Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Idealism or Materialism?
Thread: Idealism or Materialism? This thread is 11 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · «PREV / NEXT»
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted May 04, 2013 06:00 PM
Edited by Corribus at 18:00, 04 May 2013.

Quote:
Sorry, but since I think (and in fact are even sure) that you are both completely wrong in basically everything you say AND that this has no bearing on the actual questions at hand, I don't see any sense in discussing this further. Hints: example for one of many curious words: "afterlife". Infinity isn't quantifiable - except that there are differently big infinities in mathematics. "0" isn't quantifiable either because there is nothing there to quantify. Both is unimagiable, and therefore incomprehensible as well - except in a formal way which exists only because of mathematics. The universe is supposed to be 93 BILLION LIGHTYEARS in diameter. Can you comprehend that? I can't. It's ... large. INCOMPREHENSIBLY so.

I don't know, JJ.  Just because something is beyond our experience doesn't mean it isn't real or quantifiable.  We can measure the mass of an electron to like 10^-39 kilograms.  That's pretty damn small and well beyond what I can "comprehend" (which I'm taking to mean "relate to").  But it's still a real number and quantifiable.

As for zero and infinity: I'll grant that infinity is a mathematical abstraction but I'll not readily concede zero as an abstract concept.  I don't see how having zero apples is any more abstract or less quantifiable than having one of them.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 04, 2013 10:58 PM

Elodin:
Morality is an abstraction. Abstractions are not contrary to materialism - for example, the laws of physics are an abstraction based on physical occurrences in the material world. Yet one wouldn't say that the laws of physics aren't absolute just because they're an abstraction and therefore require a mind to derive. Why can something similar not be said for morality?
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 05, 2013 12:25 AM bonus applied by Corribus on 06 May 2013.
Edited by JollyJoker at 11:15, 05 May 2013.

Let's not forget what this has been all about:

Quote:
the mind couldn't be dealing with something that it can't comprehend.


This was said, and this is wrong, no matter how often it is repeated. The mind tries to deal with everything that captures its interest, whether they comprehend it or not, which is the reason why there have been so many errors and wrong conclusions, ideas and explanations.

I also think that there are strange ideas coursing what will make reality materialistic and what idealistic, and not only has the question not been decided, it's also not clear whethet it es even the right question.

Therefore it's basically a question of belief, and it makes no sense to debate it after all is said and done, because it will lead to nothing, since too many conclusions that are made here are simply not valid.

I EDIT my post to make a few additions.

Materialism makes no sense without the postulation of a somewhat OBJECTIVE TRUTH behind what is perceived as "the reality" AND - most importantly - that this objective truth must be SOMEhow experiencable. Because, if it wasn't experiencable, how could you establish that objective truth?
Let's try to fill this with an example. Our experiencable reality is what is called the "observable universe", and when we say that, we don't mean "observable" as in TECHNICALLY possible, we mean it as in observable by the laws of nature. The observable universe is basically a function of its age and its expansion speed. With the universe (spacetime) expanding with an unimaginably high speed intialy exceeding lightspeed by unimaginable scales in virtually no time, there is the so called event horizon: the electromagnetic sgnals of things happening beyond the event horizon won't ever reach us because they are too far away (and since the universe expands the distance will grow). That's why the age of the universe is estimated at around 14 billion years,  while the diameter of the OBSERVABLE universe is 93 billion years.
So that means, our experiancable reality is limited, and this is all we ever can make statements about. That makes the term "objective reality" fairly doubtful.

Next one: The expansion of the universe can be imagined by watching a balloon that is blown up, with our universe being the surface of the balloon: the surface is expanding, getting bigger, all distances grow (but we can't perceive any curvature in space, because the balloon is so big). Now, if you sit on this surface and perceive only that surface, it would seem obvious that a very prominent element in our reality is missing: where is the "air" coming from that is blowing up our universe? In other words - there must be something "MORE".

Next one: Dark Matter/Energy.
This one is a mere ASSUMPTION based on a the phenomenon, that stars on the outside of galaxies are radiating around the centre with a much higher velocity than the actually apparent normal mass is giving credit for. If you reduce the model to a single solar system, we would see that Neptun and Uranus would orbit the sun much faster than they actually do, which would mean, that we would expect them to leave the gravitational field of the sun. Since they don't, people now asssume "dark matter" but not as part of the centre/sun), however, this supposed dark matter (and energy) which would make 95% of the universe has not been verified in any direct way (that is, via observation) - there have only been made observations that would explain themselves under that assumption; but of course this is mysticism: a model that suggests 95% of our observable reality consists of something that cannot be observed currently, could just as well postulate, "god exists", especially since there are OTHER models that would explaion this, the most important one, seemingly being the one suggesting, that Newton's so called "gravitational laws of nature" which have been adjusted a couple of times for extreme conditions might not be valid in areas of extremely small accelerations, so that the equivalency principle wouldn't be valid anymore, which would explain all observations without the necessity of assuming "Dark Matter".

What I want to say is, that if we leave the immediate "vicinity" of our personal experience we are not nearer to esstablishing "truth" than the Vikings with their idea of Valhalla. It just LOOKS that way for us, because we are used to it and the empirical method is successful in everyday life, but we are STILL juggling with words  to explain what still is inexplainable.

Of course, the empirical method, when trying to establish "truths" is a lot more gratifying and satisfactory than mystic guesswork - but that doesn't make materialism true and idealism false, especially not when it seems that is has already been proven with and by this method that it is fundamentally impossible to establish an objective truth, except when it would be possible to somehow transcend the limits that come with the word "observable".
You might also say, that a materialistic explanation of the reality cannot be complete and therefore not objectively true.

It's like having a self-expanding puzzle: since you can fit in only one piece at a time, you'll never get the complete picture.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 05, 2013 12:40 PM
Edited by artu at 12:55, 05 May 2013.

It is interesting to see how quickly idealism sways from "progress of the human race is based on abstraction"  to the mystical "we can't really observe anything" so fast and as I stated in one of my earliest posts that's one of my biggest problems with it.

Quote:
Materialism makes no sense without the postulation of a somewhat OBJECTIVE TRUTH behind what is perceived as "the reality" AND - most importantly - that this objective truth must be SOMEhow experiencable. Because, if it wasn't experiencable, how could you establish that objective truth?



Yes, but that experience is not limited with empirical data of our five senses. We don't calculate future eclipses using only our five senses for example, we use our reason, make calculations and then we predict an incoming eclipse date and it holds.

Quote:
The expansion of the universe can be imagined by watching a balloon that is blown up, with our universe being the surface of the balloon: the surface is expanding, getting bigger, all distances grow (but we can't perceive any curvature in space, because the balloon is so big).



Actually, I've watched a physicist object to that exact balloon metaphor by saying that the gravitational force eliminates the force of expansion so while the ninety-something percent anti-matter part expands, in "material" universe  we observe no expansion. Maybe Corribus can explain this to us in more detail.

Quote:
Now, if you sit on this surface and perceive only that surface, it would seem obvious that a very prominent element in our reality is missing: where is the "air" coming from that is blowing up our universe? In other words - there must be something "MORE".


You are taking the metaphor for real here. Also it is one of the tricks of language to assume if there is a force there must be someone applying it. We are just used to think of the word force  as something applied. Does someone apply gravity or is it just there?

Quote:
however, this supposed dark matter (and energy) which would make 95% of the universe has not been verified in any direct way (that is, via observation) - there have only been made observations that would explain themselves under that assumption; but of course this is mysticism: a model that suggests 95% of our observable reality consists of something that cannot be observed currently, could just as well postulate, "god exists",



Not at all. One is a calculation (or a set of calculations) and falsifiable (there are already scientists who object to this theory but as of now, they are a very small minority) while the other is simply just making things up in the crudest sense. Something falsifiable is categorically not mystical.

Quote:
You might also say, that a materialistic explanation of the reality cannot be complete and therefore not objectively true. It's like having a self-expanding puzzle: since you can fit in only one piece at a time, you'll never get the complete picture.


It is only your obsession that to define something as objective it must also be absolute. The two concepts are not semantically inclusive to each other. If we can predict the future (as in when will the next eclipse be) and produce working technology (with the quantum physics also), we can state that there is at least some precision in our observations. The infinity of the learning process is caused by the infinity of scales you can attain knowledge not by the idealist nature of it. The puzzle's ever-expanding quality as you call it, does not necessarily qualify it as a puzzle that's pieces has no relevance to the external world. On the contrary, it is ever-expanding because of the infinite nature of the external reality, because when we discover -and because we can discover- that leads us to new doors and rooms that are yet waiting to be discovered.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted May 05, 2013 03:31 PM

All very true, JJ, but just because something can't be observed doesn't mean it isn't there.  The truth doesn't require observation to be true.  (Tree falling in a forest and all that.)
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 05, 2013 03:49 PM

Quote:
It is interesting to see how quickly idealism sways from "progress of the human race is based on abstraction"  to the mystical "we can't really observe anything" so fast and as I stated in one of my earliest posts that's one of my biggest problems with it.[
No. You are completely seeing this the wrong way. After stating my leabning to idealism, I've not been trying to prove idealism. I'm just raising more than serious doubts for materialism, which is something else completely.

Quote:
Quote:
Materialism makes no sense without the postulation of a somewhat OBJECTIVE TRUTH behind what is perceived as "the reality" AND - most importantly - that this objective truth must be SOMEhow experiencable. Because, if it wasn't experiencable, how could you establish that objective truth?



Yes, but that experience is not limited with empirical data of our five senses. We don't calculate future eclipses using only our five senses for example, we use our reason, make calculations and then we predict an incoming eclipse date and it holds.
Where is the connection? When I say "experiancable", I don't mean "now and by us", but GENERALLY POSSIBLE - that's why I followed up with examples. The event horizon is simply limiting the reality we can POSSIBLY observe - see also the end of the post.

Quote:
The expansion of the universe can be imagined by watching a balloon that is blown up, with our universe being the surface of the balloon: the surface is expanding, getting bigger, all distances grow (but we can't perceive any curvature in space, because the balloon is so big).



Actually, I've watched a physicist object to that exact balloon metaphor by saying that the gravitational force eliminates the force of expansion so while the ninety-something percent anti-matter part expands, in "material" universe  we observe no expansion. Maybe Corribus can explain this to us in more detail.
I haven't got the slightest clue what you mean and what you say makes no sense. You may want to check that. this is a very sloppy way to argue, by the way.

Quote:
Quote:
Now, if you sit on this surface and perceive only that surface, it would seem obvious that a very prominent element in our reality is missing: where is the "air" coming from that is blowing up our universe? In other words - there must be something "MORE".


You are taking the metaphor for real here. Also it is one of the tricks of language to assume if there is a force there must be someone applying it. We are just used to think of the word force  as something applied. Does someone apply gravity or is it just there?
You make no point. Gravitation is an unexplained phenomenon. I do not apply a trick of the language, and don't say that someone is applying force, I say, that the "air" (or force - actually the term used in science is PRESSURE) must be coming from someWHERE - an additional dimension, for example.
You are, by the way not arguing here, you just make wild claims.
Quote:
Quote:
however, this supposed dark matter (and energy) which would make 95% of the universe has not been verified in any direct way (that is, via observation) - there have only been made observations that would explain themselves under that assumption; but of course this is mysticism: a model that suggests 95% of our observable reality consists of something that cannot be observed currently, could just as well postulate, "god exists",



Not at all. One is a calculation (or a set of calculations) and falsifiable (there are already scientists who object to this theory but as of now, they are a very small minority) while the other is simply just making things up in the crudest sense. Something falsifiable is categorically not mystical.
No, you are wrong. The cold fact is that there is a necessity to explain a contradiction, and to that purpose science ASSUMES the EXISTENCE of something UNOBSERVABLE, UNMEASURABLE, saying this would explain things. There is NO difference whatsoever to assuming God - UNLESS you can suggest and set up an experiment that could falsify the assumption.

Quote:
You might also say, that a materialistic explanation of the reality cannot be complete and therefore not objectively true. It's like having a self-expanding puzzle: since you can fit in only one piece at a time, you'll never get the complete picture.


It is only your obsession that to define something as objective it must also be absolute. The two concepts are not semantically inclusive to each other...

They don't need to be - one, however, follows logically out of the other. An objective truth is THE ONE AND ONLY truth. If there is more than one it can't be objective anymore, but is subjective.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 05, 2013 04:10 PM

Quote:
All very true, JJ, but just because something can't be observed doesn't mean it isn't there.  The truth doesn't require observation to be true.  (Tree falling in a forest and all that.)
Ah, but that's the big question.
If it can't be observed - how do you know it's there? And keep in mind abouit what we are talking here. The forest you are talking about won't ever be observed by us because it is fundamentally impossible.
Question: does it make sense to make statements about something you will never have any idea about even whether it exists ("now") or not? How could that make sense.
However, if we assume that there somehow is a TRUTH, that 100 billion lightyears from here there must either be the same universe or another one - you make a conclusion from everyday life experience - you assume that it is somehow possible to acquire the info, which would, however need a supernatural mind outside of all laws of nature.
Because the information CAN NEVER REACH US.

Logically and scientifically we cannot say anything about things beyond the event horizon because there is no way to ever check them for correctness (or falsify them).

You can follow that line of thought in another direction. Assume a universe devoid of mind. Does it exist?
Answer: not processable. The question makes no sense, because no one is there to either ask or answer it.
It's just an illusion - a trick of language and mind. You assume the position of an absolute observer OUTSIDE of all laws of nature when you say, what you say (tree/forest) - and there is your problem with materialism, because your demand for an objective truth leads to idealism in a very straight line, no matter how you call it, because you can't have it without your observer outside of all laws of nature: whether you call it a universe spanning matrix of "the mind", god, an underlying Einstein-Bose condensate with superconductivity - whatever.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
master_learn
master_learn


Legendary Hero
walking to the library
posted May 05, 2013 04:58 PM
Edited by master_learn at 17:09, 05 May 2013.

Let me put again my two cents here.

What about mind,that shapes reality and reality,that shapes mind?

Example-INVENTIONS-they don't exist in the PRESENT,but once made,they exist in the FUTURE.
That means mind(every innovation comes from it)creates new tools,which SHAPE our every day life.
Some of these-electrisity,machines,phone,radio and etc.

Also REALITY(the conditions we live in)shapes mind in the form what FIELDS the human thought to explore first and gives us the feeling of reality in contrary to the feeling of having illusions.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted May 05, 2013 05:30 PM bonus applied by Corribus on 06 May 2013.
Edited by Zenofex at 17:39, 05 May 2013.

Quote:
The mind tries to deal with everything that captures its interest, whether they comprehend it or not, which is the reason why there have been so many errors and wrong conclusions, ideas and explanations.
The main problem of almost all philosophical disputes is that, sooner or later, they devolve in arguing about words rather than meanings. You do exactly that at the moment.

OK, let's actually set something up. In a philosophical discussion nothing should be left hanging in the air without explanation like it's something obvious as hell. Like "interest", "curiosity", etc. Additionally, what you've written in the above quote has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Reading your next posts though, I think I've found the issue so here it goes.
Quote:
Materialism makes no sense without the postulation of a somewhat OBJECTIVE TRUTH behind what is perceived as "the reality" AND - most importantly - that this objective truth must be SOMEhow experiencable.
That is completely wrong. It is the idealism which looks for objective truths. Reference - Plato, Kant, Hegel and many others. You're German, it's easy for you to check the "fantastic four" of what is the essence of modern day idealism - Fichte, Schelling, Kant and Hegel, among other things they make a pretty good summary of earlier idealism as well. Hegel even names his philosophy "absolute idealism". All in all, the idealism has always been about the existence of ideal (this time the word is pretty important) or absolute truths which do not care about the restrictions of the material world and exist totally independently. These "truths" are beyond space and time and beyond direct observation because the material world is crude and full of - what it may seem - contradictions. That is why the idealism very often leads to mysticism - it denies the possibility to reach the "truth" through observation of the material world. That's just not possible if you accept that the "truth" is independent from the material world - which the idealism does accept as its main postulate.

The materialism on the other hand goes the other way. It says that objective truths, uncreated by the material world, don't exist (it actually denies the existence of absolute truths but that is debatable to an extent). An idea does not generate itself without any interaction with the environment but actually is generated following such an interaction. You DON'T have to make direct observations every time when you come up with an idea but you need to have some information as a base and without that "basic" information, you can't go anywhere. This information can be simply "I'm not alone" - there a tons of conclusions that can follow such an observation; or "I can move my fingers and that guy over there can move around me even if I stand still" - this leads to so many ideas that the humanity still hasn't handled even a small fraction of them. And when you conclude that "everything is moving", you literally have the base for the exploration of the entire universe. Still, if you have never received any information from the material world, you wouldn't be able to come up with any idea. There would be no information to process, simple as that.

Shortly put, materialism does not deny the abstractions in the slightest or reaching conclusions - which may later appear to be correct (or incorrect) - without direct observations. It however states that an idea must have a "trigger" in the material world and without such, it just won't exist. That includes mathematics.

About the "comprehension" now - what I mean is exactly that "trigger" mentioned above. The word might be chosen poorly but I think I've explained what I mean several times already. If someone imagines, say, God, what do you think he/she really imagines? "Nothing" is not the answer. Some would imagine paintings of Jesus. Or the Bible/Torah/Qur'an. Others will imagine lightnings. A third category will imagine some fantasy being which can do all kinds of magical stuff. A fourth category will imagine (or rather try to recreate) a feeling, maybe a feeling of love or compassion. Or fear. And so on. Nobody will imagine "nothing" and everybody will try to comprehend the word individually and will comprehend it with respect to some interaction with the physical world. That's valid for all kinds of "incomprehensible" concepts.

And finally - materialism does not care about finity and infinity. The universe does not have to have full and final explanation. Or just one explanation. The only philosophical restriction is that the universe can not have a "creator", i.e. a totally independent force which defies all laws of nature, logic and whatnot and which has kicked the world into existence because of hell knows what reasons.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 05, 2013 06:01 PM


We have to keep in mind that this debate was on its culmination before modern physics: 19th century.
True, idealism, namely the four Germans, were looking for an objective underlying truth - BUT NOT IN THE MATERIAL WORLD as it was known at that point. (which is why I point to idealism when "extrapolating" materialistic views.)
Materialism on the other hand, has been looking for those truths as well - and claims that everything has its cause in the material world and there is nothing outside of that, specifically no "mind". Isn' that the procalamation of an absolute truth? (You say: "It however states that an (abstract) idea must have a "trigger" in the material world and without such, it just won't exist. That includes mathematics." - That is an absolute claim which is supported by what?)
You also say: "Nobody will imagine "nothing" and everybody will try to comprehend the word individually and will comprehend it with respect to some interaction with the physical world. That's valid for all kinds of "incomprehensible" concepts."
That's just because without interaction it is irrelevant - why would we assume something IMMATERIAL that had no connection to the material world? Idealism isn't denying it, just it's primary role.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 05, 2013 06:08 PM

Oh, and I'd like to add that materialism isn't EMPIRICISM, I repeat that.

In my mind, all materialists here in this dicussion are actually empiricists, which is not the same thing - I wouldn't argue against empiricism.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 05, 2013 06:31 PM
Edited by artu at 18:33, 05 May 2013.

Quote:
I haven't got the slightest clue what you mean and what you say makes no sense. You may want to check that. this is a very sloppy way to argue, by the way.


I am quite clear on that since it was a long discussion. 3 physicists and some apologist guy who says CERN experiments proved God (Allah in here, of course) were having a debate, at some point the apologist guy came up with the balloon example and said since we are on the surface of the expanding balloon the distances between planets and stars etc etc should be expanding too. 2 of the physicist said that they can measure no such thing as of now, so they won't claim that, the third one said that it is not so because in smaller scales gravitational force eliminates the effect of the expansion, when the apologist kept on about the surface of the balloon, the physicist took a glass, turned it upside down and said to him, see how some water always stays in the surface of the glass despite the gravitational force, because there are also other forces having an effect (he named it too but I can't remember), just like that, the effect of gravitational force eliminates the effect of the expansion in some cases.

Quote:
No, you are wrong. The cold fact is that there is a necessity to explain a contradiction, and to that purpose science ASSUMES the EXISTENCE of something UNOBSERVABLE, UNMEASURABLE, saying this would explain things. There is NO difference whatsoever to assuming God - UNLESS you can suggest and set up an experiment that could falsify the assumption.


But that experiment is possible at least in theory. It is also possible that 20 years later, they will come up with a different model. None of this applies to the concept of God. They assume Dark matter BECAUSE OF calculations, not so in God.

Quote:
Artu: It is only your obsession that to define something as objective it must also be absolute. The two concepts are not semantically inclusive to each other...

JJ: They don't need to be - one, however, follows logically out of the other. An objective truth is THE ONE AND ONLY truth. If there is more than one it can't be objective anymore, but is subjective.


I use objectivity as in the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations. which is the underlined part in a discussion about idealism versus materialism. The proclaim of the materialistic world view (in general) is two or more subjects can claim knowledge on an object and since their knowledge is based on the qualifications of the object PRIOR TO THEIR MIND, there will be common elements in their claimed knowledge. That does not necessarily mean though that their results will be the one and only, the absolute result. When given a magnifier, they can come up with different conclusions about the object, but again, both subjects with magnifiers will achieve similar results. If we use objective in the sense you use, then as Zenofex said already, it is the idealists looking for the never-changing reality anyway.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 05, 2013 08:24 PM

Quote:
Quote:
I haven't got the slightest clue what you mean and what you say makes no sense. You may want to check that. this is a very sloppy way to argue, by the way.


I am quite clear on that since it was a long discussion. 3 physicists and some apologist guy who says CERN experiments proved God (Allah in here, of course) were having a debate, at some point the apologist guy came up with the balloon example and said since we are on the surface of the expanding balloon the distances between planets and stars etc etc should be expanding too. 2 of the physicist said that they can measure no such thing as of now, so they won't claim that, the third one said that it is not so because in smaller scales gravitational force eliminates the effect of the expansion, when the apologist kept on about the surface of the balloon, the physicist took a glass, turned it upside down and said to him, see how some water always stays in the surface of the glass despite the gravitational force, because there are also other forces having an effect (he named it too but I can't remember), just like that, the effect of gravitational force eliminates the effect of the expansion in some cases.

Expansion of space

Quote:
Quote:
No, you are wrong. The cold fact is that there is a necessity to explain a contradiction, and to that purpose science ASSUMES the EXISTENCE of something UNOBSERVABLE, UNMEASURABLE, saying this would explain things. There is NO difference whatsoever to assuming God - UNLESS you can suggest and set up an experiment that could falsify the assumption.


But that experiment is possible at least in theory. It is also possible that 20 years later, they will come up with a different model. None of this applies to the concept of God. They assume Dark matter BECAUSE OF calculations, not so in God.
There ARE different models. Anyway - you ASSUME it is possible. But it's not. It's not observable - although it makes 95% of our universe and is responsible for massive gravitation and acceleration effects? What about the Razor? Did I miss something? Since when does it make sense to assume that 95% of all existing matter/energy (!) is of a type that isn't observable instead of an error somewhere?

Quote:


I use objectivity as in the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations. which is the underlined part in a discussion about idealism versus materialism.
I know what you mean. You mean, that since generally our subjective perception of the world we live in produces comparable results and we also have science we assume that there is a "true state" of "things" (reality).
But there isn't. We all may see something that we have defined as a chair, but if we switch perception we see something else, molecules, atoms, fields... What is "true" here? And what are those molecules and atoms?
In other words: "being true eben OUTSIDE OF A SUBJECTS INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTION" - what does that actually mean: TRUE? FOR WHOM? FROM WHICH PERSPECTIVE? "..." means nothing else than "from an ABSOLUTETLY TRUE POINT OF VIEW - because there is no simple BEING of things, but only an OBSERVED state of things. There IS NO reality outside of an observer - it's just that you can IMAGINE one.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 05, 2013 09:20 PM
Edited by artu at 21:22, 05 May 2013.

Quote:
There ARE different models. Anyway - you ASSUME it is possible. But it's not. It's not observable - although it makes 95% of our universe and is responsible for massive gravitation and acceleration effects? What about the Razor? Did I miss something? Since when does it make sense to assume that 95% of all existing matter/energy (!) is of a type that isn't observable instead of an error somewhere?


I am aware there are people objecting to it, as I said in one of my previous posts, they are a tiny minority in scientific circles as of now. Of course, that does not mean they can't be right but since I'm not a scientist and have no expertise on this specific matter in dark (pun intended), I can't claim anything. However their (and your) objection is very well within the boundaries of materialism here. In this specific statement of yours, the reason you are not convinced isn't because you are guided by idealism instead of materialism, it is simply because you think the theory is not convincing enough.

Quote:
We all may see something that we have defined as a chair, but if we switch perception we see something else, molecules, atoms, fields... What is "true" here? And what are those molecules and atoms?
In other words: "being true eben OUTSIDE OF A SUBJECTS INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTION" - what does that actually mean: TRUE? FOR WHOM? FROM WHICH PERSPECTIVE? "..." means nothing else than "from an ABSOLUTETLY TRUE POINT OF VIEW - because there is no simple BEING of things, but only an OBSERVED state of things. There IS NO reality outside of an observer - it's just that you can IMAGINE one.


Defining a chair as wood, then later as atoms, then later as quarks, then later as whatever is not ontologically defining it as something else CONTRADICTING WITH ITS PREVIOUS DEFINITIONS. There is no ontological contradiction here more than defining a book both as a novel and paper. There is only an epistemological variety.

And I may have agreed with your second statement in philosophical terms if we were only observing. Yet we are also interacting with what we observe and produce functioning devices. You always skip that part. So if our observations does not necessarily coincide with an external reality  then how come we can produce WORKING technology? The only alternative explanation would be that, us, observing that technology working could be an idealistic simulation but we've already been there and done that.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 05, 2013 09:56 PM

Quote:


And I may have agreed with your second statement in philosophical terms if we were only observing. Yet we are also interacting with what we observe and produce functioning devices. You always skip that part. So if our observations does not necessarily coincide with an external reality  then how come we can produce WORKING technology? The only alternative explanation would be that, us, observing that technology working could be an idealistic simulation but we've already been there and done that.


Does idealism deny the ability to create working technology? I don't think so.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 05, 2013 10:25 PM

My reactionary answer would be yes, but you know what they say, the simplest questions are usually the hardest ones.

But still yes, in the sense that it requires a type of knowledge that is in the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 05, 2013 11:09 PM

But don't you think they would have realized that they were foolish. I mean, they were not sitting idly doing nothing, right?

On another note, why would you be a materialist anyway?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 05, 2013 11:19 PM

Because I assume an external reality that exists with or without my mind. I was not trained to be one, the description just fits.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 06, 2013 11:34 AM

Quote:
Because I assume an external reality that exists with or without my mind. I was not trained to be one, the description just fits.
The bold print is the key here.
I don't think, this is materialism - it's more a contradiction and rejection of SOLIPSISM ("The only thing I can be sure of to exist is my mind"), although solipsism cannot be attacked in any sensible way.

Materialism and Idealism doesn't have to do with YOUR mind, but with THE mind. The question is, is there an external reality that exists without ANY mind - independently from any mind -, and while one is tempted to say "yes", answering it at all makes no sense - as written - because without any mind to observe the question doesn't ask itself and would be completely irrelevant and useless.

So you PROBABLY mean: there is an objective reality with objective properties that do not depend in any way from my or any other subject's observation that can be objectively true described.

STILL, that's not materialism either, because that objective reality might be idealistic, not materialistic, so what you also need, is that "everything is based on matter (or its energy equivalent as in
m = E/Cē)" including the mind - which would also mean that matter was first, mind was second (or tenth, no matter, but it came AFTER matter, since it comes from it).

Right?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 06, 2013 02:00 PM
Edited by artu at 14:01, 06 May 2013.

Well, I can nitpick a little bit here and there but basically quite right, yes. Except one thing though:

I don't see how an idealistic universe that has no minds at all is possible even in theory. For idealism to exist you need at least one mind.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 11 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1534 seconds