On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 6:50:01 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote: > > 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 > > > - > >
I'm using "useful fiction" here of course as in the fictionalist philosophy of mathematics: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ Materialism goes back to ancient Greece and India. Immaterialism goes back (at least) to Plato ("theory of 'Forms'"). *Plato for philosophy is like the Adam of original sin.* On consciousness and matter, see of course https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html @philipthrift -- 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/4b252ef6-3926-45b9-8308-4be52a3deb05%40googlegroups.com.
