Simple, Unambigous Evidence We Do Not Live In An Objective, External Material World

_{William Murray

October 9, 2020

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

When how I choose to observe a photon at a particular time and place can (1) instantaneously affect a photon a billion light years away and (2) retroactively changes the history of that photon (delayed choice quantum eraser), and when we have searched far, wide and deep and have not found any “matter,” we have comprehensive, conclusive evidence that we do not live in an objective, external, material world.

At some point, if your views are guided by reason and evidence, you will have to accept that whatever “experience” is, it is not caused by an objective, external, material world.

Comments

62 Viola Lee Hmm. You remind me of another member here (JVL). :) Then we agree that William J Murray is defending his argument, and to poke holes in it, a counter-argument is needed?Truthfreedom_{October 12, 2020
October
10
Oct
12
12
2020
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

No I don't. This really isn't a topic I'm interested in, and I only have so much time in my life to play around on an internet forum. It was a mistake on my part to even respond to his comment at 53, so I apologize for getting involved.Viola Lee_{October 12, 2020
October
10
Oct
12
12
2020
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

60 Viola Lee
Hmmm. That’s not very compelling to me.
With all due respect, William J Murray is offering an argument. You can't simply attack it saying you don't find it "compelling". You need to offer a valid counter-argument.Truthfreedom_{October 12, 2020
October
10
Oct
12
12
2020
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Hmmm. That's not very compelling to me. I think I'll drop out of this discussion.Viola Lee_{October 12, 2020
October
10
Oct
12
12
2020
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Viola @58: Sure. The first thing would be to define what a useful methodology and capacity for progress would mean according to the theory - not according to external-reality theory. In addition, we might look to the past to see where mental reality theory would have predicted scientific evidence that external reality theory both did, and would in principle fail to predict and explain. External, physical reality theory failed to predict, and would in principle fail to predict, the consciousness-centric nature of what is revealed in quantum experimentation. It would (and did) fail to predict non-locality, the complete failure to establish what is called "local realism by physicists, the non-existence of matter, zero-point energy/information, "entanglement," the propagation of "probablity waves."etc. All of these are predictable results from the mental reality perspective. They were not only shocking to external-world theorist; they have done all they can to resist the implications for about 100 years now. A great avenue of progress would be into what we currently call "psi" research. Afterlife (continuation of consciousness after what we call "death,") NDE, altered consciousness and OOBE research. Understanding how information is processed into experience. The view that the body is an experiential manifestation of identity might indicate a deeper mind/body process to health and well-being instead of, or in addition to, use of pharmaceuticals. A lot of these things are being scientifically researched now, only it's largely ignored and even vilified by the "mainstream" scientific community. Mental reality theory provides an entirely self-empowering perspective in how one lives their life and can dramatically change how we see ourselves and our environment.William J Murray_{October 12, 2020
October
10
Oct
12
12
2020
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

William, you write,
One question along these lines might be, does mental reality theory provide the basis for any useful methodologies, predictions and practical applications that probably would not be available under external, material-world theory? Or, at least make it easier to develop alternative routes of progress?
Does it? Can you describe some of these useful methodologies, etc. and alternate routes of progress? That would add a useful component to this discussion.Viola Lee_{October 12, 2020
October
10
Oct
12
12
2020
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee:
This is an unfalsifiable belief.
All self-evidently true statements are unfalsifiable.
It is also useless.
Care to tell me why?
It is undoubtedly true that all human beings (except you) believe that there is an external world.
I didn't realize you knew all human beings. Perhaps that's true in your experience, but in mine there's lots of people that believe we exist in some form of mental reality. Please see Bernardo Kastrup's book, for example, "The Idea of the World."
I seriously doubt that you live your life any different than the rest of us, taking the externality of the world, including your own body, as a given.
Or, you could ask me if I live my life differently, and if so, how. Just a suggestion.
If you want to call that a matter of faith, fine. Last Thursdayism is also unprovable, but I take it as a matter of “faith” that in fact the past exists.
(1) Could you explain "last thursdayism?" Is it self-evidently true, like the fact that all we ever experience is in our minds? (2) Where exactly does "last Thursday" exist?
So even though you have a philosophically unassailable position, it is of no consequence.
I guess that depends on what the theory predicts and what the implications are in terms of usefulness. One question along these lines might be, does mental reality theory provide the basis for any useful methodologies, predictions and practical applications that probably would not be available under external, material-world theory? Or, at least make it easier to develop alternative routes of progress? But, I guess you've already made a decision about that based on all your experience in investigating and experimenting with mental reality theory. Right?William J Murray_{October 12, 2020
October
10
Oct
12
12
2020
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

To William: I understand your point that the only thing we ever experience is our conscious experience, and our belief that we are experiencing something outside of ourself is just another experience, but not evidence that there is really something "out there"". This is an unfalsifiable belief. It is also useless. It is undoubtedly true that all human beings (except you) believe that there is an external world. I seriously doubt that you live your life any different than the rest of us, taking the externality of the world, including your own body, as a given. If you want to call that a matter of faith, fine. Last Thursdayism is also unprovable, but I take it as a matter of "faith" that in fact the past exists. So even though you have a philosophically unassailable position, it is of no consequence. That's the way it looks to me.Viola Lee_{October 12, 2020
October
10
Oct
12
12
2020
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

WJM, a bit loaded, that. Experience is an aspect of personal, conscious life. The issue is whether our experience of an outer world independent of our particular personality is real. To that the obvious first test is, Josiah Royce's error exists, multiplied by F H Bradley's opening observation on appearance and reality. If error exists, then there is what to be in error about. Where also, experience is across time, so duration exists as a reality that escapes our subjectivity. The ugly gulch idea is connected, as if there is such a point of claimed knowledge, that we cannot access reality beyond appearance, then that is an access to an aspect of it, its alleged un-know-ability. But then, as that fails, it leaves on the table that, however we may err, however our senses filter, we can and do access warranted, credibly true belief about a world in common, an objective, mind-external world, relative to our status. At the next level, such a world would exist sustained by a Creator, God. The cubed mango I am eating . . . with a long-stemmed cocktail spoon originally bought to perhaps become a spoon bait . . . as I type this is experienced as delicious and refrigerated (having been plucked from the tree on testing to be ripe enough a day or so ago) but is credibly real with no good reason to imagine that it, its tree, the garden it comes in, the island I am here on, etc are part of some grand mental construct without independence of my mind. It isn't independent of God's mind, but that does not make it a simple figment, this is an actualised not merely a possible world. Where, if I am just a figment, my ability to reason is decisively undermined, bringing the very concept of a mind world into question. There is in short no good reason to reject the reality of the common world we experience, though of course solidity, we now know, is an effect of fields and wave functions with energy-time uncertainty etc at work. KFkairosfocus_{October 12, 2020
October
10
Oct
12
12
2020
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

It's not just the terms "matter" and "energy" that are misleading. The term "external" is entirely misleading. The term "objective" is entirely misleading. The terms "space" and "time" are misleading. Virtually every word we've used to reference our existential state and how experience occurs is entirely misleading because it's all based on the assumption of an external, material world and the unsupported, unsupportable, logically baseless idea that we are experiencing something outside of mind.William J Murray_{October 12, 2020
October
10
Oct
12
12
2020
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

When anyone here can give me an example of something they experience outside of their mind, then you'll have evidence phenomena external of mind exists. Absent that, the "external world" cannot ever be anything other than a hypothesis held by faith, regardless of if it is thought of as matter, energy, or informational probabilities.William J Murray_{October 12, 2020
October
10
Oct
12
12
2020
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT}

As I mentioned before, quantum superposition is believed to account for hydrogen fusion in the sun, which is certainly observable.
Correction: it's quantum tunneling. The same effect also limits the miniaturization of microelectronics and the density of data on hard drives. -QQuerius_{October 11, 2020
October
10
Oct
11
11
2020
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee @50, Yes, I agree that the term "matter" is misleading. The old-fashioned notion of matter was overturned by Einstein's famous equation. Modern terms for the human scale of experience includes mass-energy, space-time, gravity, and information. For example, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle emerges in our common experience in music, where short duration, low-frequency notes have a less certain frequency than longer duration, higher-frequency notes. There have also been heroic but unsuccessful attempts at limiting the role of quantum effects to the atomic level. Apparently, there's no dividing line. As I mentioned before, quantum superposition is believed to account for hydrogen fusion in the sun, which is certainly observable. -QQuerius_{October 11, 2020
October
10
Oct
11
11
2020
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

Seversky, this is a good line.
However, I would argue that what has really changed is our concept of the nature of matter, not that “matter” as now understood is not still the foundation of objective reality.
This is a point that I also was trying to make. However I'll add that really the word "matter" is misleading, because QM events also contain what we identify as energy, forces and fields: all the things that create a dynamic rather than a static world. All those things are bundled into whatever the reality of QM events is, either as they present themselves to us, or as they perhaps are in ways forever hidden from us.Viola Lee_{October 11, 2020
October
10
Oct
11
11
2020
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

From the entry on Physicalism" in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don't deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don't seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical.
[…]
1. Terminology Physicalism is sometimes known as ‘materialism’. Indeed, on one strand to contemporary usage, the terms ‘physicalism’ and ‘materialism’ are interchangeable. But the two terms have very different histories. The word ‘materialism’ is very old, but the word ‘physicalism’ was introduced into philosophy only in the 1930s by Otto Neurath (1931) and Rudolf Carnap (1959/1932), both of whom were key members of the Vienna Circle, a group of philosophers, scientists and mathematicians active in Vienna prior to World War II. It is not clear that Neurath and Carnap understood physicalism in the same way, but one thesis often attributed to them (e.g. in Hempel 1949) is the linguistic thesis that every statement is synonymous with (i.e. is equivalent in meaning with) some physical statement. But materialism as traditionally construed is not a linguistic thesis at all; rather it is a metaphysical thesis in the sense that it tells us about the nature of the world. At least for the positivists, therefore, there was a clear reason for distinguishing physicalism (a linguistic thesis) from materialism (a metaphysical thesis). Moreover, this reason was compounded by the fact that, according to official positivist doctrine, metaphysics is nonsense. Since the 1930s, however, the positivist philosophy that under-girded this distinction has for the most part been rejected—for example, physicalism is not a linguistic thesis for contemporary philosophers—and this is one reason why the words ‘materialism’ and ‘physicalism’ are now often interpreted as interchangeable. Some philosophers suggest that ‘physicalism’ is distinct from ‘materialism’ for a reason quite unrelated to the one emphasized by Neurath and Carnap. As the name suggests, materialists historically held that everything was matter — where matter was conceived as “an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist” (Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge, par. 9). But physics itself has shown that not everything is matter in this sense; for example, forces such as gravity are physical but it is not clear that they are material in the traditional sense (Lange 1865, Dijksterhuis 1961, Yolton 1983). So it is tempting to use ‘physicalism’ to distance oneself from what seems a historically important but no longer scientifically relevant thesis of materialism, and related to this, to emphasize a connection to physics and the physical sciences. However, while physicalism is certainly unusual among metaphysical doctrines in being associated with a commitment both to the sciences and to a particular branch of science, namely physics, it is not clear that this is a good reason for calling it ‘physicalism’ rather than ‘materialism.’ For one thing, many contemporary physicalists do in fact use the word ‘materialism’ to describe their doctrine (e.g. Smart 1963). Moreover, while ‘physicalism’ is no doubt related to ‘physics’ it is also related to ‘physical object’ and this in turn is very closely connected with ‘material object’, and via that, with ‘matter.’
I agree that classical materialism is an outdated concept, where matter is conceived as being, in Bishop Berkeley's words, “an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist”. Such a belief is unsustainable in light of what we have discovered thus far about the quantum nature of reality. However, I would argue that what has really changed is our concept of the nature of matter, not that "matter" as now understood is not still the foundation of objective reality. Regardless of how we describe matter if, like Dr Samuel Johnson, you kick a stone, while it may not refute Berkeleyan idealism, it still hurts. The problem with any subjective mental reality that it is unverifiable and, hence, scientifically sterile. If we want to try and understand aspects of objective reality we can compare those hypotheses or explanations of that reality with observations of it. With mental reality. there is no objective reality to explain. We can ask why kicking an imaginary stone with an imaginary foot would hurt in this imaginary world but, since the whole thing is a figment of imagination with no basis elsewhere, what would be the point?Seversky_{October 11, 2020
October
10
Oct
11
11
2020
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

I agree and understand all that you wrote, KF, although I only skimmed the P.S.Viola Lee_{October 11, 2020
October
10
Oct
11
11
2020
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

VL, chaos injects a micro perturbation amplifier that brings unavoidable micro variability up to macro level. Accordingly, the sort of system and situation where time reversibility is useful is now extremely restrictive. Chaos, being far more prone to stick a foot in the door than we are likely to realise. The Laplacian project of reconstructing the past from the present a la Celestial Mechanics -- the book presented to Napoleon (as in I have no need of THAT hypothesis) -- is dead. KF PS: Walker and Davies:
In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics, we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [--> given "enough time and search resources"] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense. We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).
[--> or, there may not be "enough" time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 - 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 - 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]
Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [--> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ --> notice, the "loading"] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). ["The “Hard Problem” of Life," June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]
kairosfocus_{October 11, 2020
October
10
Oct
11
11
2020
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

I see: you're saying that chaos theory would not be favorable to time reversal, not that it would. A number of years ago some of my students gave me Chaos and Fractals by Peitgen et al, I've read Chaos by Gleick, and I've taught a bit about iterative systems, notably the Mandelbrot set. And yes, chaos theory adds an element to the universe not being completely determined, along with quantum probability. And good job on the Grateful Dead reference. When I went looking for a pseudonym I just consulted the CD I was listening to, which turned out to be The Dead from July 2, 2003, which has a great version of Viola Lee Blues with Joan Osborne singing.Viola Lee_{October 11, 2020
October
10
Oct
11
11
2020
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee @44, Oops and no, I missed the allusion to the Grateful Dead. I assume you're familiar with chaos theory, then. Imagine the chaotic perturbations that affect the outcome of some action. To exaggerate, imagine the butterfly in Brazil resulting in a tornado in Texas (I believe this is how it was originally expressed). Now, running the chain of events backwards in time, you'll notice that it's not symmetrical. The tornado in Texas might result in numerous additional perturbations, but the tornado won't cause just a single butterfly in Brazil to flap its wings. There are some undoubtedly more informed perspectives on this subject, including this one from CERN: https://cds.cern.ch/record/429730 Hope this helps, -QQuerius_{October 11, 2020
October
10
Oct
11
11
2020
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Q. I am also interested in chaos theory. Can you explain how chaos theory might potentially affect time reversibility. That is something I have never heard of. Also, very small point: my login pseudonym here is Viola Lee, not Violet. Possibly some reader might recognize the allusion.Viola Lee_{October 11, 2020
October
10
Oct
11
11
2020
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @32 and Violet Lee @42, Very nicely stated. My view is that when the materialistic and deterministic foundations of physics have been experimentally falsified, the consequences to everything built on those foundations must be re-examined, not simply defended. My view is to embrace the experimental results (and mathematical probabilities) rather than to fight them. When our choices and observation can collapse wave functions and affect conjugate variables, it's not logically debatable that information plays a major role in reality as eminent physicists have noted. It also opens up questions about what other information (or mind) is in play. For example, the loss of determinism by way of chaos theory (butterfly effect) also potentially affects time reversibility. And finally, I agree with Sabine Hossenfelder that mathematics has seductively mislead scientists with simplicity, beauty, and symmetry. For example, Kepler's laws of planetary motion are simple, beautiful, symmetrical . . . and incorrect. -QQuerius_{October 11, 2020
October
10
Oct
11
11
2020
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Belfast asked why my interest in the distinction between the outdated classical "solid matter" view and the modern (at least 100 years old) quantum view. Here's another thought on that. The opening post mentions some key findings from QM, such as entanglement or the effects of delayed choice, and then says,
When we have searched far, wide and deep and have not found any “matter,” we have comprehensive, conclusive evidence that we do not live in an objective, external, material world.
But the facts of QM don't mean we don't live in a material world: they just mean that the material, physical world is radically different than we thought it was 100 years ago. I suppose one could say we shouldn't call it a material world anymore because "matter" doesn't exist, but I'm not sure what would be a better term as we are still talking about our understanding of the physical world. To be clear, I'm not saying that everything is a product of the physical world: that is, saying that we live in a material world, which is a statement about the physical world, is not the same as saying that everything is a product of the material world.Viola Lee_{October 11, 2020
October
10
Oct
11
11
2020
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

To Belfast at 35: my comments about out-dated ideas about the nature of matter have been in response to comments by others, such as Querius at 4 and Kairosfocus at 21. The point I'm interested in making is that one has to take the modern quantum understanding of the material world into account, not some out-dated view. There are large mysteries about what in fact the quantum world really is, and how it behaves on its own, so to speak, as opposed to when it is manifesting as the world we experience. Therefore there is lots we don't know, and perhaps can't know, about how such things as causality, mind and consciousness, cosmology, etc. are related to the underlying quantum world that is beyond our experience. I think people of all metaphysical positions need to take this uncertainty about the ultimate nature of quantum events into account.Viola Lee_{October 11, 2020
October
10
Oct
11
11
2020
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Oh. Not to mention that their ridiculous "naturalism/ materialism/ atheism" is (per Plantinga) a global skepticism trap. What's their defense? To insult and deride Plantinga, but arguments? They have Z.E.R.O. "Evolutionary materialism is an incoherent view." Plantinga's EAAN. Truthfreedom_{October 11, 2020
October
10
Oct
11
11
2020
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

The philosophical arguments against mental reality are not valid because they are arguments that premise the existence of, and define reality as, an objective external world. IOW, they all assume "reality" is defined by the existence of an objective world which carves the world into the "objective" and the "subjective." The arguments then are about the failings of subjectivity from that perspective. Until one can make an argument against mental reality theory from that perspective, you might as well be complaining that basketball isn't a coherent game because it doesn't follow the same rules as basketball.William J Murray_{October 11, 2020
October
10
Oct
11
11
2020
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

32 Kairosfocus
TF, any conclusion that we are locked in the bubble of our consciousness is self-referentially incoherent.
Absolutely. The problem here is for the "materialist" (the res extensa lovers). They proclaim their beloved "materialist science" (cough cough, Seversky) maps "external reality". But in the end, analyzing the optics and physiology of vision, coupled with their "materialism", it all leads to subjective/ epistemological idealism. Naturalism's Epistemological Nightmare
"Empirical verification presupposes epistemological realism—meaning that through sensation we know directly the exterior physical world around us. Natural science proclaims that it discovers the nature of the real physical cosmos, external to our brains or subjective selves. Yet, when we trace the optics and physiology of the sense of sight, we find ourselves entrapped in epistemological idealism -- meaning that we do not know external reality, but rather merely some change within our brains that we hope to be an accurate representation of the external world." Dr. Dennis Bonnette. https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/
Notice how none of the usual suspects here at UD (Seversky, Chuckdarwin, MatSpirit, Bob O'H, Pater Kimbridge, JVL...) can defend their materialist superstition. They simply pretend not to notice the challenge and act as if their worldview is not unavoidably damaged. Which is very telling. :) We can defend our worldview. They don't. Why is that?Truthfreedom_{October 11, 2020
October
10
Oct
11
11
2020
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

WJM, nope, the issue is objective reference. The claim, knowledge is locked in on this side of the ugly gulch has external reference and undermines itself. One's consciousness can include valid reference to an external shared world allowing inter alia conversation. And, we must be responsibly, rationally free if we are to have a serious discussion or freedom to be logical and warranted in claiming to know. KF PS: F H Bradley, Appearance and Reality:
We may agree, perhaps, to understand by metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole [--> i.e. the focus of Metaphysics is critical studies of worldviews] . . . . The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is wholly impossible . . . himself has, perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena . . . To say the reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is a claim to know reality ; to urge that our knowledge is of a kind which must fail to transcend appearance, itself implies that transcendence. [--> this is the "ugly gulch" of the Kantians] For, if we had no idea of a beyond, we should assuredly not know how to talk about failure or success. And the test, by which we distinguish them, must obviously be some acquaintance with the nature of the goal. Nay, the would-be sceptic, who presses on us the contradictions of our thoughts, himself asserts dogmatically. For these contradictions might be ultimate and absolute truth, if the nature of the reality were not known to be otherwise . . . [such] objections . . . are themselves, however unwillingly, metaphysical views, and . . . a little acquaintance with the subject commonly serves to dispel [them]. [Appearance and Reality, 2nd Edn, 1897 (1916 printing), pp. 1 - 2; INTRODUCTION. At Web Archive.]
kairosfocus_{October 11, 2020
October
10
Oct
11
11
2020
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

KF saId:
TF, any conclusion that we are locked in the bubble of our consciousness is self-referentially incoherent.
That's not a conclusion, that's a self-evidently true statement about the nature of individual existence. - unless you've somehow managed to leave your consciousness behind while you took a walk around the block?
The Kantians’ ugly gulch is problematic. In effect to infer that one cannot know external reality is to imply a knowledge claim about such, its un-knowability.
That's because the knowledge claim is not about any supposed external world; it's a knowledge claim about the nature of our own subjective experience and the implications of what it means for all experience to occur in mind.William J Murray_{October 11, 2020
October
10
Oct
11
11
2020
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT}

VL At least by the middle of last century the idea of little-hard-bits materialism was dead and buried, so I cannot understand your repetitions on this issue here. What do you believe materialism now means, what do you think is its general understanding?Belfast_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

KF, I am aware that we have gone through paradigm shifts and have new understandings of matter and it's interactions. I've mentioned above the general understanding that the old paradigm of solid matter being foundational is outdated.Viola Lee_{October 10, 2020
October
10
Oct
10
10
2020
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply