On Idealism, repeated

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#121  Postby Frozenworld » Jan 07, 2021 5:22 am

Hermit wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:

Well it's similar to what the guy mentions in the shroomery thread about how we presuppose the existence of a thing when referring to experience and quantum mechanics shows us that things are not really solid at all or real.

So why do we presuppose that we are experiencing a thing when we refer to experience itself? Huh?

Ask someone who thinks metaphysical debates are of any use. I have made it abundantly clear that I am not among them, and I repeatedly explained why.

In this thread I implied (post #37) it might be those "who will step into the path of a fast moving truck because they think the truck only exists in their mind."

In the other thread you started on the same topic I explained similarly (post #12) that "this particular assertion, that colour and sound only exist in our minds, once again serves to demonstrate the irrelevance and utter uselessness of solipsism. True or not, it makes no difference to your behaviour. When you approach a red traffic light (which solipsism insists doesn't exist except in your mind), you do not keep driving regardless because colour is just in your mind, or because your perception of red may differ from that of other people (who also don't even exist except in your mind). When you look like going through the red light, and a passenger in your car screams "Stop!", you do not ignore it because the sound (and passenger for that matter) only exists in your mind."


That doesn't really answer my question though. Also doesn't science itself operate on the metaphysical assumption of an external reality and matter? Isn't matter unproveable?

Also found a proof for solipsism, though my gripe about it is that unborn is not a state: https://qr.ae/pNJ0s7

The question is irrelevant because whether there is an external world or it's all in your mind makes no difference to your behaviour. The same applies to science. We cannot prove or disprove metaphysical propositions that are supposed to have universal applications.

The so-called proof of solipsism you linked to is utter nonsense. How do we test that we have woken up? I had a dream once in which I repeatedly dreamt that I had woken up.


Except it does matter. IF it really is all in my head then there is no point to doing anything. If none of it is real then nothing matters. IT would radically alter my behavior.
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 44

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: On Idealism, repeated

#122  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 07, 2021 8:19 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Except it does matter. IF it really is all in my head then there is no point to doing anything. If none of it is real then nothing matters. IT would radically alter my behavior.


Is that really the point? Stop playing at mere implications -- in the form you're using, these don't move anyone who's not nuts. You don't have any firm convictions or you'd be testing the implications for yourself. Stop playing at being someone who is thinking hard about anything.

Spearthrower wrote:

A proof for solipsism. Talk about batshit.

And it just gets better:

1) it's on QUORA! :lol: - not in a credible journal reviewed by experts, but posted by some dude on the internet.


FW's problem is not just related to reality, but to the fact that he reads something sometimes, and doesn't know whether to shit or go blind. We call people like that "suggestible", like people who can hypnotize themselvess.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29545
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#123  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 07, 2021 9:49 am

IT would radically alter my behavior.


Which just reiterates the kind of 'thought' processes that find idealism intriguing.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#124  Postby Hermit » Jan 07, 2021 9:54 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Ask someone who thinks metaphysical debates are of any use. I have made it abundantly clear that I am not among them, and I repeatedly explained why.

In this thread I implied (post #37) it might be those "who will step into the path of a fast moving truck because they think the truck only exists in their mind."

In the other thread you started on the same topic I explained similarly (post #12) that "this particular assertion, that colour and sound only exist in our minds, once again serves to demonstrate the irrelevance and utter uselessness of solipsism. True or not, it makes no difference to your behaviour. When you approach a red traffic light (which solipsism insists doesn't exist except in your mind), you do not keep driving regardless because colour is just in your mind, or because your perception of red may differ from that of other people (who also don't even exist except in your mind). When you look like going through the red light, and a passenger in your car screams "Stop!", you do not ignore it because the sound (and passenger for that matter) only exists in your mind."


That doesn't really answer my question though. Also doesn't science itself operate on the metaphysical assumption of an external reality and matter? Isn't matter unproveable?

Also found a proof for solipsism, though my gripe about it is that unborn is not a state: https://qr.ae/pNJ0s7


The question is irrelevant because whether there is an external world or it's all in your mind makes no difference to your behaviour. The same applies to science. We cannot prove or disprove metaphysical propositions that are supposed to have universal applications.

The so-called proof of solipsism you linked to is utter nonsense. How do we test that we have woken up? I had a dream once in which I repeatedly dreamt that I had woken up.


Except it does matter. IF it really is all in my head then there is no point to doing anything. If none of it is real then nothing matters. IT would radically alter my behavior.

If there is proof for solipsism and if it really is all in one's head therefore there is no point to doing anything, why do you do anything like, say, eat something when you're hungry, or buy food to get rid of your hunger, or get a job to buy food, or ... There is no point to anything, is there, because it is is all just in your head. You might even not bother creating threads about idealism/solipsism for the same reason: There's no point because it is is all just in your head.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4332
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#125  Postby Frozenworld » Jan 08, 2021 4:11 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
Except it does matter. IF it really is all in my head then there is no point to doing anything. If none of it is real then nothing matters. IT would radically alter my behavior.


Is that really the point? Stop playing at mere implications -- in the form you're using, these don't move anyone who's not nuts. You don't have any firm convictions or you'd be testing the implications for yourself. Stop playing at being someone who is thinking hard about anything.

Spearthrower wrote:

A proof for solipsism. Talk about batshit.

And it just gets better:

1) it's on QUORA! :lol: - not in a credible journal reviewed by experts, but posted by some dude on the internet.


FW's problem is not just related to reality, but to the fact that he reads something sometimes, and doesn't know whether to shit or go blind. We call people like that "suggestible", like people who can hypnotize themselvess.


It's not an implication but a fact. Were it true then it would radically impact how you treat everyone.

You say metaphysics doesn't matter yet this clearly shows otherwise: https://iai.tv/video/illusions-and-drea ... auid=2020#

OR this one which shows us the limit of the extent of our senses when it comes to knowing reality: https://iai.tv/video/the-illusion-of-sense

With so much evidence how can you just brush the guy off like that?
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 44

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#126  Postby laklak » Jan 08, 2021 4:38 am

So test your hypothesis and stop doing anything. Let us know how it goes.

Seriously, why not just do the experiment? Stop doing anything at all, work, eating, whatever. Wouldn't that show you pretty quickly whether it's all in your head or not?
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 66
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#127  Postby Frozenworld » Jan 08, 2021 4:48 am

laklak wrote:So test your hypothesis and stop doing anything. Let us know how it goes.

Seriously, why not just do the experiment? Stop doing anything at all, work, eating, whatever. Wouldn't that show you pretty quickly whether it's all in your head or not?


It would not, no, as the videos show.

I would highly recommend reading the comments on the second link.
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 44

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: On Idealism, repeated

#128  Postby romansh » Jan 08, 2021 4:51 am

Frozenworld wrote:

Except it does matter. IF it really is all in my head then there is no point to doing anything. If none of it is real then nothing matters. IT would radically alter my behavior.

To whom does it matter? Not to me.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2776

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#129  Postby romansh » Jan 08, 2021 5:00 am

FW wrote:"IF it really is all in my head then there is no point to doing anything. If none of it is real then nothing matters."


If you, FW, believe this is true, then why are you bothering posting on this imaginary forum, trying to persuade imaginary people of some imaginary truth?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2776

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#130  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 08, 2021 6:00 am

Frozenworld wrote:
It's not an implication but a fact. Were it true then it would radically impact how you treat everyone.


No, it's not a 'fact' - it's clearly an implication.


Frozenworld wrote:You say metaphysics doesn't matter yet this clearly shows otherwise: https://iai.tv/video/illusions-and-drea ... auid=2020#


Gods, this is poor. Nothing in that link says that metaphysics matters.


Frozenworld wrote:OR this one which shows us the limit of the extent of our senses when it comes to knowing reality: https://iai.tv/video/the-illusion-of-sense


Which again says nothing about the value of metaphysics.


Frozenworld wrote:With so much evidence how can you just brush the guy off like that?


Dude, you use words in a completely different way than other people, and communication necessitates a shared frame of semantic significance else there's really no way to communicate.

What you're pointing at is not 'evidence'. Evidence is a material quantity that establishes the validity of a proposition. Pointing to somebody talking about something is only evidence that the person said something.

Here I'll show you:

The universe is a goldfish bowl on the back of an elephant.

Does that mean you now have evidence that the universe is a goldfish bowl on the back of an elephant?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#131  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 08, 2021 6:02 am

Frozenworld wrote:
laklak wrote:So test your hypothesis and stop doing anything. Let us know how it goes.

Seriously, why not just do the experiment? Stop doing anything at all, work, eating, whatever. Wouldn't that show you pretty quickly whether it's all in your head or not?


It would not, no, as the videos show.


The videos may assert something, but show it? Are you sure they show the thing you believe? If so, why don't you point to a time stamp and explain why you think it's relevant.


Frozenworld wrote:I would highly recommend reading the comments on the second link.


Why? If you wish to forward a video in support of your argument, then you also need to explain what the video means to you, what is it you want others to take away from the video?

You're pointing at a 47 minute long video. Explain why anyone should feel obligated to spend 47 minutes of their life viewing a video if you're not prepared to spend 5 minutes detailing what the focus is of you citing that video.

Don't expect others to do your leg-work.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#132  Postby Frozenworld » Jan 08, 2021 6:39 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
laklak wrote:So test your hypothesis and stop doing anything. Let us know how it goes.

Seriously, why not just do the experiment? Stop doing anything at all, work, eating, whatever. Wouldn't that show you pretty quickly whether it's all in your head or not?


It would not, no, as the videos show.


The videos may assert something, but show it? Are you sure they show the thing you believe? If so, why don't you point to a time stamp and explain why you think it's relevant.


Frozenworld wrote:I would highly recommend reading the comments on the second link.


Why? If you wish to forward a video in support of your argument, then you also need to explain what the video means to you, what is it you want others to take away from the video?

You're pointing at a 47 minute long video. Explain why anyone should feel obligated to spend 47 minutes of their life viewing a video if you're not prepared to spend 5 minutes detailing what the focus is of you citing that video.

Don't expect others to do your leg-work.


Well the second video it is the first time stamp.

As for the comments I came across this one in the links:

“…Yet we think seeing and feeling tell us how things really are. Might our senses be radically limited? Are science and logic routes to escape our sensory limitations, or is feeling the rain on our skin the closest we get to truth?...”

- a next debates on IAI that relate to fundamental in the mainstream philosophy epistemological problem, which appears in the mainstream principally since the main notions/phenomena that are involved in the problem, i.e. “Matter” and “Consciousness” in both main mainstream doctrines “Materialism” and “Idealism”, and in a huge number of the mainstream sub-doctrines [so further in “usual” sciences], are fundamentally transcendent and so fundamentally non-cognizable.

That happens in the mainstream because of the main fundamental notions/phenomena above are Meta- mainstream-philosophical notions/phenomena and so cannot be properly defined/rationally understandable/discussable inside the mainstream. All what “Materialism” and “Idealism”do when attempting to explain – what is the Being?, is the postulating that “Being is being of Matter” and “Being is being of Consciousness/Spirit/Idea/God/…”.; when both these postulates in the mainstream have no rational grounds and so are non-provable and non-disprovable. Thus both doctrines struggle a few thousands years already; though when the subject of a struggle cannot be defined, then the straggle is evidently senseless. As well as it is senseless the debates here, since are in framework of the mainstream and so can result in only a next non-provable and no-disprovable declarations of the members.

The situation becomes be more clear only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception https://zenodo.org/record/268904/files/ ... h_1-17.pdf

(or http://vixra.org/abs/1402.0173 ; besides concrete application of the conception, first of in physics, see in http://vixra.org/author/sergey_v_shevchenko .

By unknown reason URL links aren’t active in the IAI comments, but they work if copied and pasted into a browser address line)

where it is rigorously proven [in 2007] that all what exist in our Universe and outside is/are some informational patterns/systems of patterns , which are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set. Being is being of information, when Matter and Consciousness are some concrete different informational systems, etc.

From that follows that there is nothing surprising when some self-aware informational system/[“program”] “human’s consciousness”,

analyzing some information about the external [and the internal, though] processes, which are only processes in some informational systems also,

sometimes decode logical links in these external systems correctly, formulating, say, adequate scientific theories. At that it is quite inessential that the information about the external the consciousness obtains by using human’s body sensors, moreover, the information about the external in any science humans obtain now using rather sophisticated instruments, and the using the body’s sensors, often is reduced to reading obtained and processed by the instruments information about Nature.

So in the reality there is no principal epistemological problems at all, all problems are always concrete and appear because of objective reasons, for example, because of insufficient diapasons and precision of instruments when obtaining indeed new experimental data; and often by subjective reasons, i.e. because of human’s consciousness principally processes and produces sometimes uncertain and erroneous inferences…
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 44

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#133  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 08, 2021 2:55 pm

It's just a word salad, FZ. Does the word salad itself impress you? I can word salad really well if you like - I was obliged to study French sociologists, so I am pretty much fluent in using a whole lot of words to say very little at all.

P.S. the second video's 'time stamp' is 00:00 out of 47:07... do you mean the link below entitled "The Pitch"?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#134  Postby Frozenworld » Jan 08, 2021 7:48 pm

Spearthrower wrote:It's just a word salad, FZ. Does the word salad itself impress you? I can word salad really well if you like - I was obliged to study French sociologists, so I am pretty much fluent in using a whole lot of words to say very little at all.

P.S. the second video's 'time stamp' is 00:00 out of 47:07... do you mean the link below entitled "The Pitch"?


Yes the first pitch. That's what I was getting at.

It seems the discussion here becomes be a next standard mainstream – philosophical process. Which will be in this case inevitably again fruitless and, at that, endless – in mainstream philosophy now a huge number of schools, doctrines, brilliant prophets, etc. exist and even to list them – as that seems as the main content in last comments is, will be necessary to spent rather large place on the RG servers.

When, at that, any “achievement” in the mainstream, including in “Philosophy of Science” has no any influence on other sciences; any indeed researcher by any means doesn’t think at her/his work – is the work “Pragmaticistic”? “monistic”? “Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept-tic”? “operational constructivism-tic”? “naive realism-tic”? “neokontianstantic”? “positivistic/ neo-positivism-tic”? “critical rationalism-tic”, etc., etc, etc.

Again – such situation is again inevitable consequence from that the mainstream philosophy principally cannot be some science since every its doctrine is based on principally non-provable and no-testable postulates; which use at that principally undefined rationally its basic notions/category, etc.

It is evident that to make something indeed useful for “usual” sciences, philosophy should first of all to define rationally – what are Matter and Consciousness; when in the reality in both main mainstream branches these notions/phenomena are fundamentally transcendent and so non-consignable; all what these branches claim are “everything is Matter” and “everything is Idea/Spirit…”. I.e. Mainstream “studies” “Being” without any rational answers on - What is this “Being”: or this “Being” is a being of what?

Just therefore [because of principal non-cognizability of main phenomena that constitute Universe] in the mainstream the fundamental [in the mainstream, of course] epistemological problems appear, when just the solving of these problems would be indeed very useful for “usual” sciences and would be necessary methodological basis for some “Philosophy of Science”.

But these notions above are Meta-mainstream notions and can be rationally defined/understandable/studied only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception [see http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0173v3.pdf DOI 10.5281/zenodo.34958]

Where, including, it is rigorously proven that “Being” is being of informational patterns/systems of patterns only; the clear demarcation between Matter and Consciousness is defined; it is shown that, since there cannot be something that isn’t some informational pattern/system of patterns, in the reality there are no fundamental [“philosophical”] epistemological problems at all, etc.

And only in framework of this conception philosophy transforms into indeed science, obtaining indeed [absolutely] fundamental, interesting and paradoxical subjects for study – the notion/phenomenon “Information” and the “Information” Set; when because, for example, of extremely bifurcative nature of the information and absolutely infinite number of links in the Set, these notions/phenomena never will be completely formalized / studied by usual sciences and philosophy could play in this case some integrative role.

Yet in late 1700-th there were no different sciences, there was philosophy only, which fro, Antic times consisted of “Physics”, “Logics” and “Ethics”. Now “Physics”, “Logics” transformed into the set of sciences, and the mainstream philosophy practically has no relation to the sciences; all opposite – though often repeated by mainstream philosophers, claims have, in fact, no relations to the reality – see above. The informational conception above relate to the sciences fundamentally but this relation is short and simple – the conception defines for any science that every research is in depth a study of some informational systems, not non-understandable mainstream “Matter” and “Consciousness”, besides – solves the epistemological problem by its eliminating. That’s practically all.

But till now philosophy has indeed different – and indeed scientific - branch, which remained in this science from Antic times – Ethics, which isn’t a subject for studies by other sciences.

And just researches in this branch become be the priority of new philosophy, including taking into account seems rather plausible inference in the informational conception above that human’s consciousness is only a next stage of a development of some non-material structure that has potential to be developed into next stages with going at that in the Set’s regions outside our “usual” Universe; and so Ethics becomes be the science that studies and develops principles of humans’ behavior aimed at to make the consciousness’s transition optimal – clearing at that what are in this case the Good and the Bad, etc. when humans’ behavior that is optimal in the sense above is just “what the right thing is”.


That user also made a post on morality here:
https://iai.tv/video/the-good-the-bad-a ... 610123237#

And keeps citing this physics paper all the time: https://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0173v3.pdf
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 44

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#135  Postby Frozenworld » Jan 08, 2021 8:11 pm

They also posted this here on the site they linked at the bottom: https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/r ... lity&cmpid

Along with this blurb on the said site, but then when I read it I realized this person literally quoted themselves.. which is.......something I guess.
Rather long time ago Cicero said [translated from Russian]

“…And who isn’t a slave? One is a slave of a lust, other – of miserliness, other – of vainglory, and all – of fear. But there is nothing worse then when the slavery is voluntary…”

So the thread’s problem is rather old problem, and indeed till a human doesn’t understand – what is a human? Why do humans differ from other living beings on Earth in that they have the consciousnesses, i.e. single themselves out the external and can analyze the external and themselves?

- they indeed will remain be something that doesn’t differ essentially from anything unconscious.

These answers are Meta-mainstream-philosophical and Meta-mainstream-scientific – they can be find only outside them, i.e. only [on some rather primitive level] in religions and/or in the “The Information as Absolute” conception ” http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0173v3.pdf where it is rigorously proven that all/everything what exist, can exist and “cannot exist” is/are some informational patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set.

In the conception it is shown that:
(i) - that a human is some informational system, something what is like an usual computer that is composed roughly from a power supply block, a hard disk, a random access memory and a processor – i.e. from the mostly material body, the mostly material brain and mostly non-material “RAM” (the short-term memory in psychology) and “processor” – the main “part” of the human’s consciousness;

(ii) – the appearance of humans on Earth seems as very probably was not an accident. A human is a result of sequential and long development of “material part”, which eventually became be capable to provide operating of the “non-material” part on the level that critically higher then in other living beings; when this development wasn’t accidental but was governed by the “consciousness program”, which in parallel developed from the “BIOS level” in simplest first living forms to the given human’s level; and

(iii) – from the conception follows also that now we cannot exclude that the program “human’s consciousness” state isn’t an end of her development. Besides seems as rather evident that the development’s trend from some biochemical molecules to the human’s consciousness is the trend “more and more outside Matter”, i.e. more and more into other – non-material - regions of the Set., when in the Set there is an absolutely infinite “room” outside the tribal Universe.

And after this [human’s consciousness] stage of the development, which was mostly as some “random natural selection”, the development becomes be consciousness selection.

What should be this selection – this problem becomes be the main human’s problem and till now there are only some variants that some religions suggest. A solving of this problem on a non-dogmatic level seems as not totally understandable now, but what is seems as quite clear – first of all humans must attempt to stop their beings as slaves of their material bodies; and - it seems necessary to understand also, though – what is going a next human’s consciousness version to do in the Set?…

Cheers
PS. The paper “The Information as Absolute” was rejected by near ten mainstream-philosophical journals; possibly including because of that the idea that all/everything is some information seems on first sight as rather strange. But now this idea is rather widely recognized and, for example, New Scientist recently made the special issue with a slogan “Everything is made of information”


Along with this link about reality from new scientist: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/New_Scientist

I also found a couple more pages that seem to argue for there being no external world: https://iai.tv/iai-academy/courses/info ... -not-exist

https://iai.tv/iai-academy/courses/info ... real-world
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 44

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: On Idealism, repeated

#136  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 08, 2021 9:06 pm

Frozenworld wrote:
I also found a couple more pages that seem to argue for there being no external world...


So far, they only seem to argue some point to you. You're implying that you believe you have special critical faculties, but you haven't shown any simply by reporting that the stuff you read seems to argue something. I won't exert myself trying to explain to you how it's a waste of time to steal from a thief.

I echo what others have said to you, FW. You're missing the point of conversing with people online. You're not in the position of being a teacher or professor who assigns readings to students and asks them to report on the reading.

The reasoning behind this is that you give no indication that you can understand the readings you're "assigning". They may contain language that you feel is compelling in some way, but your enthusiasm is just not translating to your audience. To do better, you'd have to express that content in your own words. Believe it or not, I have sat in seminars where exactly this sort of activity goes on. This might be futile in the case of philosophical musings such as you are linking to, particularly, musings that lean on grabbing punchy catch phrases from physics, where the physics just has a lot more depth to it than you can even grasp.

That's why you're looking like a big phony to everyone who's trying to engage you on this. The only possible engagement with someone who won't first try to show he understands what he's quoting is to point out the phoniness of what you're doing. This may not be intentional. You may, in fact, just be too fucking dumb to realize that is what you're doing. I predict your response to this will just be to paste up another wall of text. Get a clue, man: It's not working. You end up in the position of a door-to-door bible salesman, except that you get to knock on one door and find lots of people to say, "No, thanks."
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29545
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#137  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 09, 2021 3:23 am

Frozenworld wrote:
It seems the discussion here becomes be a next standard mainstream – philosophical process. Which will be in this case inevitably again fruitless and, at that, endless – in mainstream philosophy now a huge number of schools, doctrines, brilliant prophets, etc. exist and even to list them – as that seems as the main content in last comments is, will be necessary to spent rather large place on the RG servers.

When, at that, any “achievement” in the mainstream, including in “Philosophy of Science” has no any influence on other sciences; any indeed researcher by any means doesn’t think at her/his work – is the work “Pragmaticistic”? “monistic”? “Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept-tic”? “operational constructivism-tic”? “naive realism-tic”? “neokontianstantic”? “positivistic/ neo-positivism-tic”? “critical rationalism-tic”, etc., etc, etc.

Again – such situation is again inevitable consequence from that the mainstream philosophy principally cannot be some science since every its doctrine is based on principally non-provable and no-testable postulates; which use at that principally undefined rationally its basic notions/category, etc.

It is evident that to make something indeed useful for “usual” sciences, philosophy should first of all to define rationally – what are Matter and Consciousness; when in the reality in both main mainstream branches these notions/phenomena are fundamentally transcendent and so non-consignable; all what these branches claim are “everything is Matter” and “everything is Idea/Spirit…”. I.e. Mainstream “studies” “Being” without any rational answers on - What is this “Being”: or this “Being” is a being of what?

Just therefore [because of principal non-cognizability of main phenomena that constitute Universe] in the mainstream the fundamental [in the mainstream, of course] epistemological problems appear, when just the solving of these problems would be indeed very useful for “usual” sciences and would be necessary methodological basis for some “Philosophy of Science”.

But these notions above are Meta-mainstream notions and can be rationally defined/understandable/studied only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception [see http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0173v3.pdf DOI 10.5281/zenodo.34958]

Where, including, it is rigorously proven that “Being” is being of informational patterns/systems of patterns only; the clear demarcation between Matter and Consciousness is defined; it is shown that, since there cannot be something that isn’t some informational pattern/system of patterns, in the reality there are no fundamental [“philosophical”] epistemological problems at all, etc.

And only in framework of this conception philosophy transforms into indeed science, obtaining indeed [absolutely] fundamental, interesting and paradoxical subjects for study – the notion/phenomenon “Information” and the “Information” Set; when because, for example, of extremely bifurcative nature of the information and absolutely infinite number of links in the Set, these notions/phenomena never will be completely formalized / studied by usual sciences and philosophy could play in this case some integrative role.

Yet in late 1700-th there were no different sciences, there was philosophy only, which fro, Antic times consisted of “Physics”, “Logics” and “Ethics”. Now “Physics”, “Logics” transformed into the set of sciences, and the mainstream philosophy practically has no relation to the sciences; all opposite – though often repeated by mainstream philosophers, claims have, in fact, no relations to the reality – see above. The informational conception above relate to the sciences fundamentally but this relation is short and simple – the conception defines for any science that every research is in depth a study of some informational systems, not non-understandable mainstream “Matter” and “Consciousness”, besides – solves the epistemological problem by its eliminating. That’s practically all.

But till now philosophy has indeed different – and indeed scientific - branch, which remained in this science from Antic times – Ethics, which isn’t a subject for studies by other sciences.

And just researches in this branch become be the priority of new philosophy, including taking into account seems rather plausible inference in the informational conception above that human’s consciousness is only a next stage of a development of some non-material structure that has potential to be developed into next stages with going at that in the Set’s regions outside our “usual” Universe; and so Ethics becomes be the science that studies and develops principles of humans’ behavior aimed at to make the consciousness’s transition optimal – clearing at that what are in this case the Good and the Bad, etc. when humans’ behavior that is optimal in the sense above is just “what the right thing is”.


That user also made a post on morality here:
https://iai.tv/video/the-good-the-bad-a ... 610123237#

And keeps citing this physics paper all the time: https://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0173v3.pdf




Let's leave aside the citation of a physics paper for the moment because there's no discussion about it contained in the text above.

The text is just a stream of consciousness. There's no logical organisation to it. There's no overriding topic. No controlling idea. There's no genuinely coherent point to be found within it.

There are plenty of assertions which are just outright false though; did you want people here to go through and quote those individual sentences and show them wrong? I don't really see why that's necessary given the general lack of coherence in the overall body of text.

Let me approach this a bit differently. Have a read through this essay and see what you think:


“Consciousness is fundamentally elitist,” says Marx. But material feminism states that class, ironically, has intrinsic meaning. The paradigm, and some would say the fatal flaw, of Derridaist reading depicted in Gaiman’s Stardust is also evident in Death: The Time of Your Life.

“Society is part of the stasis of reality,” says Debord; however, according to von Ludwig[2] , it is not so much society that is part of the stasis of reality, but rather the dialectic, and hence the genre, of society. Thus, the premise of capitalist discourse suggests that truth is used to exploit minorities. If material feminism holds, we have to choose between Derridaist reading and the predialectic paradigm of discourse.

However, Derrida promotes the use of cultural neocapitalist theory to attack the status quo. Sontag uses the term ‘Derridaist reading’ to denote the rubicon, and some would say the failure, of cultural sexual identity.

Thus, the characteristic theme of Geoffrey’s[3] essay on capitalist discourse is not, in fact, theory, but subtheory. Marx uses the term ‘material feminism’ to denote the role of the reader as poet.

But Derridaist reading implies that society has significance. Prinn[4] states that we have to choose between material feminism and the neoconceptualist paradigm of narrative.

In a sense, the premise of Derridaist reading implies that academe is capable of deconstruction, but only if Lacan’s critique of patriarchial narrative is valid. Debord uses the term ‘Derridaist reading’ to denote a predialectic totality.



Perhaps you find that convincing? Perhaps you disagree with parts of it. Perhaps you find it a little difficult to grasp. Perhaps you find it strangely self-absorbed.

I can't predict how you find it, but I can tell you that it wasn't actually written by a human being with a coherent idea for an essay - it was written by an algorithm that was programed with sentence structures and fed particular catchy phrases and vocabulary then, though machine learning, eventually was able to produce post-modernist essays at the click of a button.

What you're reading there is actually outright nonsense but written in semantically correct format, which some people simply assume makes it credible all by itself.

You can try it out by typing in 'post-modernist essay generator'. I took the above from here: https://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

It explicitly tells you that:

The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link. If you liked this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page.

The Postmodernism Generator was written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive grammars, and modified very slightly by Josh Larios (this version, anyway. There are others out there).


Perhaps this may arm you with a little more skepticism, a little more expectation of written word actually conveying coherent arguments and employing legible meaning, and then perhaps you could go back to trying to read the quote you're offering and seeing whether it contains any actual information, let alone testable postulates which might convince someone here of something about idealism.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#138  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 09, 2021 3:27 am

Yes the first pitch. That's what I was getting at.


The guy with the glasses who comes after that first pitch basically destroys it in one sentence.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#139  Postby Frozenworld » Jan 09, 2021 6:34 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Yes the first pitch. That's what I was getting at.


The guy with the glasses who comes after that first pitch basically destroys it in one sentence.


What sentence? That "how do you make sense of sensation without the senses"? How do use depth and density in a meaningful way without the senses? I'll admit he had good points since we can't "Get outside our own skins". Then again he said outside of sensation there is nothing.

What about the two links? The points they listed?
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 44

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#140  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 09, 2021 7:28 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Yes the first pitch. That's what I was getting at.


The guy with the glasses who comes after that first pitch basically destroys it in one sentence.


What sentence?


My first problem with the question is that it kind of suggests that you've got a yes or no answer here. Do our senses radically limit our understanding of how things really are or not? But I want to ask this: where can one stand in order to answer this question, in order to adjudicate it, between a yes or no answer or indeed anything in between?



Which bring us back to the point that's been made to you many times throughout this thread, but which you're just not in the slightest bit interested in processing.


Frozenworld wrote:
What about the two links? The points they listed?


I've responded to that - please stop JAQing off and start engaging in good faith.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off)... shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.

The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers) and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).


If you want to erect a postulate, then the onus is on you to show why it's valid - it's not on me to discern for you, in the absence of any context, what points you think are valid and then try to contend them. This is clearly absurd, and you've been doing it all along. I'll be honest, initially I thought it was because you were a bit thick. But it's becoming clear that this isn't the reason here really, what's actually happening is that you're not engaging in any level of honest discourse. In reality, instead of being here as an interested party wondering whether X is potentially valid, you're actually a proponent of X that doesn't want to do the hard work of establishing their beliefs, so instead tries to get everyone else to run around responding to non-points that you've not actually established as credible in the first instance. So the ball is now in your court. Engage in good faith discussion, or you'll just net responses that remain at the level of bad faith discourse. In fact, I'll make sure of it.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest