> On 23 Oct 2019, at 14:56, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 6:17:58 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 2:38:47 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 8:41:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 1:42:20 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 12:18:45 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 9:25:11 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > That's such a silly argument. This only proves there are interactions between > consciousnesses. > > On Tuesday, 22 October 2019 14:25:04 UTC+3, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > I think Samuel Johnson had a good reply to Bishop Berkeley on refuting > idealism, "If I kick this rock thusly," which Johnson did, "It then kicks > back." This is not a complete proof, but it works well enough FAPP. > > > It is not silly. It is empirical. If you are interested in some sort of firm > "mathy" type of proof, then I would suggest the burden is more upon you to > prove your case that idealism is true. I have no particular interest in the > subject to begin with, so I put the ball in your court. Prove your case. > > LC > > > > Empiricism cannot say whether it's (all) matter, consciousness, or numbers. > > What makes the latter two dismissible is they do not explain what we know of > our own consciousness - that it is finite in time and bounded in space. > > @philipthrift > > I am not saying "if I kick it it kicks back" means everything is matter. In > fact the total mass-energy of the universe is zero. However, it does lend > weight to the proposition there exists at least locally matter that is > external to mind. Matter does not conform to what my mind might otherwise > desire things to be. Statistical mechanics even shows that what we see as a > desired order is just one rather small macrostate in the energy surface of > phase space. Besides, our conscious lives are pretty fragile in the face of > things. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdf5EXo6I68 > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdf5EXo6I68> > > LC > > > Matter does not conform to what my mind might otherwise desire things to be. > > > "How did we ever get the notion of the mind as something distinct from the > body? Why did this bad idea enter our culture?" > > https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html > <https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html> > > @philipthrift > > I am not arguing for a dualism. If there is dualism between matter and mind, > then it appears that matter is more pervasive. If the two are the same in a > monism, or mind a manifestation of matter, then mind is most likely a subset > of matter. Arguing over this is really a sort of metaphysics that is not much > more fruitful than the proverbial argument over the number of angels dancing > on the head of a pin. > > LC > > > > I acknowledge the antimaterialist ways of thinking: > > In philosophy, antimaterialism can mean one of several metaphysical or > religious beliefs that are specifically opposed to materialism > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism>, the notion that only matter > exists.
Just to be clear, I use materialism (or weak-materialism) as the belief in primary matter. The belief that the explanation of the matter phenomenon requires some matter to exist in some irreducible way, or the belief that matter has to be assumed to explain its appearance. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimaterialism > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimaterialism> Anti-materialism sounds much like the belief that matter does not exist “ontologically” or in some primary way. Non materialism is the absence of belief in such Matter, but it can be accompanied with the absence of belief that it does not exist. It is like with God, we can have no belief in any direction (existence or non existence). When doing metaphysics with the scientific method, that is the starring point: agnosticism, as we cannot decide the truth in advance. > > It just has always seemed weird to me. Keep in mind that we have been brainwashed by 1500 years of (weak) materialism, which is also a natural extrapolation from experience. But there has never been any evidence for it. There are a tun of evidence for the existence of matter, but no genuine evidence that its appearance requires it to have an ontological status. Now, both Mechanism in Cognitive science, and QM adds to the idea that it does not exist (in that primary way). Bruno > > > @philipthrift > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1d5e92b6-e9a0-4d9d-b339-e4ba6ce1e084%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1d5e92b6-e9a0-4d9d-b339-e4ba6ce1e084%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6062A221-76D6-43C0-820D-4E7B0D23ACDB%40ulb.ac.be.
