• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

There are no material objects

Jonesboy said:
It's not New Age. Say it for what it is. A skepticism of Science.

I am a scientist, and I am a philosopher, and I say this - range your skepticism over everything that culture and learning has to offer you. Today my skepticism is directed at science, tomorrow it will be directed at religion.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question.

And no, nothing you post has anything to do with science, nor does it demonstrate even a basic understanding of either the scientific method or contemporary scientific work.

Nor is this "skepticism" on your part.

Skepticism means basing your conclusions on evidence.

What you're doing is certainly not being skeptical of science.

Rather, it is attempting to posit non-scientific ideas as alternatives to science.

And yes, it all reeks of New Age.
 
Jonesboy said:
As I said, I am not saying that there is no material world. I am saying that the way we carve it up is down to us. And the way we carve it up is called objects.
Click to expand...

It is and it isn't "down to us".

The way we "carve up" reality depends on two things: (1) the properties of the external reality, and (2) the properties of our brains/bodies.

We do not have an arbitrary level of freedom.
 
Jonesboy said:
Yes, I agree. But the quivering is physical. The sound is a non-physical perception and can't be found anywhere.
Click to expand...

What do you meant it "can't be found anywhere"? If that were true, it wouldn't exist.

The "sound" is the result of an interaction between movements in air (or water, or wood, or whatever) and the physical apparatus of your body.

Of course it can be spatially located.
 
Jonesboy said:
How can you define the phsical limits of a TV to an alien that has no concept of entertainment or information, and who thinks through intuition alone?
Click to expand...

1. Who cares? It's irrelevant. (Substituting "alien" for "termite" makes no difference -- there are still things called [by humans] TVs, which are different from other things that are not TVs, such as rugs.)

2. The alien doesn't have to have any of these concepts in order to understand that the TV is over there and the coffee maker is over here. Just as I don't have to understand alien concepts in order for them to show me that the dfjewisi is over here and the lkktirso is over there.)

3. You're still conflating language and mental concepts, on the one hand, with physical structures on the other. The ocean differs from the shore in objective ways that do not depend on conceptualization.
 
Jonesboy said:
How can you define the phsical limits of a TV to an alien that has no concept of entertainment or information, and who thinks through intuition alone?
Click to expand...
Pick it up and move it! Its boundaries relative to the rest of the world are immediately apparent without ever touching on its function or its reason for being there.
 
Jonesboy said:
Objects do not set their own physical limits. An object is a set of physical limits that we alone have drawn upon materials and space. For example, only the concept of entertainment distinguishes a TV from the carpet it stands on.

While this doen't rule out materiality, it rules out material objects. An object is a construction of sentient creatures.
Click to expand...

Since the concept of "an object" is, therefore, a classic example of a common sense definition, and the idea expressed above is clearly antithetical to that common sense definition, we can therefore deduce that the idea expressed above is not common sense. How should this best be reconciled with the clear statement, recently made in another part of the forum, that:

Jonesboy said:
There are no ideas that are not commensense.
Click to expand...

Discuss.

Dave
 
dafydd said:
I would like to know how Jonesboy functions in daily life without material objects.




What is 'commensense'?
Click to expand...
If we look at the examples presented here, I'd suggest that it's a word constructed of "commensurate" and "sense," denoting a statement the magnitude of whose silliness corresponds to the magnitude of the reality it ignores.
 
dafydd said:
I would like to know how Jonesboy functions in daily life without material objects.
Click to expand...


Just fine because he doesn't use solipsism in everyday life because he doesn't really believe what he is saying. Nobody outside of a straightjacket in a padded room does. It's an almost universally dishonest position because while I keep meeting people that promote it in various arguments, I have never met anyone that actually lives their life as if it is true.

To paraphrase Dr. House "He can talk about there being no such object as a car all he wants, but I guarantee you when he crosses the street he still looks both ways."

People only use solipsism for one of two reasons:

1. As a counter to reasonable skepticism as a way to excuse away irrational beliefs.
2. As pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook to post on the internet or talk about at Starbucks as a way to make themselves feel smart.
 
Jonesboy said:
Objects do not set their own physical limits. An object is a set of physical limits that we alone have drawn upon materials and space. For example, only the concept of entertainment distinguishes a TV from the carpet it stands on.

While this doen't rule out materiality, it rules out material objects. An object is a construction of sentient creatures.
Click to expand...

And, if you take this to its last consequences, you cant talk about "physical limits", or "sentient creatures", because both are constructions.
 
It's all a construction--all definitions are arbitrary, attempts to define a universe as yet beyond our comprehension. Time is a direction, consciousness is an illusion, and everything is just weird vibrations whacking against each other.
But none of that changes the reality of what is being defined. The Buddhists nailed this in the BCs--there are two truths. One for contemplating the idea of a rock and the nature of self, and one for responding when yourself is about to get hit with a rock.
 
Jontg said:
It's all a construction--all definitions are arbitrary, attempts to define a universe as yet beyond our comprehension. Time is a direction, consciousness is an illusion, and everything is just weird vibrations whacking against each other.
But none of that changes the reality of what is being defined. The Buddhists nailed this in the BCs--there are two truths. One for contemplating the idea of a rock and the nature of self, and one for responding when yourself is about to get hit with a rock.
Click to expand...

I like that, care to expand it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom