Materialism and Mechanisms

Wow. His entire argument against the statement disappears if he cannot show it is incorrect. Yet all he does is show that the external world might be some sort of consciousness or might be physical.

Could you explain what you mean by 'physical'? I doubt realism, but I don't doubt the external world is physical. Do you mean tactile?

Don't forget that dreams are physical. There's no difference between a dream and waking reality in that respect. A very eye-opening experience for me was when I examined the "qualities of matter" during a lucid dream. They are identical. That experience should give anyone pause, to say the least.
 
I dunno why you've made a different statement.
You mean by adding the word "personal" to "personal consciousness"? Because that's what a "materialist" means when she says something like:

"Because we cannot change reality by merely wishing it to be different, it is clear that reality is outside consciousness."

She is not referring to an impersonal meta-consciousness, because, as a physicalist, she does not believe in such a thing. And it is clear that reality is outside personal consciousness.

If people are going to argue against "materialist" statements, they have to start with statements that materialists actually make.

~~ Paul
 
Could you explain what you mean by 'physical'? I doubt realism, but I don't doubt the external world is physical. Do you mean tactile?
For this conversation, I mean a world that is not generated by some meta-mind, but is actually a separate world from all consciousness, and consciousness is simply a product of it.

A more generic definition might be something like "physical things are things that are observable." But then the distinction between physicalism and idealism begins to fade. Which is why I think the two ontologies are equivalent.

Don't forget that dreams are physical. There's no difference between a dream and waking reality in that respect. A very eye-opening experience for me was when I examined the "qualities of matter" during a lucid dream. They are identical. That experience should give anyone pause, to say the least.
I don't understand your experience, but I agree that dreams are physical under physicalism.

~~ Paul
 
For this conversation, I mean a world that is not generated by

Meanwhile, I don't know anyone who puts everyone in just your categories 1 and 6. I don't even know which IDers are YECs and which are OECs and
meta-mind, but is actually a separate world from all consciousness, and consciousness is simply a product of it.

A more generic definition might be something like "physical things are things that are observable." But then the distinction between physicalism and idealism begins to fade. Which is why I think the two ontologies are equivalent.
Okay, thanks.

I don't understand your experience, but I agree that dreams are physical under physicalism.
Please continue.
 
"Because we cannot change reality by merely wishing it to be different, it is clear that reality is outside consciousness."

It is clear that reality is outside personal consciousness. Whether that external world is physical or some other form of consciousness is certainly debatable, but it is not personal consciousness.

~~ Paul

Aren't you suggesting a disproof of solipsism? I'd thought that was impossible to disprove.
 
Aren't you suggesting a disproof of solipsism? I'd thought that was impossible to disprove.
It's clear that solipsism cannot involve only personal consciousness. There has to be something nonconscious maintaining the pattern of trees in my yard when I am not looking at them. Even if that thing is my memory, it isn't conscious. I think solipsism talks about the self, which is presumably more than just consciousness.

~~ Paul
 
With what?

~~ Paul

Well, unless I'm mistaken, physicalism implies realism, or at least physicalists usually assume it. Dreams don't consist of an objective reality outside mind. But yet you say that you agree that "dreams are physical under physicalism". Could you please elaborate further? I don't understand what you mean. Didn't you take issue with Bernardo's first mentioned materialist fallacy?
 
Well, unless I'm mistaken, physicalism implies realism, or at least physicalists usually assume it. Dreams don't consist of an objective reality outside mind. But yet you say that you agree that "dreams are physical under physicalism". Could you please elaborate further? I don't understand what you mean. Didn't you take issue with Bernardo's first mentioned materialist fallacy?
Dreams are physical because they are physical processes. Gravity is physical. Electromagnetic energy is physical. Love is physical. Whether an idea is physical can be debated, but that's simply a question of the definition of physical.

~~ Paul
 
Dreams are physical because they are physical processes. Gravity is physical. Electromagnetic energy is physical. Love is physical. Whether an idea is physical can be debated, but that's simply a question of the definition of physical.

Oh I got it. You're begging the question.
I'm talking about the experience of dreaming, not your assumptions about their physiological cause. Again, what about realism?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I must not understand what you are asking. Are you talking about realism as in an external objective reality?

~~ Paul

Yes. Realism is apparent in dreams, and dreaming reality is just as objective, real, physical, etc. as waking reality. Would you say a dream consists of an external, objective reality in keeping with realism? The unconscious mind is perfectly capable of creating whatever it pleases. The evidence for this lies in dreams.

Perhaps realism is just the objectivity created by multiple minds (or segments of one mind, a la Bernardo) in a consensus reality, lending it the consistency generally lacking in dreams.

Anyway, once again-- dreams create the illusion of realism (an outside objective reality). I noted this within a lucid dream- that there is no difference between dream reality and waking reality in terms of the properties of matter. (This is not only my experience; many people will vouch for what I'm saying) Dreams are only abstract in retrospect. A dream itself is concrete. I think this is something worth thinking about for materialists & realists.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Realism is apparent in dreams, and dreaming reality is just as objective, real, physical, etc. as waking reality. Would you say a dream consists of an external, objective reality in keeping with realism? The unconscious mind is perfectly capable of creating whatever it pleases. The evidence for this lies in dreams.


Perhaps realism is just the objectivity created by multiple minds (or segments of one mind, a la Bernardo) in a consensus reality, lending it the consistency generally lacking in dreams.

Anyway, once again-- dreams create the illusion of realism (an outside objective reality). I noted this within a lucid dream- that there is no difference between dream reality and waking reality in terms of the properties of matter. (This is not only my experience; many people will vouch for what I'm saying) Dreams are only abstract in retrospect. A dream itself is concrete. I think this is something worth thinking about for materialists & realists.
Dreams are not objective reality. They are fictions. They exist only in our heads.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Realism is apparent in dreams, and dreaming reality is just as objective, real, physical, etc. as waking reality. Would you say a dream consists of an external, objective reality in keeping with realism? The unconscious mind is perfectly capable of creating whatever it pleases. The evidence for this lies in dreams.
It is not capable of creating whatever it pleases. I cannot build an actual house in my dreams.

Perhaps realism is just the objectivity created by multiple minds (or segments of one mind, a la Bernardo) in a consensus reality, lending it the consistency generally lacking in dreams.
That is possible, yes, and so distinguishes dreams from external reality. My only point is that external reality is not merely my personal consciousness.

~~ Paul
 
Dreams are not objective reality. They are fictions. They exist only in our heads.
The reason people here view you as condescending is the way you speak only in absolutes. Definitive statements are rarely welcome in these conversations because the truth is that none of us really knows the answer. You may think it sounds like a tough guy 'facing the facts', but to most of us it just sounds arrogant and naive. No matter how much faith you have in your model of reality, a little humility would go a long way in discussing these topics with others.

Just as an example, you could have expressed the same thought without sounding like a zealot by phrasing it like this :
"I'm not convinced that dreams are objective reality. Unless you show me more evidence, I think they are most likely fictions that exist only in our heads."

See? You made it clear that it is your opinion, instead of some universal absolute truth. You will find that people will be more willing to converse with you this way, unless you are just here to troll. If nothing else, do it for those poor lurkers - they just wouldn't know what to do without your insight.
 
See? You made it clear that it is your opinion, instead of some universal absolute truth. You will find that people will be more willing to converse with you this way, unless you are just here to troll. If nothing else, do it for those poor lurkers - they just wouldn't know what to do without your insight.
Why not just take everything people say as their opinions? That is, after all, what they are.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
Why not just take everyone people say as their opinions? That is, after all, what they are.

~~ Paul
I agree with that, but I think phrasing makes a big difference in how one is perceived. I'll use you as an example Paul - even though you may feel strongly about something, I rarely see you state it as an absolute fact of reality. Your posts are actually quite balanced in that regard.

Here's the difference - I think you are here to actually have a discussion - Steve's tone indicates he is just here to assert his opinion.
 
The reason people here view you as condescending is the way you speak only in absolutes. Definitive statements are rarely welcome in these conversations because the truth is that none of us really knows the answer. You may think it sounds like a tough guy 'facing the facts', but to most of us it just sounds arrogant and naive. No matter how much faith you have in your model of reality, a little humility would go a long way in discussing these topics with others.

Just as an example, you could have expressed the same thought without sounding like a zealot by phrasing it like this :
"I'm not convinced that dreams are objective reality. Unless you show me more evidence, I think they are most likely fictions that exist only in our heads."

See? You made it clear that it is your opinion, instead of some universal absolute truth. You will find that people will be more willing to converse with you this way, unless you are just here to troll. If nothing else, do it for those poor lurkers - they just wouldn't know what to do without your insight.
Speaking of humility. It's funny that you only see the topics I do comment on and don't see any of the topics upon which I remain silent even though I could restart that topic in the forums I'm allowed to post and comment. So ask yourself why don't I do that since you think I'm so self assured and have no humility? I see many opinings stated as definitive answers here nearly everyday, why you don't see them as condescending, arrogant and naive and point them out as such? I'm allowed to state definitives just like everyone else. Last night, as I do most every night when the weather and seasons permit, I looked out my open window to discover the world within reach of my senses remains the same even though thousands of people were dreaming and I saw no change in reality.

This conveys doubt. I have no doubt what I said is true.
"I'm not convinced that dreams are objective reality. Unless you show me more evidence, I think they are most likely fictions that exist only in our heads."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top