Hi Philip, On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, at 10:18, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 3:52:05 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote: >> >> >> ... >> You insist that nobody has been able to produce a computer without using >> matter. I agree. What you refuse to consider is the possibility that matter >> is the dream of computations, and not the other way around. Whatever we are, >> it seems clear that we are bound to perceive reality as made of matter, but >> it doesn't follow that matter is the ultimate reality. This is just Plato's >> Cave with modern language. >> >> Telmo. >> >> > > I've been perplexed for 50 years how the idea of immaterialism (that there is > something other than matter) came to be.
I was listening to a podcast the other day where Sam Harris interviewed his own wife. For those who don't know, Sam Harris is a neuroscientist who became rather famous for being an outspoken atheist, and writing books such as "The End of Faith". Sam's wife wrote a book about the hard problem of consciousness. They both discussed in the beginning their perplexity at how so many of their highly-educated friends did not seem to understand the hard problem of consciousness and, more precisely, how materialism completely fails to account for the first-person view of reality or, in other words, the fact that "the light are on" inside of us. I invite you to listen if you have some patience for it: https://samharris.org/podcasts/159-conscious/ You will listen to two people who could not be less suspect of believing in ghosts or any other kind of similar woo. I share their perplexity. The idea of immaterialism is natural (and arises thousands of years ago), because the only thing that we cannot doubt (as Descartes pointed out) -- our consciousness -- is immaterial. There is not scientific instrument that can detect consciousness. On a side note: people have been citing John Clark as the hard-nosed personality who keeps Bruno's crazy ideas in check, but notice that beyond some weird political confluence of opposed personalities (who really only have in common their personal disgust for Bruno), John Clark himself agrees with me on this: that our own subjective experience is the most important thing there is, and that consciousness cannot be detected by scientific instruments. He will contradict me if I am wrong about this. > The so-called abstractions - like the definition of the Turing machine you > read in a textbook - are just fictions. But fictions can be useful. Maybe > there should be a better word for useful fictions. Math is as good as any, > for part of that anyway. I looked up the definition of "fiction" and found this: fiction /ˈfɪkʃ(ə)n/ noun: *fiction*; plural noun: *fictions* 1. 1. literature in the form of prose, especially novels, that describes imaginary events and people. synonyms: novels, stories, creative writing, imaginative writing, works of the imagination, prose literature, narration, story telling; More romance, fable "the traditions of British fiction" antonyms: non-fiction 2. 2. something that is invented or untrue. "they were supposed to be keeping up the fiction that they were happily married" synonyms: fabrication, invention, lies, fibs, concoction, trumped-up story, fake news, alternative fact, untruth, falsehood, fantasy, fancy, illusion, sham, nonsense; *vulgar slang*bullshit; *vulgar slang*bulldust "the president dismissed the allegation as absolute fiction" Both definitions appeal to abstractions. By your reasoning, these abstractions are also fiction. The very notion of "Truth" for example, is a mathematical abstraction, and thus a fiction. So it not only that these abstractions are useful, as you say, but they seem to be *necessary* for us to talk about reality. Don't you find that strange? > The old guys, Thales, Democritus, Epicurus, were curious about matter. Where > did this bizarre trend towards immaterialism come from? > > *The original sin of philosophy occurred when mathematical and mental (and > computational) entities were abstracted away from their material home.* Maybe I have my history of philosophy all wrong, but I think that materialism in its modern format is a very recent development. Which says nothing about its truth status, I am just pointing this out because you seem to suggest that what you call "immaterialism" is some recent weird trend. Telmo. > > @pphilipthrift > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/73aba2da-319b-4a90-b178-4e9340ce4d31%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/73aba2da-319b-4a90-b178-4e9340ce4d31%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/324c2b19-fc48-498d-8bb9-5e060076e19f%40www.fastmail.com.
