Does Matter Really Exist?

[Iacchus]

News flash, Iacchus: when you are asleep, you are still in contact with the world. Your claim was that you could choose not to come into contact with the "physical world." Your claim presupposes a physical world, so I must assume that you are not (for the purposes of your claim) denying its existence; rather, you say you can choose not to come into contact with it.

Actually, you were never in direct contact with it ... and by falling asleep only confirms it. Whereas if you were to take the next step, and put the body to death (of which the self is unaware of at this point), then what?

 

[bruto]

Of an empty box? Yes, I agree.

NO NO NONONONONONO! NO

The contents of a FULL box are not a subset of the box either! They are a subset, and the full set, of the set of things in the box. If you consider the set of things in the box to be "a box" or a "boxfull" as one might call a set of 12 things "a dozen," then the individual contents of the box are a subset of that set of a boxfull of things. They are not a subset of the box, and THE NUMBER OF THINGS IN THE BOX IS NOT A SUBSET OF THE NUMBER OF BOXES, NOR IS THE NUMBER OF ANY SUBSET OF THINGS IN THE BOX A SUBSET OF THE NUMBER OF THINGS IN THE BOX. THE SET IS OF THINGS, NOT THE CARDINALITY OF THOSE THINGS.

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, just to get it straight:

The contents of a box are not a subset of the box itself.

Putting ten babies in the bathtub does not create a superbaby.

A set is all-inclusive of that which is within the set. So yes, a set of a pack of twenty cigarettes, is a set of a pack of twenty cigarettes. If you take away the twenty cigarettes, you no longer have a set of a pack of twenty cigarettes. Just the "empty shell" or, packaging so to speak.

 

[Mercutio]

Actually, you were never in direct contact with it ... and by falling asleep only confirms it. Whereas if you were to take the next step, and put the body to death (of which the self is unaware of at this point), then what?

I realize that this is your belief. This is a very good example of what I mean by believing in spite of evidence. If you honestly do believe what you wrote, and indeed base some of your philosophy on it, you owe it to yourself to read more about what science knows about sleep and dreaming. (hint: it is not one step away from death.) If you would rather remain ignorant, and keep this world view that you so love, do not be surprised when others fail to be convinced by your assertions.

 

[Iacchus]

A set is all-inclusive of that which is within the set. So yes, a set of a pack of twenty cigarettes, is a set of a pack of twenty cigarettes. If you take away the twenty cigarettes, you no longer have a set of a pack of twenty cigarettes. Just the "empty shell" or, packaging so to speak.

And, when you go to the store to buy some cigarettes, you ask for a package of cigarettes, not a handful of cigarettes individually.

 

[Iacchus]

I realize that this is your belief. This is a very good example of what I mean by believing in spite of evidence. If you honestly do believe what you wrote, and indeed base some of your philosophy on it, you owe it to yourself to read more about what science knows about sleep and dreaming. (hint: it is not one step away from death.) If you would rather remain ignorant, and keep this world view that you so love, do not be surprised when others fail to be convinced by your assertions.

Ah, then this must be the materialist speaking in you, for it is not something the idealist would say. I on the other hand, being the dualist, I guess? would say that direct contact is only relative and never truly established ... in that there exists some sort of "membrane" (for lack of a better way to put it) between the two.

 

[Iacchus]

The contents of a FULL box are not a subset of the box either! They are a subset, and the full set, of the set of things in the box. If you consider the set of things in the box to be "a box" or a "boxfull" as one might call a set of 12 things "a dozen," then the individual contents of the box are a subset of that set of a boxfull of things. They are not a subset of the box ...

How can you have a can of soup without the can? So yes, the can is a subset of the can of soup. Of course one can say they had a can of soup for lunch but, that's merely figurative ... I hope.

 

[Mercutio]

Ah, then this must be the materialist speaking in you, for it is not something the idealist would say. I on the other hand, being the dualist, I guess? would say that direct contact is only relative and never truly established ... in that there exists some sort of "membrane" (for lack of a better way to put it) between the two.

You are quite simply wrong.

Idealist, materialist, or flying spaghetti monsterist, anyone can look at the experimental evidence. The experimental literature you steadfastly ignore is independent of monism; whether one is materialist or idealist, when our experience is systematically examined, we find relationships between it and our environment (whether "real" or "perceived" is utterly irrelevant).

You are looking for an excuse to ignore the evidence, but this is not it. Unless you have some legitimate explanation for the experimental evidence, you will remain believing in opposition to the evidence. Your ignorance of monisms does not excuse you.

 

[Mercutio]

How can you have a can of soup without the can? So yes, the can is a subset of the can of soup. Of course one can say they had a can of soup for lunch but, that's merely figurative ... I hope.

Wow. You have had some really intelligent people explaining set theory to you, in terms which a child should understand, and yet you continue to assert that your interpretation (which has been demonstrated to be incorrect again and again) is right and theirs is wrong. Remarkable. Again, this should be the point where you say "thanks, guys, for showing me where I was wrong."

Tell me...is there any belief you hold that is consistent with even one other person's? Or do you make up your entire world?

 

[Iacchus]

You are looking for an excuse to ignore the evidence, but this is not it. Unless you have some legitimate explanation for the experimental evidence, you will remain believing in opposition to the evidence. Your ignorance of monisms does not excuse you.

Evidence? Evidence supports the fact that "I" am not in direct contact with the world when I'm asleep, otherwise "I" would know about it.

 

[Iacchus]

Wow. You have had some really intelligent people explaining set theory to you, in terms which a child should understand, and yet you continue to assert that your interpretation (which has been demonstrated to be incorrect again and again) is right and theirs is wrong. Remarkable. Again, this should be the point where you say "thanks, guys, for showing me where I was wrong."

Tell me...is there any belief you hold that is consistent with even one other person's? Or do you make up your entire world?

Yes, and when you take that same can of soup and throw it against somebody's window, how would you define how that window got broken? Was it just the soup or, just the can? Or, was it simply a can of soup?

 

[Iacchus]

Indeed, how would you define an apple, if you decided to peel it first? What is the difference between this and the soup without the can? In the case with the apple you can eat the "packaging" (although there are those who prefer not to), in the case with the can of soup, probably not.

 

[Iacchus]

Wow. You have had some really intelligent people explaining set theory to you, in terms which a child should understand, and yet you continue to assert that your interpretation (which has been demonstrated to be incorrect again and again) is right and theirs is wrong. Remarkable. Again, this should be the point where you say "thanks, guys, for showing me where I was wrong."

Tell me...is there any belief you hold that is consistent with even one other person's? Or do you make up your entire world?

If you're suggesting there's a difference between the medium and what contains it, then yes, I would agree. However, when speaking of the whole, one must consider the packaging as well, whether its organic, synthetic or otherwise. For example, you don't see people jumping out of their skins do you? ...

Truth is the vessel (form) and good is contained within (essence).

 

[Johnny Pixels]

Can somebody draw some Venn diagrams please?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I’ve slogged my way through the meandering swamp of this thread, and I’ve finally chosen to weigh in. I hope I can make some meaningful contribution that will stop this ten page torture.

No, there is a greater consciousness from which the physical world and my consciousness proceed.

Again, the alleged quote by Max Planck ...

This quotation, be it from Plank or not, is an expression of a theory of Mind. Specifically, it’s a theory of mind which presumes that nothing can exist without an initial mind to set it in place. For a very well worded explanation of this theory, pick up a copy of John Locke’s “Essay Concerning Human Understanding”. He was struglling with the same question you seem to be using (occasionally, I’m having trouble following your arguments), “Which came first, mind or matter?" Locke wrote "it is impossible to conceive that ever bare incogitative matter should produce a thinking intelligent Being."

Until Darwin came around, this was the accepted theory. However, Darwin’s principals of natural selection are easily and enlighteningly applied to areas besides the biological. Snowflakes are complex, individual structures of astounding symmetry and regularity, but natural forces put them together. Darwinian thought is a useful tool, and the only tool capable of providing a reasonable answer to Locke’s question, and soundly, irrevocably refutes this quote.

Not only does reason and science provide sound explanations for how things came about, but they make good predictions about how thing will behave, and allow us to build and create the things you are so easily dismissing, and taking for granted. As RandiFan said:

Go live in the woods and abandon all technology for 1 year. Then come back and enter your response on the computer how science serves no **PURPOSE** but an extsension of the proof that we exist.

For more on the subject of why you’re demonstrating more than a little ingratitude, someone posted this link earlier, refresh your memory. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46935

Even when you choose the metaphors, they work against you. Cigs are made, and exist individually, before they are packaged. A pack is built from the bottom up--it does not spring a fully armoured Athena from the head of Zeuss. Your metaphor ignores the reality, uses an idealized cigarette pack that was never anything less than that, and then proceeds.

Once again, your readers understand your examples better than you do yourself. Once again...

you are quite simply wrong.

Mercutio’s dead right. If you make an analogy to make a point, you can’t keep trying to use the same examples in different guises. Try devising a refutation to reason that doesn’t involve “doubting” the existence of everything. If I prick you, you will bleed. Since you are so keen on explaining yourself through the lens of self and experience you must acknowledge that you cannot possibly exist without the world around you, and that world lends no supporting evidence to your claims. “Cogito ergo sum” is a starting gate, and a touchstone, not a destination.

Vacuous. To every up there's a down. To every black there is white. To every John Lennon there is a Paul McCartney.

This is just a cliche and doesn't provide any useful information.

To every salt there is a pepper.

"The kingdom of God is within." Now, you can choose to look at that from the standpoint of a bunch of gobbledygook on your computer screen or, you can choose to understand what the words mean and "look within." I am not denying that these words appear on your computer screen, however.

Thanks RandFan, Iacchus is just using more and more thought terminating clichés. “The kingdom of God is within you.” Is meant to cause the listener to stop inquiring. It is as easily misguiding as “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” Clearly, investment, and the premise of capitalism is impossible. Thanks clichés, where would we be without you? Iacchus, if you stopped to think for a moment, you could name a real, three dimensional structure that has no inside, no outside, and no door. A mobius strip. Stop assuming that evidence to prove you wrong must be false or must not exist, go out and look for it.

And to each their own reward. So what? ... Why is there such a variation between plant species on earth, and yet only one sun in the sky? Isn't each of these indicative to its own particular brand of "faith" towards the sun? It seems to be enough to sustain the plants doesn't it?

If you started by dismissing the reality of all other things by saying that your experience and faith is the sole measure and reality, how did you go from that premise to thinking that plants have souls and faith, instead of evolutionary histories and chlorophyll?

If you're suggesting there's a difference between the medium and what contains it, then yes, I would agree. However, when speaking of the whole, one must consider the packaging as well, whether its organic, synthetic or otherwise ... Truth is the vessel (form) and good is contained within (essence).

I leave it to you to define, and demonstrate essence.

Whew.

 

[Iacchus]

Tell me...is there any belief you hold that is consistent with even one other person's? Or do you make up your entire world?

Or, perhaps Randi should try conducting this forum in French?

 

[Iacchus]

Until Darwin came around, this was the accepted theory. However, Darwin’s principals of natural selection are easily and enlighteningly applied to areas besides the biological. Snowflakes are complex, individual structures of astounding symmetry and regularity, but natural forces put them together. Darwinian thought is a useful tool, and the only tool capable of providing a reasonable answer to Locke’s question, and soundly, irrevocably refutes this quote.

Nothing unfolds without "a plan." Sorry, I gotta go ... to work that is.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Nothing unfolds without "a plan." Sorry, I gotta go ... to work that is.

One word rebuttal: Crystals

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, people tend to read into things what they wish to see ... which, is probably why you have such a hard time reading anything into what I've said. Simply a matter of cultural inculcation? Perhaps.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes, people tend to read into things what they wish to see ... which, is you probably have such a hard time reading anything into what I've said. A matter of cultural inculcation? Perhaps.

Please address my rebuttal. How do you explain crystals?