Simple question: What is an object?

[Nick227]

To keep things under control, please use this format:

"An object is:

...something you want without fully being aware of why.

Nick

 

[Phaedrus74]

Science is not an interpretive schema, it is an epistemological methodology. The interpretive schema is what is slapped on top of the results of the methodology once the results are in.
Currently what is usually slapped onto it is materialism.

Science, as an epistemological methodology, would work no different than it does today if it were to have any other interpretive schema slapped onto it afterwards, such as idealism etc...

In fact, idealism, being a broader based world view, would be in a better position to cope with the anomalous data which cannot be accommodated within materialism and are therefore widely denied, ridiculed or just ignored.

Your assignment for tonight:

Explain the difference (if any) between epistemological methodology and epistemic methodology.

 

[volatile]

In fact, idealism, being a broader based world view, would be in a better position to cope with the anomalous data which cannot be accommodated within materialism and are therefore widely denied, ridiculed or just ignored.

What anomalous data would that be?

 

[plumjam]

Monism is monism. That's all there is to it.

Are you seriously saying there's no difference between materialism and idealism?

We cannot know what the ultimate substance is.

A statement of faith on your part.
In fact, you already know what the ultimate 'substance is'. The only thing you will ever really know; consciousness.

If there is no 'you' what could you possibly mean by 'self-realization'?

from self to Self.

There is no God up there and us down here within any monistic position.

I know, I already said that.

If 'we' are a consequence of the 'mind of God', then 'we' are a part of God

correct

and there is no 'us'.

Correct and incorrect.

If all of what we call the material world is ultimately thought, that includes our brains. Since this world that we see follows rules, the same thing we describe using 'material monism' -- thought is brain function -- must apply to 'idealist monism' as well. If it does not, then you are engaging in some form of hidden dualism -- actually it isn't hidden at all, it is just plain old property dualism.

It is not ultimately thought. It is ultimately consciousness. Thoughts, like brains, and philosophies are phenomena which occur within consciousness.
You're confusing thought and consciousness.

All monisms must end in the same place. The rest is mere labelling.

Wrong. Idealism ends up in a radically different place to materialism.

 

[plumjam]

What anomalous data would that be?

Here's one anomalous datum for you to consider. Your own consciousness. According to deterministic materialism there is no possible explanation for its existence. Yet it is there. Why? How?

 

[plumjam]

Your assignment for tonight:

Explain the difference (if any) between epistemological methodology and epistemic methodology.

This is meaningless stuff. You started out quite well, but have sadly descended into condescension. So I think I'll pass on the assignment, and have a beer instead.
Cheers!

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Wrong. Idealism ends up in a radically different place to materialism.

No it doesn't. If this whole process is hashed out and the dualistic language, with all its baggage, dropped, there is no possibility for the ultimate substance to be anyting but the ultimate substance. What we call it doesn't matter. We describe what we see as reality from in here. And that is all that we can possibly do. Since we cannot get to the 'ultimate substance of the universe', 'ultimate being', whatever you want to call it, we are stuck with science to describe that with which we can deal. We must arrive at a common answer whatever the ultimate substance is -- it will look exactly the same to us no matter what it *is* (thought, matter, neutral, whatever label you want to afix). All we can do is describe the rules by which it seems to work. If there are different answers, then someone is playing the property dualism game. There can be no other possibility, since there is only one substance (we assume).

As for the rest of your post, we can not even discuss that without a coherent definition of 'consciousness'. What is 'consciousness'?

 

[Phaedrus74]

This is meaningless stuff. You started out quite well, but have sadly descended into condescension. So I think I'll pass on the assignment, and have a beer instead.
Cheers!

Your loss, you might have learned something.

Here's to your health (clinks glass)...

 

[volatile]

Here's one anomalous datum for you to consider. Your own consciousness. According to deterministic materialism there is no possible explanation for its existence. Yet it is there. Why? How?

Daniel Dennett, in Consciousness Explained, disagrees with you. So does nearly everyone quoted in Susan Blackmore's Conversations on Consciousness. Or how about The Philosophy of Neuroscience by Bennett?

In essence - you're wrong. The "hard problem" of consciousness is not whether consciousness is a product of materiality, but how this arises. There is no academic in the fields of neuroscience who sees a conflict between materialism and consciousness. Chemical and biochemical processes in the brain give rise to consciousness, which is why interfering with said biochemistry often has drastic and direct effects on both consciousness and conscious experience. Where's the contradiction? Where's the anomaly? Why is consciousness "anomalous" data?

I suggest you go back to the drawing board and stop peddling the Randian strawman version of materialism...

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Plumjam,

If chairs result from a cosmic consciousness, then what we experience as 'our consciousness' cannot have the same cause. While it may have the same ultimate cause, that consciousness cannot be the proximate cause because it would, therefore, possess two very distinct properties.

It is very possible for there to be a 'cosmic consciousness' that is the ultimate cause of everything (and, for all I know, there is). But, if you want to stick to straight monism, it must be the case that we are the same 'thing' as a chair. We must work by the same sort of 'physical properties' as other stuff out there, whatever your brand of monism.

 

[plumjam]

No it doesn't. If this whole process is hashed out and the dualistic language, with all its baggage, dropped, there is no possibility for the ultimate substance to be anyting but the ultimate substance. What we call it doesn't matter. We describe what we see as reality from in here. And that is all that we can possibly do. Since we cannot get to the 'ultimate substance of the universe', 'ultimate being', whatever you want to call it, we are stuck with science to describe that with which we can deal. We must arrive at a common answer whatever the ultimate substance is -- it will look exactly the same to us no matter what it *is* (thought, matter, neutral, whatever label you want to afix). All we can do is describe the rules by which it seems to work. If there are different answers, then someone is playing the property dualism game. There can be no other possibility, since there is only one substance (we assume).

If you think there's no difference between the ultimate substance being matter, and it being consciousness, then that's a pretty remarkable statement. Not one I see any sense in, and not an avenue I'll be going down.

As for the rest of your post, we can not even discuss that without a coherent definition of 'consciousness'. What is 'consciousness'?

If you don't know what consciousness is I really can't help you with anything.
See ya.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If you don't know what consciousness is I really can't help you with anything.
See ya.

So, in other words, it's going to be the same BS as always.....ask a question that you can't deal with and you run away. So it goes.

 

[plumjam]

Daniel Dennett, in Consciousness Explained, disagrees with you. So does nearly everyone quoted in Susan Blackmore's Conversations on Consciousness. Or how about The Philosophy of Neuroscience by Bennett?

In essence - you're wrong. The "hard problem" of consciousness is not whether consciousness is a product of materiality, but how this arises. There is no academic in the fields of neuroscience who sees a conflict between materialism and consciousness. Chemical and biochemical processes in the brain give rise to consciousness, which is why interfering with said biochemistry often has drastic and direct effects on both consciousness and conscious experience. Where's the contradiction?

I suggest you go back to the drawing board and stop peddling the Randian strawman version of materialism...

What you've done is tell me some materialists have written some books.
Then you've come up with a lot of statements of faith.
Interfering with brain biochemistry does interfere with mentality, and the consciousness of that individual. It does not interfere with the universal consciousness. This because during unconsciousness the individual merges back into the divine, but does it in an unconscious way. I would link to an explanation, but I don't think it'll be your thing.

 

[plumjam]

So, in other words, it's going to be the same BS as always.....ask a question that you can't deal with and you run away. So it goes.

The question you asked was a BS question.
Which particular arrangement of words is going to improve your understanding of what consciousness is? YOU ARE ALREADY IT
The words are not it.

 

[volatile]

What you've done is tell me some materialists have written some books.
Then you've come up with a lot of statements of faith.
Interfering with brain biochemistry does interfere with mentality, and the consciousness of that individual. It does not interfere with the universal consciousness. This because during unconsciousness the individual merges back into the divine, but does it in an unconscious way. I would link to an explanation, but I don't think it'll be your thing.

"LOL" is really the only response this deserves.

Of course doing brain surgery or popping Ecstasy pills doesn't interfere with "universal consciousness" - because universal consciousness doesn't exist. You've just tried to prove that materialism is anomalous (in that it "cannot explain" consciousness) with recourse to something that's utter nonsense, and which has nothing to do with materialism. It's a ridiculous non-sequitor in other words.

 

[plumjam]

"LOL" is really the only response this deserves.

Of course doing brain surgery or popping Ecstasy pills doesn't interfere with "universal consciousness" - because universal consciousness doesn't exist. You've just tried to prove that materialism is anomalous (in that it "cannot explain" consciousness) with recourse to something that's utter nonsense, and which has nothing to do with materialism. It's a ridiculous non-sequitor in other words.

one more closed mind, I see.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The question you asked was a BS question.
Which particular arrangement of words is going to improve your understanding of what consciousness is? YOU ARE ALREADY IT
The words are not it.

No, it is not a BS question, because you have made a strong claim -- that you know that consciousness is the ultimate substance.

You must, therefore, know something about the properties of this substance and how it is that you know it is the ultimate substance of the universe. I would like to know how it is that you do know this. It would certainly be worthwhile sharing it.

Please don't invoke the cogito. It doesn't work for that purpose.

I, personally, have no idea what the ultimate substance of the universe *is*. I assume that there must be some ultimate substance, but I have no idea what property it has. All that I seem capable of is trying to understand some of the ground rules by which it works. I would appreciate what enlightenment you could bestow.

 

[volatile]

one more closed mind, I see.

It's like you just tried to prove biology was false by saying biologists can't account for how unicorns can fly...

Explain, please, a) how consciousness is "anomalous" in the framework of materialism (as you claimed), b) what "universal consciousness" is and c) how "universal consciousness" fixes this perceived anomaly with materialism.

 

[plumjam]

No, it is not a BS question, because you have made a strong claim -- that you know that consciousness is the ultimate substance.

You must, therefore, know something about the properties of this substance

It is typically described as ineffable.. in other words indescribable. However, some inadequate descriptive words have been applied, such as Sat-Chit-Ananda (existence-consciousness-bliss).

and how it is that you know it is the ultimate substance of the universe. I would like to know how it is that you do know this. It would certainly be worthwhile sharing it.

Probably so you can ridicule it, no?
I take it on faith from reputable individuals who claim to have experienced universal consciousness. There are quite a few of them in the great religions. Go and take your pick of any that might appeal to you personally.

On the other hand not even a single person claims to have experienced 'matter' as the ultimate substance.
That's one difference among many.

 

[volatile]

Affirming the consequent, argument from authority, argument from personal incredulity, argumentum ad populum and a false dichotomy.

BINGO!

Five logical fallacies in 7 lines - is that a new record?