On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 6:17:58 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 2:38:47 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 8:41:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 1:42:20 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 12:18:45 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 9:25:11 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> That's such a silly argument. This only proves there are interactions >>>>>> between consciousnesses. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, 22 October 2019 14:25:04 UTC+3, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think Samuel Johnson had a good reply to Bishop Berkeley on >>>>>>> refuting idealism, "If I kick this rock thusly," which Johnson did, "It >>>>>>> then kicks back." This is not a complete proof, but it works well >>>>>>> enough >>>>>>> FAPP. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> It is not silly. It is empirical. If you are interested in some sort >>>>> of firm "mathy" type of proof, then I would suggest the burden is more >>>>> upon >>>>> you to prove your case that idealism is true. I have no particular >>>>> interest in the subject to begin with, so I put the ball in your court. >>>>> Prove your case. >>>>> >>>>> LC >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Empiricism cannot say whether it's (all) matter, consciousness, or >>>> numbers. >>>> >>>> What makes the latter two dismissible is they do not explain what we >>>> know of our own consciousness - that it is finite in time and bounded in >>>> space. >>>> >>>> @philipthrift >>>> >>> >>> I am not saying "if I kick it it kicks back" means everything is matter. >>> In fact the total mass-energy of the universe is zero. However, it does >>> lend weight to the proposition there exists at least locally matter that is >>> external to mind. Matter does not conform to what my mind might otherwise >>> desire things to be. Statistical mechanics even shows that what we see as a >>> desired order is just one rather small macrostate in the energy surface of >>> phase space. Besides, our conscious lives are pretty fragile in the face of >>> things. >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdf5EXo6I68 >>> >>> LC >>> >> >> >> Matter does not conform to what my mind might otherwise desire things to >> be. >> >> >> "How did we ever get the notion of the mind as something distinct from >> the body? Why did this bad idea enter our culture?" >> >> https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html >> >> @philipthrift >> > > I am not arguing for a dualism. If there is dualism between matter and > mind, then it appears that matter is more pervasive. If the two are the > same in a monism, or mind a manifestation of matter, then mind is most > likely a subset of matter. Arguing over this is really a sort of > metaphysics that is not much more fruitful than the proverbial argument > over the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. > > LC > >
I acknowledge the *antimaterialist* ways of thinking: In philosophy, *antimaterialism* can mean one of several metaphysical or religious beliefs that are specifically opposed to materialism <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism>, the notion that only matter exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimaterialism It just has always seemed weird to me. @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/1d5e92b6-e9a0-4d9d-b339-e4ba6ce1e084%40googlegroups.com.
