Does Matter Really Exist?

[Iacchus]

All depends on what we mean by proven. I argued this with Bri in another thread. If "proven" means 100% certain beyond any doubt, then NOTHING can be proven and the word is useless.

Yes, but I much more certain of the fact that "I" exist than anything else.

 

[Iacchus]

Oh! So materialism is wrong because it's unproven, and idealism is right because not proven wrong ? Double-standard indeed.

No, I am capable of proving to myself that "I" exist but, not necessarily anything else. So in that "sense," everything is based upon the fact I am "self-aware."

 

[Iacchus]

So idealism can only be proven relative to materialism? Why bother choosing one over the other?

The only sensible thing to do is to assume that the universe is the way it appears to be, unless someone provides pretty conclusive proof that it isn't.

Unless you want to look like a damn fool.

Yes, I would be much inclined to agree with you that the "physical" world does exist. However, so does that part which observes it, "me."

 

[Mercutio]

No, I am capable of proving to myself that "I" exist but, not necessarily anything else. So in that "sense," everything is based upon the fact I am "self-aware."

So why, then, is "I" in quotes?

If you are following your normal pattern, it is because you can take the things about yourself that are self-evident (your sensations, perceptions, mostly of things external to yourself, and some sensations and perceptions of what appears to be your own physical body), and then infer from these things an "I" that somehow exists independently of them.

This is not proof, Iacchus. I do note that you say "proving to [yourself]", though, so it makes sense that the bar is much much lower.

Your experience is not based on your being self-aware; your self-awareness is inferred from your experience.

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, I would be much inclined to agree with you that the "physical" world does exist. However, so does that part which observes it, "me."

Why the quotes again? That part which observes the world...why do you think it is made of some other stuff than the rest of the world?

 

[Iacchus]

Unless you want to look like a damn fool.

Oh, and whether I look like a damn fool or not, is not going to change things any ... Which, is why I figure there's not much point in taking the whole thing too seriously. I find it extremely ironic though, that you folks continue to insist that there are no such things as absolutes, particularly in the form of meaning, and yet here you are getting all worked up about that -- which, according to you folks anyway -- amounts to nothing. Isn't that just the least bit strange?

 

[Belz...]

Unknown. Care to argue it does not exist? Note that this says nothing about *you* or *me* 'thinking'; by gentlemens' agreement we can make the assumption that both of us do so, and even aver we are thinking at the self-aware level.

So... you basically just assume that it does, and then critisize me for positing the existence of matter ? Refresh my memory. I forget.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, but I much more certain of the fact that "I" exist than anything else.

That's because you assign too much value to your own subjective perceptions. Thinking about it, I don't sense that my consciousness is all that special or distinct from the physical universe that I perceive. In fact, this consciousness of mine may very well be perceived, too.

What do you think ?

 

[Belz...]

No, I am capable of proving to myself that "I" exist but, not necessarily anything else. So in that "sense," everything is based upon the fact I am "self-aware."

Proving to yourself ? You can pretty much prove anything to yourself if you put your mind to it. That's why we use science, instead. It's much more reliable.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, I would be much inclined to agree with you that the "physical" world does exist. However, so does that part which observes it, "me."

Ah, but you seem to imply that the physical world is part of you, while I argue that it is the reverse that is true.

 

[hammegk]

So... you basically just assume that it does, and then critisize me for positing the existence of matter ? Refresh my memory. I forget.

Why do you find the existence of matter more certain than the existence of thought? Note again, this has little to do with our self-aware HPC thought. Perhaps intent is a better word, but the essence at homo sap level is Body, or Mind.

At the lowest level, no-intent vs intent, a bit more perceived-as-physically complex, not-life vs life.

And of course you are free -- or think you are -- to choose Body as your axiom; just don't mistake your choice for fact.

 

[Mercutio]

At the lowest level, no-intent vs intent, a bit more perceived-as-physically complex, not-life vs life.

I do not see why "thought exists" necessarily leads to "intent", whereas "matter exists" equates to "no-intent". It seems to me that the matter (no pun intended) of intent is wholly independent of axiomatic assumption.

And of course you are free -- or think you are -- to choose Body as your axiom; just don't mistake your choice for fact.

heh...we are always very good at reminding those who choose the other axiom that it is a choice. It is only difficult to remind ourselves that our own axiom is also chosen.

 

[hammegk]

Agreed, but having examined to the best of my ability the implications of either choice I prefer my monism. If thought does not exist we would not be discussing things. Matter? Unknown.

 

[Mercutio]

Agreed, but having examined to the best of my ability the implications of either choice I prefer my monism. If thought does not exist we would not be discussing things. Matter? Unknown.

I certainly cannot disprove your monism; given your axiom, you are correct. That said, given the other axiom, if matter did not exist we could not be discussing things. Thought? Illusion.

And I'd be perfectly happy arguing your view against a materialist...I'm just contrary that way.

 

[hammegk]

Hammegk, if you have never read William James's famous essay "Does Consciousness Exist?" (found in Essays in Radical Empiricism, but probably also in other collections) I recommend it. Not necessarily to make a convert of you, but it's at least an interesting take on the subject, and the exercise of attempting to poke holes in it could be invigorating.

He demonstrates the illogic of dualism.

 

[Iacchus]

That's because you assign too much value to your own subjective perceptions. Thinking about it, I don't sense that my consciousness is all that special or distinct from the physical universe that I perceive. In fact, this consciousness of mine may very well be perceived, too.

What do you think ?

Well, I know that I can choose not to come into contact with it, if I choose to go back to sleep.

 

[Iacchus]

Ah, but you seem to imply that the physical world is part of you, while I argue that it is the reverse that is true.

The physical world is a part of my conscious experience. Which, is why I suggest both are subsets of an even greater conscious experience, which is essentially what the alleged quote by Max Planck says.

 

[Iacchus]

Proving to yourself ? You can pretty much prove anything to yourself if you put your mind to it. That's why we use science, instead. It's much more reliable.

Science? What is science, but the extension of the proof that we exist. Or else what purpose does it serve?

 

[Iacchus]

Oh! So materialism is wrong because it's unproven, and idealism is right because not proven wrong ? Double-standard indeed.

I know that "I" exist. This is the first proof, and only proof, by which all other proofs are proven. Otherwise, to whom or what are we proving "it" (reality) to?

 

[Mercutio]

I know that "I" exist. This is the first proof, and only proof, by which all other proofs are proven. Otherwise, to whom or what are we proving "it" (reality) to?

And yet you still put "I" in quotes. Are you that insecure in your belief? What, precisely, is this "you" that you know exists? How much of the tripe you insist is proven by your existence is merely assumed in the quotes of that "I"?