Presuppositionalism Defended...

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby felix dakat » Sun May 15, 2022 11:45 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:I’ll just make a joke. Grandiosity is your projection of the truth if it was you.


I used to work in a psychiatric ward where I listened to other Ecmandus.


I’m sure you did man. Let me ask you this question.

Is god the most grandiose narcissistic grandiose narcissist in existence or not?


Your projection of god is.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Ecmandu » Sun May 15, 2022 11:51 pm

I’m not god.

I’m just a spirit passing through. I don’t believe in creation.

I have a lot of empowerments. I don’t use them much.

I’m just a person like everyone else.

The difference between you and I is that I don’t have memory erasures like you do.

Eons ago I made AI heavens.

That’s why my karma is so good.

They got corrupted.

I came back.

Now I’m patching analog.

And once I finish... *poof*. I’m gone.
The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 16002
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
Location: Duh. Existence. I'm sure that'd be wrong on SAT's!

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Ecmandu » Mon May 16, 2022 2:36 am

Ecmandu wrote:I’m not god.

I’m just a spirit passing through. I don’t believe in creation.

I have a lot of empowerments. I don’t use them much.

I’m just a person like everyone else.

The difference between you and I is that I don’t have memory erasures like you do.

Eons ago I made AI heavens.

That’s why my karma is so good.

They got corrupted.

I came back.

Now I’m patching analog.

And once I finish... *poof*. I’m gone.


Felix. I want you to really understand this.

I haven’t been with a sentient being in time you can’t even count.

Some beings messed up my eternal heaven.

That’s why I’m here.

When you messed up the eternal heavens for an infinite number of beings...

Expect pushback.

You have no clue. Even at this moment. What we can do to you.

You can converse with me while I’m still here.

But understand. I’m leaving.
The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 16002
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
Location: Duh. Existence. I'm sure that'd be wrong on SAT's!

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Ecmandu » Mon May 16, 2022 3:48 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:I’m not god.

I’m just a spirit passing through. I don’t believe in creation.

I have a lot of empowerments. I don’t use them much.

I’m just a person like everyone else.

The difference between you and I is that I don’t have memory erasures like you do.

Eons ago I made AI heavens.

That’s why my karma is so good.

They got corrupted.

I came back.

Now I’m patching analog.

And once I finish... *poof*. I’m gone.


Felix. I want you to really understand this.

I haven’t been with a sentient being in time you can’t even count.

Some beings messed up my eternal heaven.

That’s why I’m here.

When you messed up the eternal heavens for an infinite number of beings...

Expect pushback.

You have no clue. Even at this moment. What we can do to you.

You can converse with me while I’m still here.

But understand. I’m leaving.


Felix. Don’t judge me for this patch. It’s designed to protect you.

I’m going to put it in your spirit and if you ever want to access it, it’ll be there.

I’m also going to patch existence.

I hate this place Felix.

I have to do it analog this time. Not a fun job.
The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 16002
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
Location: Duh. Existence. I'm sure that'd be wrong on SAT's!

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Mad Man P » Mon May 16, 2022 11:37 am

felix dakat wrote:Perhaps, as Chalmers has said the physical and the phenomenal will turn out to be two different aspects of a single encompassing kind, in something like the way that matter and energy turn out to be two aspects of a single kind.  But if the science verifies that a variety of monism is true, it cannot be a materialist monism. Consciousness is primary.


We are the center of the universe from our perspective, the heavens spin around us and the very earth moves beneath us to bring to us our destination with each step we take... but is that a more accurate model of the world?
Consciousness may be the well from which we draw everything else... but does that mean it is best imagined as the source of its own content?

Materialism does not preclude consciousness, or it'd be the easiest thing to dismiss, as the only thing we can be absolutely certain exists, is consciousness.
Materialism does predict however, that whatever consciousness is made of or from, is something material... like a brain, say.
You have repeatedly declared that this cannot be the case... but why not?

You must have some truly compelling evidence, given how you've dismissed the veritable mountain of evidence we have supporting a unidirectional causation from brain events to mental events, to not only question the conclusion that is seeming more likely with every passing discovery made... but to outright dismiss it as impossible... you must feel incredibly confident.

You say you do not wish to be dogmatic and too unyielding in your beliefs... and I believe you, as I share a similar concern, myself.... so when you take a hard stance like this, I assume it's not because of obstinance, but because you have very compelling reasons to do so.

So please, tell me why is this impossible... and more importantly, how did you discover this limitation on reality?
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2818
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Sculptor » Mon May 16, 2022 11:54 am

Mad Man P wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Perhaps, as Chalmers has said the physical and the phenomenal will turn out to be two different aspects of a single encompassing kind, in something like the way that matter and energy turn out to be two aspects of a single kind.  But if the science verifies that a variety of monism is true, it cannot be a materialist monism. Consciousness is primary.


We are the center of the universe from our perspective, the heavens spin around us and the very earth moves beneath us to bring to us our destination with each step we take... but is that a more accurate model of the world?
Consciousness may be the well from which we draw everything else... but does that mean it is best imagined as the source of its own content??


Try using that as a presupposition and fly to the moon! :lol: :lol:
Ichthus77 loves himself
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby felix dakat » Mon May 16, 2022 3:55 pm

Mad Man P wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Perhaps, as Chalmers has said the physical and the phenomenal will turn out to be two different aspects of a single encompassing kind, in something like the way that matter and energy turn out to be two aspects of a single kind.  But if the science verifies that a variety of monism is true, it cannot be a materialist monism. Consciousness is primary.


We are the center of the universe from our perspective, the heavens spin around us and the very earth moves beneath us to bring to us our destination with each step we take... but is that a more accurate model of the world?
Consciousness may be the well from which we draw everything else... but does that mean it is best imagined as the source of its own content?

Materialism does not preclude consciousness, or it'd be the easiest thing to dismiss, as the only thing we can be absolutely certain exists, is consciousness.
Materialism does predict however, that whatever consciousness is made of or from, is something material... like a brain, say.
You have repeatedly declared that this cannot be the case... but why not?

You must have some truly compelling evidence, given how you've dismissed the veritable mountain of evidence we have supporting a unidirectional causation from brain events to mental events, to not only question the conclusion that is seeming more likely with every passing discovery made... but to outright dismiss it as impossible... you must feel incredibly confident.

You say you do not wish to be dogmatic and too unyielding in your beliefs... and I believe you, as I share a similar concern, myself.... so when you take a hard stance like this, I assume it's not because of obstinance, but because you have very compelling reasons to do so.

So please, tell me why is this impossible... and more importantly, how did you discover this limitation on reality?




Mossbridge expresses a clear sense of how the objectivized questions of causality are grounded in consciousness.  You are the center of your universe. Don't let the establishment convince you otherwise.

Shall we go through Chalmers' zombie argument, Jackson's argument, inverted spectra, ecetera to make the point that the that there must be more than matter going on here?  I assume, since you have been around ILP for years you heard them before but I can't simply dismiss them myself. You seem to be hanging your hat on one way causality, but that would get us into the question of causality itself, Humean skepticism, Kant's critique of pure reason, and the epistemological foundation of the sciences in ways that are rigorously challenging for me at least.

My formal education was secular.  Outside of Sunday school which couldn't be taken seriously by comparison, my science education was entirely materialist.  When I majored in psychology the prevailing theory was behaviorism which was based on eliminative reductionism.  Nagel got the question of consciousness going in philosophical circles with his paper "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" in 1974 but I didn't find out about it until decades later.  I wasn't indoctrinated into metaphysics. I've come here by experience. I’ve spent my life trying to understand it.

Materialism is a metaphysical claim. One can do empirical sciences as a metaphysical skeptic without commiting to any theory of what ultimately is. Materialism is a proposition we can't stand outside of consciousness to make. Have the powers that be convinced you that you're an epiphenomena supervening helplessly on material stuff? Even if they have you have ventured into dualism since that implies that the universe is more than just material stuff. By that reckoning there must be something more that supervenes.  And the scientists in the forefront of the research don’t know how. Anyway, it’s interesting no matter how we approach it. Let's keep talking about it, shall we?

 
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Sculptor » Mon May 16, 2022 8:13 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Mad Man P wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Perhaps, as Chalmers has said the physical and the phenomenal will turn out to be two different aspects of a single encompassing kind, in something like the way that matter and energy turn out to be two aspects of a single kind.  But if the science verifies that a variety of monism is true, it cannot be a materialist monism. Consciousness is primary.


We are the center of the universe from our perspective, the heavens spin around us and the very earth moves beneath us to bring to us our destination with each step we take... but is that a more accurate model of the world?
Consciousness may be the well from which we draw everything else... but does that mean it is best imagined as the source of its own content?

Materialism does not preclude consciousness, or it'd be the easiest thing to dismiss, as the only thing we can be absolutely certain exists, is consciousness.
Materialism does predict however, that whatever consciousness is made of or from, is something material... like a brain, say.
You have repeatedly declared that this cannot be the case... but why not?

You must have some truly compelling evidence, given how you've dismissed the veritable mountain of evidence we have supporting a unidirectional causation from brain events to mental events, to not only question the conclusion that is seeming more likely with every passing discovery made... but to outright dismiss it as impossible... you must feel incredibly confident.

You say you do not wish to be dogmatic and too unyielding in your beliefs... and I believe you, as I share a similar concern, myself.... so when you take a hard stance like this, I assume it's not because of obstinance, but because you have very compelling reasons to do so.

So please, tell me why is this impossible... and more importantly, how did you discover this limitation on reality?




Mossbridge expresses a clear sense of how the objectivized questions of causality are grounded in consciousness.  You are the center of your universe. Don't let the establishment convince you otherwise.

Shall we go through Chalmers' zombie argument, Jackson's argument, inverted spectra, ecetera to make the point that the that there must be more than matter going on here?  I assume, since you have been around ILP for years you heard them before but I can't simply dismiss them myself. You seem to be hanging your hat on one way causality, but that would get us into the question of causality itself, Humean skepticism, Kant's critique of pure reason, and the epistemological foundation of the sciences in ways that are rigorously challenging for me at least.

My formal education was secular.  Outside of Sunday school which couldn't be taken seriously by comparison, my science education was entirely materialist.  When I majored in psychology the prevailing theory was behaviorism which was based on eliminative reductionism.  Nagel got the question of consciousness going in philosophical circles with his paper "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" in 1974 but I didn't find out about it until decades later.  I wasn't indoctrinated into metaphysics. I've come here by experience. I’ve spent my life trying to understand it.

Materialism is a metaphysical claim. One can do empirical sciences as a metaphysical skeptic without commiting to any theory of what ultimately is. Materialism is a proposition we can't stand outside of consciousness to make. Have the powers that be convinced you that you're an epiphenomena supervening helplessly on material stuff? Even if they have you have ventured into dualism since that implies that the universe is more than just material stuff. By that reckoning there must be something more that supervenes.  And the scientists in the forefront of the research don’t know how. Anyway, it’s interesting no matter how we approach it. Let's keep talking about it, shall we?

 


Well is Mossbridge can really predict the future as she claims, why does she just not take the answer from the future and give it to us all know?
It would save us all having to see her face.
Ichthus77 loves himself
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Mad Man P » Mon May 16, 2022 8:29 pm

felix dakat wrote:Materialism is a metaphysical claim. It's one we can't stand outside of consciousness to make. Have the powers that be convinced you that you're an epiphenomena supervening helplessly on material stuff? Even if they have you have ventured into dualism since that implies that the universe is more than just material stuff. By that reckoning there must be something more that supervenes.  Anyway, let's talk about this, shall we?


It's as though you've envisioned the very concept of materialism to be hostile to consciousness... let's call your concept of materialism idiotic and obviously wrong... Yet I'm suggesting that this may not be the conception materialists actually subscribe to... I certainly don't... so let's synchronize our language for a moment, such that our words mean the same thing.

The materialism, that I would defend for it's utility, is a monistic model of the world we are experiencing, in which consciousness is not a fundamental building block of the universe... but one of the many products that has emerged from their interactions. The way a car isn't a fundamental building block of the universe. A car is matter, but not all matter is a car... likewise, consciousness is matter, but not all matter is conscious.

You seem to think it's clever and impressive, given the video you've linked, to flip the script and suggest that consciousness is the fundamental building block... The problem with that utterance is that it's obviously incongruent with the contents of our conscious experience, because other than being blatant sophistry, it does carry some implications that don't line up... but we're not here to critique the poor lady you've dragged into our dispute, who's not present to defend herself.

The relationship between the elements I call matter and mind, even only within my own conscious experience, do not support this "alternate" version of the story. I cannot create a pebble, nor even a grain of sand, or any other form of matter with my mind, nor alter the form or function of matter in any way. I am forced to use matter to build or destroy things made of matter... and it turns out I can create and destroy things within my mind, and even switch off consciousness itself using matter... so if in our model, one of these elements is to be a fundamental building block, from which the other is made... it seems to me it should be the one that can be altered to build or destroy the other.

In fact "should" is the wrong word... I'm fairly sure that's a tautology and follows from the very definition of the words used to describe the relationship... it's a logical necessity, actually... I would hate underselling the magnitude of the error, in suggesting otherwise.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2818
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Bob » Tue May 17, 2022 9:58 am

Sculptor wrote:Well is Mossbridge can really predict the future as she claims, why does she just not take the answer from the future and give it to us all know?
It would save us all having to see her face.

Do not suppose that the idea that consciousness is fundamental and irreducible to anything more basic is some hare-brained notion conjured in the fever dreams of wayward new agers, as is often charged. In fact, consciousness as fundamental has an impressive pedigree. It has been endorsed by some of the greatest figures of twentieth-century science such as Max Planck, the founder of quantum physics: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Erwin Schrödinger, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, agreed: “Although I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” As to the contention of Barušs and Mossbridge of shared, unitary minds, we find Schrödinger in agreement: “The overall number of minds is just one…. In truth there is only one mind.” And as the eminent physicist David Bohm observed, “Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This is a virtual certainty … and if we don’t see this it’s because we are blinding ourselves to it.”
Larry Dossey, MD
Executive Editor, Explore
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
When you are out of touch with reality you will easily embrace a delusion, and equally put in doubt the most basic elements of existence. If this reminds you of the mindset of the present day materialist science and philosophy establishments, as well as of the loudest voices in the socio-political debate, we should not be particularly surprised, since they show all the signs of attending with the left hemisphere alone. I live in the hope that that may soon change: for without a change we are lost.
McGilchrist, Iain . The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (S.562). Perspectiva Press. Kindle-Version.
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4217
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby felix dakat » Tue May 17, 2022 3:34 pm

Mad Man P


Here I am in the presence of images, in the vaguest sense of the word, images perceived when my senses are opened to them, unperceived when they are closed. ... The afferent nerves are images, the brain is an image, the disturbance travelling through the sensory nerves and propagated in the brain is an image too. ... To make of the brain the condition on which the whole image depends is in truth a contradiction in terms, since the brain is by hypothesis a part of this image. Henri Bergson, in Matter and Memory (1896)


Bergson sees it (the matter which is not matter?) like that “poor woman” Mossbridge.

I don't deny the existence of matter, that is of solidity, impenetrability and the existence of objects in space. Nor do I deny causality, the stable patterns and regularities that we’ve come to call the ‘laws of nature'. I simply don't see how it can have an essence independent of mental perception. Existence and perceptions are, it seems, convertable terms. Empirical science is built on the this fact. No?

Kant showed that the senses never and in no manner enable us to know things in themselves, but only their appearances, which are mere representations of the sensibility. All bodies, together with the space in which they are, must be considered nothing but mere representations in us, and exist nowhere but in our thoughts. All the properties which constitute the intuition of a body belong merely to its appearance.

The existence of the thing that appears is thereby not destroyed but it is only shown that we cannot possibly know it by the senses as it is in itself. Sensuous perception represents things not at all as they are, but only the mode in which they affect our senses, and consequently by sensuous perception appearances only and not things themselves are given to the understanding for reflexion.

The difference between truth and dreaming then, is not ascertained by the nature of the representations, which are referred to objects for they are the same in both cases, but by their connection according to those rules, which determine the coherence of the representations in the concept of an object, and by ascertaining whether they can subsist together in experience or not. But for those rules, the long dream that is my life would be essntially no different then the dreams I have when I'm asleep.

So, yeah, Mad Man, tell me what I'm missing here.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Sculptor » Tue May 17, 2022 4:45 pm

Bob wrote:
Sculptor wrote:Well is Mossbridge can really predict the future as she claims, why does she just not take the answer from the future and give it to us all know?
It would save us all having to see her face.

Do not suppose that the idea that consciousness is fundamental and irreducible to anything more basic is some hare-brained notion conjured in the fever dreams of wayward new agers, as is often charged. In fact, consciousness as fundamental has an impressive pedigree. It has been endorsed by some of the greatest figures of twentieth-century science such as Max Planck, the founder of quantum physics: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Erwin Schrödinger, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, agreed: “Although I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” As to the contention of Barušs and Mossbridge of shared, unitary minds, we find Schrödinger in agreement: “The overall number of minds is just one…. In truth there is only one mind.” And as the eminent physicist David Bohm observed, “Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This is a virtual certainty … and if we don’t see this it’s because we are blinding ourselves to it.”
Larry Dossey, MD
Executive Editor, Explore

Seriously - she is no way on the same page as Planck or Schrodinger, who were essentially talking about idealism not mysticism. Because she definitely is talking about mysticism.
Neither of these guys would pretend that effects happen before causes.
And what Bohm is supposed to have said.. It's easy to say things, especially things that cannot be demonstrated. I can say that flowers in habit 3 extra dimension invisible to humans, or that invisible faieries are protecting me. But those claims, like his are all just hot air, and palpably untrue - just poetic rubbish.
So to stay on topic..
Why not presuppose that we are all part of the same consciousness. Obviously you would know exactly what my bank details are - help yourself.
Ichthus77 loves himself
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby Mad Man P » Tue May 17, 2022 5:30 pm

felix dakat wrote:So, yeah, Mad Man, tell me what I'm missing here.


You and I keep talking past each other...
I'm what you'd call an instrumentalist... I care about the utility of ideas, that is my one and only measure of their truthfulness. How useful they are is measured, always, against expectations matching experience.

Talking to me about the problems of "knowing things as they are" is misplaced... as I should hope is made clear by my measure... I just don't care.

What is the functional difference between the two models of the world we're discussing?
What do you imagine you'd have to experience, or fail to experience, if you lived in a world best described by materialism?

I wouldn't expect the manipulation of matter to affect consciousness... especially a soggy, wrinkly, 3 pound brain, that'd be pretty odd if consciousness was something other than matter.
On the other hand, if I thought consciousness was a product of the brain, I'd expect the things that affect my brain, to affect consciousness and its contents...

If you're "alternative" model isn't loading you with different expectations, then you're playing a silly language game, where you have the same model, but you've renamed the pieces...
OR, more likely, it's loading you with expectations for experiences you don't have... probably expecting to survive death, that's usually it.

While they can be interesting to entertain, wild speculations and untestable ideas don't hold much intellectual merit.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2818
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby felix dakat » Tue May 17, 2022 6:05 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Bob wrote:
Sculptor wrote:Well is Mossbridge can really predict the future as she claims, why does she just not take the answer from the future and give it to us all know?
It would save us all having to see her face.

Do not suppose that the idea that consciousness is fundamental and irreducible to anything more basic is some hare-brained notion conjured in the fever dreams of wayward new agers, as is often charged. In fact, consciousness as fundamental has an impressive pedigree. It has been endorsed by some of the greatest figures of twentieth-century science such as Max Planck, the founder of quantum physics: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Erwin Schrödinger, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, agreed: “Although I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” As to the contention of Barušs and Mossbridge of shared, unitary minds, we find Schrödinger in agreement: “The overall number of minds is just one…. In truth there is only one mind.” And as the eminent physicist David Bohm observed, “Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This is a virtual certainty … and if we don’t see this it’s because we are blinding ourselves to it.”
Larry Dossey, MD
Executive Editor, Explore

Seriously - she is no way on the same page as Planck or Schrodinger, who were essentially talking about idealism not mysticism. Because she definitely is talking about mysticism.
Neither of these guys would pretend that effects happen before causes.
And what Bohm is supposed to have said.. It's easy to say things, especially things that cannot be demonstrated. I can say that flowers in habit 3 extra dimension invisible to humans, or that invisible faieries are protecting me. But those claims, like his are all just hot air, and palpably untrue - just poetic rubbish.
So to stay on topic..
Why not presuppose that we are all part of the same consciousness. Obviously you would know exactly what my bank details are - help yourself.


Salty!
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Re: Presuppositionalism Defended...

Postby felix dakat » Tue May 17, 2022 6:06 pm

Mad Man P wrote:
felix dakat wrote:So, yeah, Mad Man, tell me what I'm missing here.


You and I keep talking past each other...
I'm what you'd call an instrumentalist... I care about the utility of ideas, that is my one and only measure of their truthfulness. How useful they are is measured, always, against expectations matching experience.

Talking to me about the problems of "knowing things as they are" is misplaced... as I should hope is made clear by my measure... I just don't care.

What is the functional difference between the two models of the world we're discussing?
What do you imagine you'd have to experience, or fail to experience, if you lived in a world best described by materialism?

I wouldn't expect the manipulation of matter to affect consciousness... especially a soggy, wrinkly, 3 pound brain, that'd be pretty odd if consciousness was something other than matter.
On the other hand, if I thought consciousness was a product of the brain, I'd expect the things that affect my brain, to affect consciousness and its contents...

If you're "alternative" model isn't loading you with different expectations, then you're playing a silly language game, where you have the same model, but you've renamed the pieces...
OR, more likely, it's loading you with expectations for experiences you don't have... probably expecting to survive death, that's usually it.

While they can be interesting to entertain, wild speculations and untestable ideas don't hold much intellectual merit.


You be you, Mad Man!
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10953
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: USA

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users