my position on the matter in my first post in this thread, but the only thing objected to in that post was my use of the term "ad hominem". Since then, that is all that RE and I have been debating. So I don't understand how you get to "Ka has attempted to dance around the FACT that it offends him for anyone to NOT question the validity of externalism."

Quote
RE is correct  :o  ;D that questioning Externalism to the point of saying it is totally invalid, useless, counterproductive and possibly destructive to human society (paraphrased  ;)) is certainly NOT Ad Hom to Ka,

I agree. It would not be an ad hom. Only he hasn't said anything of that nature in this thread.

Quote
... just because Ka thinks our plebian perception of reality is some sort of illusion that we cause and effect types are being fooled into believing.

Our perception is not an illusion. It is an inference we make concerning the nature of what we perceive that I consider to be false, namely that what we perceive exists on its own in the way we perceive it. Just clarifying.

Quote
RE gets it about the connection between reality and what is external to us and what ain't.

Then how does he (or you) solve the interaction problem?

Quote
Ka not only doesn't get it, he is pissed at anyone who says Ka doesn't get it.

 I'm just waiting to hear of a solution to the interaction problem (not really, since I don't think there is a solution). Anyway, I don't see how that counts as being "pissed" or not "getting it".


Quote
A few years ago I went through excruciating detail explaining the human sensory apparatus. The very ability of Ka to question our assumed cause and effect "externalism" is impossible without that sensory apparatus.

I don't ever recall saying that we don't have a sensory apparatus. Whether it does what you think it does, versus what I think it does, is what we debated. And the answer to that cannot be provided by the sensory apparatus alone, which just gets perceptions. It is the concepts we add to those perceptions that are in dispute.

Quote
But Ka, even though he is a man I respect immensely, just don't wanna go there.

Well, here I am, going there.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 42014
    • View Profile
Re: Extreme examples, eternalism and nihilism
« Reply #35 on: May 15, 2017, 03:32:07 PM »

I suggest that we both just use "ad hom", and take it as, for you, being an abbreviation of "ad hominem", while for me it is an abbreviation for either "ad hominem" or "ad homines". Just curious, but would you have objected to my first post if I had said it was an ad homines fallacy?

I'm not going to use Ad Hom for something which is clearly NOT Ad Hom, there is no plural to this in the debating sense.  You can't make an argument directed "at the men", once you do that it's a gross generalization fallacy.  So yea, I would have objected to Ad Homines.

Quote
Ashvin, I recall, did not agree with Barfield's conclusions, but he did not actually rebut the arguments for those conclusions. Nor, that I can recall, has anyone else. There has been rebuttal (and counter-rebuttal) about my arguments for idealism, but that is not directly what Barfield is about -- he's the evolution of consciousness guy, and though evidence for the evolution of consciousness is supportive of idealism, one can argue for one independently of the other.

Maybe he didn't rebut them because you never actually presented them?  As I recall in our repartee, your general dodge was to tell me to go read the book.  That's not how a debate works.  You get little index cards you drop in a file box, so when you want to make a point, you pull out the index card to illustrate the point.  Then if the opposition is well prepared, they pull out an index card with a citation or argument to rebut it.  I do realize BARField's arguments are likely very long and very dense, but as his debating surrogate here on the Diner, you gotta be able to defend the positions he takes, as you interpret them.

Quote
And here I thought I was just humorously pointing out that our "debate" has just been of a "'tis/'taint" sort.  Meanwhile, can you give an instance of where I have ignored anyone who rebuts Barfield? Because I am pretty sure I haven't.

Leave the humor to me.  It's not your strong point. lol.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Extreme examples, eternalism and nihilism
« Reply #36 on: May 15, 2017, 04:39:55 PM »

So,
It appears that Ka has attempted to dance around the FACT that it offends him for anyone to NOT question the validity of externalism.  ;D

?? In this thread there has been no debate concerning the validity of externalism. I did state my position on the matter in my first post in this thread, but the only thing objected to in that post was my use of the term "ad hominem". Since then, that is all that RE and I have been debating. So I don't understand how you get to "Ka has attempted to dance around the FACT that it offends him for anyone to NOT question the validity of externalism."

Quote
RE is correct  :o  ;D that questioning Externalism to the point of saying it is totally invalid, useless, counterproductive and possibly destructive to human society (paraphrased  ;)) is certainly NOT Ad Hom to Ka,

I agree. It would not be an ad hom. Only he hasn't said anything of that nature in this thread.

Quote
... just because Ka thinks our plebian perception of reality is some sort of illusion that we cause and effect types are being fooled into believing.

Our perception is not an illusion. It is an inference we make concerning the nature of what we perceive that I consider to be false, namely that what we perceive exists on its own in the way we perceive it. Just clarifying.

Quote
RE gets it about the connection between reality and what is external to us and what ain't.

Then how does he (or you) solve the interaction problem?

Quote
Ka not only doesn't get it, he is pissed at anyone who says Ka doesn't get it.

 I'm just waiting to hear of a solution to the interaction problem (not really, since I don't think there is a solution). Anyway, I don't see how that counts as being "pissed" or not "getting it".


Quote
A few years ago I went through excruciating detail explaining the human sensory apparatus. The very ability of Ka to question our assumed cause and effect "externalism" is impossible without that sensory apparatus.

I don't ever recall saying that we don't have a sensory apparatus. Whether it does what you think it does, versus what I think it does, is what we debated. And the answer to that cannot be provided by the sensory apparatus alone, which just gets perceptions. It is the concepts we add to those perceptions that are in dispute.

Quote
But Ka, even though he is a man I respect immensely, just don't wanna go there.

Well, here I am, going there.

Ka,
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. FOLLOWED by your apparent willingness to discuss an issue, that by your own words, is rather fruitless to discuss (i.e. the interaction).  ::)

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.

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.   

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.

Furthermore, you may even claim that "looking for evidence" is evidence ;) of an incorrect approach to "perceiving" the biosphere or anything else.  :laugh:  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.

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".

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 challenge your claim that eXternalism is not related to, or relevant to, this thread. It is. 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.

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".

The following is an example of REALITY of the planet Earth, irrespective of anything we humans have THOUGHT since we could THINK. There is NO WAY to dance around THAT REALITY (yes you DO try to dance around it!).
« Last Edit: May 15, 2017, 04:45:17 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Ka

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
    • View Profile
Re: Extreme examples, eternalism and nihilism
« Reply #37 on: May 16, 2017, 12:48:25 PM »

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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
Furthermore, you may even claim that "looking for evidence" is evidence ;) of an incorrect approach to "perceiving" the biosphere or anything else.  :laugh:

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Extreme examples, eternalism and nihilism
« Reply #38 on: May 16, 2017, 06:22:38 PM »

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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
Furthermore, you may even claim that "looking for evidence" is evidence ;) of an incorrect approach to "perceiving" the biosphere or anything else.  :laugh:

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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!):
Quote
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"  ;D, 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?
Quote

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  ;D)

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.

Quote
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.  :P

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. :P  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.   
« Last Edit: May 16, 2017, 06:58:51 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Ka

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
    • View Profile
Re: Extreme examples, eternalism and nihilism
« Reply #39 on: May 16, 2017, 11:24:18 PM »
AG,

Yes, I am a monist, in that I think that only mentality exists, no mindless matter. And so, the burden of argumentation is on me to show why it is that it seems to us that there is mindless matter, like rocks. This can be done in various ways, but it will take some time, and some back and forth to clarify things. Here is the beginning of a clarification.

The first thing to note in the passage you quoted from me is that I said it is space that has no independent existence, and that the moon is only located in space when it is looked at. In your comments you indicate that I say it (or concrete, or an appendix) only exists when someone thinks about it. Not the same thing, though as we shall see, it is thought that creates it, just not human thought.

So what is its existence when not being looked at? Well, I can't really say, but there are hints from quantum physics that may apply. All the weirdness of quantum physics (uncertainty, wave/particle duality, superposition of states, non-locality) can be understood if one assumes that quantum reality is not spatial. But quantum reality includes our bodies, with their sensory apparatus, concrete, and the moon. Cause and effect is operating there. So when a non-spatial eye and the non-spatial moon interact, a spatial moon appears in a mind.

So it is macrophysical reality that is "just perception". Microphysical (quantum) reality is not perceived, but that is where all the cause and effect takes place. That is where your unobserved, un-thought-about appendix ruptured. But, you may ask, how might one think of microphysical reality as mind, and not mindless matter? To suggest an answer I will borrow the main idea of a materialist physicist -- Max Tegmark (see his Our Mathematical Universe) but give it a twist. Tegmark's thesis is that all there "really is" are mathematical objects, that an electron "just is" its six (or whatever) numerical descriptors existing in a mathematical structure called an atom, etc. But how can a mathematical object move another? Tegmark's answer is that nothing "really moves", that time is just a fourth dimension of what is called the block universe, that is, all we call past, present, and future already exists, while our consciousness is just following a path in this block universe.

Of course, as a materialist, Tegmark cannot explain consciousness. But by dropping the block universe idea and adding a Mathematician, we have something that, to me at least, makes some sense. A mathematical object is a thought, and what we call physical reality is being thought by the Divine Mind (an age-old theistic idea, by the way), or perhaps by a community of supernatural beings, or perhaps the Greater Selves of all of us, plus of animals and plants. As to why it is being thought, and what we are doing within this thought, well, that takes us to the question of purpose, also the Problem of Evil, and other religious questions. But I'm going to stop here, for now at least, as it is plenty to chew on.

All this is speculative, to be sure, but at least it is feasible, and shows that -- unlike dualism with its interaction problem or materialism with its hard problem of consciousness, we can imagine a way that monist idealism can work.

Offline luciddreams

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
    • View Profile
    • Epiphany Now
Re: Extreme examples, eternalism and nihilism
« Reply #40 on: May 21, 2017, 08:44:34 AM »
I get the problem materialism faces with consciousness, since consciousness is not a material thing.  However, I don't understand what you mean by dualisms interaction problem.  I did some internet research in an attempt to isolate what you are referencing, but I have been unable to figure it out.  Would you please elaborate on the problem of interaction with dualism? 

As far as your explanation of monism goes...that seems plausible to me.  When thinking about other dimensions of existence it seems to me that monism would provide an explanation.  You can perceive one thing on other dimensions.  Or one thing will appear differently based on the dimension it's perceived from. 

Not sure where I stand with philosophical labels, but I believe the mind exists independently from the body, and can exist without this temporal body.  I believe the mind will always possess some form of body until it no longer does, and at that point it is God.  God would be the one thing that is capable of perceiving a self without a body, or self, to perceive from...or pure thingness or isness. 

Offline Ka

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
    • View Profile
Re: Extreme examples, eternalism and nihilism
« Reply #41 on: May 21, 2017, 02:55:41 PM »
I get the problem materialism faces with consciousness, since consciousness is not a material thing.  However, I don't understand what you mean by dualisms interaction problem.  I did some internet research in an attempt to isolate what you are referencing, but I have been unable to figure it out.  Would you please elaborate on the problem of interaction with dualism? 

The interaction problem is: if there is mind and there is body, how does mind interact with body? How does a thought cause muscles to move, or neurochemical activity in the brain affect the mind as mental images?

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
96 Replies
13343 Views
Last post August 01, 2016, 11:10:44 PM
by RE
1 Replies
287 Views
Last post February 03, 2019, 08:46:53 AM
by Eddie
1 Replies
100 Views
Last post January 22, 2021, 05:38:58 PM
by Ashvin