If you don't think that everything we perceive is either physical or mental, then you're a dualist. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but of course a monist is going to define everything that interacts with the physical as physical, or everything that interacts with the mental as mental.I've been dancing around this point for a while but the fact as that as soon as something is perceived within the physical system, materialists simply claim that it is therefore physical. And since there is no standard state way to directly perceive non-physical well . . . . . lol
I've been dancing around this point for a while but the fact as that as soon as something is perceived within the physical system, materialists simply claim that it is therefore physical. And since there is no standard state way to directly perceive non-physical well . . . . . lol
Another example of a lack of basic comprehension. Set aside things like physical/non-physical, it's that you almost always seem to not understand expressed concepts clearly. You attempt to fit things into what you know best and so often fail. It's as if someone would post "The plant is in the blue pot" and you'd respond with "trees do better in the open ground."If you don't think that everything we perceive is either physical or mental, then you're a dualist.
Why do you insist on accusing me of not comprehending, but then never try to clarify what you said? Don't you realize that it makes you appear not to understand what you're talking about?Another example of a lack of basic comprehension. Set aside things like physical/non-physical, it's that you almost always seem to not understand expressed concepts clearly. You attempt to fit things into what you know best and so often fail. It's as if someone would post "The plant is in the blue pot" and you'd respond with "trees do better in the open ground."
Only if you believe that the universe did not exist until there was life. I would be careful to distinguish the perception of the universe from the existence of the universe. Indeed, though, it is tempting to think that there is nothing but human consciousness (solipsism). However, then we cannot explain why the trees in my yard are consistent from one viewing to the next. So we have to invent a global consciousness, unknown and unperceived, that maintains the trees when no one is looking. One way or the other, there is something more than human consciousness and we have no reason to insist that it is consciousness-like.It's kind of strange considering that a.) The physical is 99.9999999 empty space and b.) it can only be mentally perceived. We have no way of knowing whether the physical even exists without the mental. As far as we can know, the physical is 100% dependent on the existence of life.
I've been dancing around this point for a while but the fact as that as soon as something is perceived within the physical system, materialists simply claim that it is therefore physical. And since there is no standard state way to directly perceive non-physical well . . . . . lol
HFS!! How many times are you going to ask ,me the same thing? Because I get annoyed at constantly diverting from the topic at hand into explaining basic stuff at the comprehension level. Based on my OP you respond "you're a dualist." Whaaat?? No offense, but that's just stupid stuff. And then to respond to you means spending time on that stupid stuff. Either you willfully divert conversations or ??? Either way, I'm not doing that dance.Why do you insist on accusing me of not comprehending, but then never try to clarify what you said?
So close, yet so, so far away.Only if you believe that the universe did not exist until there was life. I would be careful to distinguish the perception of the universe from the existence of the universe. Indeed, though, it is tempting to think that there is nothing but human consciousness (solipsism). However, then we cannot explain why the trees in my yard are consistent from one viewing to the next. So we have to invent a global consciousness, unknown and unperceived, that maintains the trees when no one is looking. One way or the other, there is something more than human consciousness and we have no reason to insist that it is consciousness-like.
~~ Paul
Your posts are like the most basic level talking points aimed at whatever the topic is at hand. It's fucking boring and stupid. Why are you here?Only if you believe that the universe did not exist until there was life. I would be careful to distinguish the perception of the universe from the existence of the universe. Indeed, though, it is tempting to think that there is nothing but human consciousness (solipsism). However, then we cannot explain why the trees in my yard are consistent from one viewing to the next. So we have to invent a global consciousness, unknown and unperceived, that maintains the trees when no one is looking. One way or the other, there is something more than human consciousness and we have no reason to insist that it is consciousness-like.
~~ Paul
Only if you believe that the universe did not exist until there was life. I would be careful to distinguish the perception of the universe from the existence of the universe. Indeed, though, it is tempting to think that there is nothing but human consciousness (solipsism). However, then we cannot explain why the trees in my yard are consistent from one viewing to the next. So we have to invent a global consciousness, unknown and unperceived, that maintains the trees when no one is looking. One way or the other, there is something more than human consciousness and we have no reason to insist that it is consciousness-like.
~~ Paul
If you don't think that everything we perceive is either physical or mental, then you're a dualist. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but of course a monist is going to define everything that interacts with the physical as physical, or everything that interacts with the mental as mental.
I don't think this line of questioning will get us anywhere until we can prove that something must be physical or must be mental. As in a logical proof.
~~ Paul
But you are not conscious of them all the time. Why are they consistent?I can kinda relate to that train of thought, though it isnt that easy. How do we know that there is more then human consciousness? Everything i percieve is in consciousness. That various objects around me dont move just like that could be a image created by consciousness.
There is an objective world outside of consciousness, where objective means "not generated by my consciousness." The question is whether that world is maintained by some other kind of consciousness or maintained physically.Since i cant percieve things outside of my consciousness i cant prove that. Every test that we conduct and everything others tell me is something that i percieve in consciousness. It could be that you are all just constructs of my mind or that we are all just a large network of connected minds. Im not willing to pick one of those options right now - its just that these are just as likely as a objective world outside of consciousness.
I wouldn't rule out the possibility at all. But I wouldn't rule out physicalism, either.And since we only percieve things in consciousness, why would i rule out those possibilities? I cant test the claim that theres something outside of my perception - i know though that i percieve things.
Philosophers would argue whether the internal and external are of the same kind, or whether they are different kinds (dualism). I'm not sure how we can actually know.I think I prefer ther terms 'internal' and 'external', with my body somewhere between the two, and I can't conceive of an either/or, You need both. Neither exists without the other.
I can kinda relate to that train of thought, though it isnt that easy. How do we know that there is more then human consciousness? .
I think I prefer ther terms 'internal' and 'external',
Philosophers would argue whether the internal and external are of the same kind, or whether they are different kinds (dualism). I'm not sure how we can actually know.
~~ Paul
I've been dancing around this point for a while but the fact as that as soon as something is perceived within the physical system, materialists simply claim that it is therefore physical. And since there is no standard state way to directly perceive non-physical well . . . . . lol
But you are not conscious of them all the time. Why are they consistent?
There is an objective world outside of consciousness, where objective means "not generated by my consciousness." The question is whether that world is maintained by some other kind of consciousness or maintained physically.
I wouldn't rule out the possibility at all. But I wouldn't rule out physicalism, either.
~~ Paul
Yes, but if they are of different fundamental kinds, then we have to address the interaction problem.They always work together don't they?
But I don't think we would want to say that we are sufficiently conscious to maintain the entire world. After all, things happen all the time that we were not conscious of, nor did we dream them.Oh humans are always conscious (my pov i guess...^^). Those are just several different types of consciousness. You do percieve things while you sleep (otherwise you wouldnt wake up from noises and stuff like that). And when we stick to materialism/physicalism and its explanatations im also capable to percieve things while im "unconscious". That would explain some OBE's and stuff like that.
But you don't remember doing that, so how do you know you did? Even if it is "you" doing everything, some of the things are done nonconsciously, or objectively. So how do you know it was you doing it?And well, if i would want to be bold about it: Why wouldnt it be consistent? If my mind would be everything that exists then it would have been capable to create this whole world that i percieve all the time. It would already have created the concepts of time and space. Being consistent with it should be easy then :)
It seems to me there is a world outside my consciousness by definition. Otherwise I would be conscious of everything.Its alteast your pov that there is a world outside of consciousness. Im not so sure about that. We humans dont know as much about those things as we would like to. Sadly.
I agree.Of course, physicalism is also a possibility. But just like the systems im describing, physicalism is pretty much unproveable. The whole thing is a great topic to discuss for hours and hours - we wont get any answers though. No one will.