- #351
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Lol, if you understood all the subtleties of that quote from me you wouldn't have posted that
. You fell for it! You so crazzzy!Why the bias against materialism?
- Thread starter Zero
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Bias
In summary, the debate between materialism and idealism has been ongoing for centuries, with the focus being on the uniqueness of life and mind. Some anti-materialists may have a tendency to be preachers, leading to aggressive attacks on those who disagree with their beliefs. However, it is natural for humans to have differing opinions. Science, while a valuable tool, has limitations and does not encompass all aspects of life and the universe. There is still much to be discovered and understood about consciousness and thought, which science has not yet been able to fully explain.
Lol, if you understood all the subtleties of that quote from me you wouldn't have posted that
. You fell for it! You so crazzzy!- #352
Zero
Well, I figured you went through all the trouble to set that up and all...Originally posted by Fliption
Lol, if you understood all the subtleties of that quote from me you wouldn't have posted that
- #353
Zero
I didn't say that 'information does something'...I was trying to make the opposite point. Material objects do things, and we call it information. Or something...semantics, really.
- #354
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Except that "action" is only accomplished out of that which is functional as "a whole," and so belies the "motive or intent" -- not some random occurrence.
- #355
Zero
It doesn't follow that something 'non-random' has 'motive' or 'intent'...no matter how many times you post it.
- #356
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
No, the fact that motive and intent do exist, suggest that things don't happen by chance, but by "design."
Whereas if something wasn't complete and fully functional -- or, at least endowed with that capacity -- then that rules out the faculty of choice, which can only be achieved through the stability (equilibrium) of the overall design. Hence without a choice there would be no intent, or motives, and "no glue" which binds things together.
- #357
heusdens
- 1,738
- 0
Was the "sun" designed, is the way molecules and atoms interact "designed"?
This are just stupid notions, since the physical laws can not have been designed.
Even in realms of human society, the term "design" is not what it seems to be. Is the car concept as we have it now "designed"?
No. There has just been development (started with the "invention" of the wheel) and then later improvements.
Non one had a thought before about the actual nowday design of a car. And every improvement is first tested, to see if it improves anything.
So, there is just a continual interaction between the mind and the material world, which changes car design and develops old concepts into new ones.
- #358
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
And yet why does the sun bother to hold itself together if it wasn't "designed" that way? Why does it even exist, if there wasn't some principle (or glue) to tell it to cohere together?
Except that we use these same physical laws and turn around and use them to "design" everything we see around us which is "artificial." Which is to say it didn't come together naturally, and on its own.
And I suppose everyobdy just stood around and watched while it happened, Right? I don't think so. And, while a design is merely the blueprint which demonstrates functionality, it's the functionality of the design that we can't do without.
And what was it about the Japanese designing better cars than us, and we having to get off "our duffs" and say, "Well maybe we better come up with some better designs ourselves?" You don't think there was any conscious will or intent involved with that? You're fooling yourself if you don't.
You make it sound like it almost came about by "magic."
You just go ahead and keep thinking random thoughts and let us know when you come up with something interesting, Okay?
Of course we might be in for a long wait, give or take few billion years!
Last edited:
- #359
sascha
- 127
- 2
The argument from design is, to my sense, not helpful for an ultimate understanding, because the basis for motive and intent is not clarified as yet by it. In the end the argument from design must resort to another belief, so the explanation in a strict sense is still not achieved. This is why I prefer to operate in universal categories, i.e. which reflect securely the overall order and are applicable as much to inert as to alive structures (this distinction requires additional criteria).
Now with this you still don't know what these universal categories are. For that we could go through the systematic developing steps of the approach I propose (which is published, even if partly only in German), or we might proceed more pragmatically, as we are doing. So, before we go into that approach in detail I will try the pragmatic path. As necessary we can switch to the other or not, or I might offer an abridged version of this approach.
We talk about information versus energy (in my process categories: law versus force), in relation to matter (which appears in my categories as structures of force defined by two precise conditions of dynamic equilibrium; alive structures have the possibility to affect one of them). My point is that Zero saying 'material objects do things, and we call it information' is not just 'a question of semantics' (which is a phrase that really says nothing), because the qualifications that make an entity capable of acting are not clarified in saying so (while this is done in the categories I propose; but for knowing why they are justified we would have to go through the systematics...).
There is the basic difficulty in today's science to tell what principle makes an entity be alive or not. Physics, genetics, or economics: any science postulating material entities to be active, without being able to tell what makes them active, is self-coerced by its non-universal categories to the same fate: it must shift its real question into ever smaller entities while never reaching total clarity (atoms; genes; deciding agents: all sciences using the same postulate experience the same fragmentizing effect). To say 'material objects do things, and we call it information' is conceptually just as unprecise as saying 'information does something'. Neither inert matter nor information can act on their own. Such sayings are merely ad hoc hypotheses. We should achieve better than that.
Heusdens' dialectical materialism has a certain point insofar as it describes -- even if in Marxian style, still in Hegelian fashion -- the evolution of conceptual structures. But this is not the whole of the thjing. The link to the thinker (who has to move his thoughts) -- and on the other side to complete reality (in which there is a 'movens', some agency) -- is not completely clarified. But I don't want to go into the full length of this now.
So all in all I am not yet asserting positively very much (otherwise my post would be too long), I am mainly stating the problem as clearly as possible. But if we persevere in thinking properly in our debate, we will gradually reach the required precision. Hence the success of this debate depends on your participation, eg. in telling where you need more clarification.
Now with this you still don't know what these universal categories are. For that we could go through the systematic developing steps of the approach I propose (which is published, even if partly only in German), or we might proceed more pragmatically, as we are doing. So, before we go into that approach in detail I will try the pragmatic path. As necessary we can switch to the other or not, or I might offer an abridged version of this approach.
We talk about information versus energy (in my process categories: law versus force), in relation to matter (which appears in my categories as structures of force defined by two precise conditions of dynamic equilibrium; alive structures have the possibility to affect one of them). My point is that Zero saying 'material objects do things, and we call it information' is not just 'a question of semantics' (which is a phrase that really says nothing), because the qualifications that make an entity capable of acting are not clarified in saying so (while this is done in the categories I propose; but for knowing why they are justified we would have to go through the systematics...).
There is the basic difficulty in today's science to tell what principle makes an entity be alive or not. Physics, genetics, or economics: any science postulating material entities to be active, without being able to tell what makes them active, is self-coerced by its non-universal categories to the same fate: it must shift its real question into ever smaller entities while never reaching total clarity (atoms; genes; deciding agents: all sciences using the same postulate experience the same fragmentizing effect). To say 'material objects do things, and we call it information' is conceptually just as unprecise as saying 'information does something'. Neither inert matter nor information can act on their own. Such sayings are merely ad hoc hypotheses. We should achieve better than that.
Heusdens' dialectical materialism has a certain point insofar as it describes -- even if in Marxian style, still in Hegelian fashion -- the evolution of conceptual structures. But this is not the whole of the thjing. The link to the thinker (who has to move his thoughts) -- and on the other side to complete reality (in which there is a 'movens', some agency) -- is not completely clarified. But I don't want to go into the full length of this now.
So all in all I am not yet asserting positively very much (otherwise my post would be too long), I am mainly stating the problem as clearly as possible. But if we persevere in thinking properly in our debate, we will gradually reach the required precision. Hence the success of this debate depends on your participation, eg. in telling where you need more clarification.
Last edited:
- #360
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
This would be great if everything were on autopilot.
You have to break it up into category huh? All I can I tell you is that things tend operate better from the standpoint of functionality, and don't tend to work well at all when they're dissected and spilled all over the table.
What about one universal category, say the Universe itself?
- #361
sascha
- 127
- 2
I don't see how you see the connection between the need for strict explanation and this implying any operation in an autopilot mode. Can you be more explicit? By "the standpoint of functionality", do you mean functionalism? And dissecting is not the same as distinguishing. Which do you mean? Precisely for not distinguishing eg. life from non-life, scientists must separate life from matter for their analyses, for being able to apply their non-universal categories. If they would distinguish, they would not need to dissect.
By the way, you too use categories, whether you like it or not. Any categoreality is formed by the foundational assumptions in the mind -- whatever these may be, whether conscious or forgotten, etc.. There is no way to have one universal category only, eg. the Universe itself as a category, because that is not a distinction by which you can think the subject matter. Maybe you mean taking the Universe itself as the ultimately relevant point of reference? Others might say truth, or totality, or completeness and certainty. This is a lot less problematic.
By the way, you too use categories, whether you like it or not. Any categoreality is formed by the foundational assumptions in the mind -- whatever these may be, whether conscious or forgotten, etc.. There is no way to have one universal category only, eg. the Universe itself as a category, because that is not a distinction by which you can think the subject matter. Maybe you mean taking the Universe itself as the ultimately relevant point of reference? Others might say truth, or totality, or completeness and certainty. This is a lot less problematic.
Last edited:
- #362
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
What I'm saying is that science is so concerned with all the physical evidence, that it loses sight of the "navigator" which is at the controls, which is typically only operational from the standpoint of wholeness and being complete.
It would be much like taking a bucket of parts and using it to contruct a radio. Where you have the parts on the one hand, and a fully functional radio on the other which, is an entirely different medium than the parts themselves. In fact there's such a distinct difference between the two, that it's hard to imagine a relationship even existing in the first place, unless of course the radio becomes impaired or dysfunctional.
And here the parts themselves become relegated to the "subsconscious" aspect of the radio, and the broadcast medium, that for which the radio is designed, become its "consciousness." And yet science is so preoccupied with the "subconscious workings" of the radio, dissecting it and categorizing it, that it tends to lose sight of the broadcast medium itself, which is really the only reason it exists in the first place. You know, what's the point in having a radio if you can't listen to it?
Whereas the same as with the navigator. If the navigator expires, then what purpose does a clump of decomposing tissue and bones serve? In which case I would be more concerned about what the navigator has to say before he leaves?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that life can only be valued from a standpoint of wholeness, and so reflects "the medium" of life itself. And, that "wholeness itself," becomes the overall design.
Last edited:
- #363
Zero
All of this is great philosophy, and makes you feel better, that is fine. The fact that it has absolutely no bearing on reality should be recognised, however.
- #364
amadeus
Whose reality?
What do you see here:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/9609/pz/vaseface.gif
Can you contemplate the fact that it is a vase, two faces, both, and neither, all at the same time?
Reality is as simple as the mind which observes it...
- #365
Zero
Optical illusions prove my point more than they do yours, bucko.
- #366
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Hey, the image is not coming in. Or is it just me? I think what you need to do is take the "image tags" off the link. At least you can click on the link and view the image from there. You'll notice that's how it works on my post here. Or, maybe not? ...
By the way Zero, you -- your avatar -- looks bloody awful!
Last edited:
- #367
sascha
- 127
- 2
Yes, Amadeus, everything is a problem of interpretation. But first I would like to go through the controversial point which Iacchus32 has raised. Then I will say something about optical illusions.
Probably what Iacchus32 calls "navigator" is -- with some modifications -- what I would call the overall order of an entity / process (when dealing concretely eg. with lithium, we refer to the overall order of lithium, not of something else). And what Iacchus32 seems to attribute to this overall order, if I understand him correctly, is something like an ability of putting together and steering the entity / process -- in the example of lithium, that a composition of 4 neutrons, 3 protons and 3 electrons actually results and is maintained (not producing eg. a lithium+ ion or a lithium 6 isotope).
I have a hunch that we don't find an agreement because we don't talk in a sufficiently precise way, or maybe even not about exactly the same. Some talk more about the aspect of law of nature of this entity / process. Usually physicists talk about the law of being eg. a lithium atom (while in this example I prefer to talk about the law of the process of lithium appearing, existing, and disappearing, because only this is the whole picture, not only an aspect). Others talk more about the aspect of agency, which produces the changes according to that law. And sometimes there is even a conceptual mixup. But for understanding, the two aspects are not the same, because no law can act on its own, while a force (agency) needs a law to obey. In any entity / process, both aspects operate together, but for understanding that entity they must be distinguished (which is precisely no act of dissection).
The trouble with what Iacchus32 says is that we cannot attribute the same type of overall order (i.e. of "navigator") to all entities. There is indeed a difference between inert and alive entities / processes, insofar as in an alive entity / process something (whether an entelecheia or some or genes is not defined yet) organizes the thing, while an inert entity / process is organized by its environment. The difference is that all alive entities can modify part of their own order (eg. they can move, they have a metabolism, etc.), while inert objects are fully determined by external elements. Many people believe chemistry proves that matter acts on its own. They forget that something must place the bits of matter so that -- in the words of Iacchus32 -- a radio results out of the bucket of parts, or in physics an atom of lithium out of neutrons, protons and electrons (not eg. some ion or isotope).
Sometimes science produces objectively unnecessary problems. In the given example, we can either see a vase or two faces, but not both simultaneously. The question is how we interpret this empirical fact. Zero seems to believes there are real optical illusions, that the senses cannot be trusted and that cognitive theory must be believed. BUT ... We can notice that once we saw both, we can decide which one to see, and switch at will. In this way we can experience what makes the real difference (since the percept as such is the same): the mental representation that we produce through our interpretation at will. Offhand we can coherently have only one representation at a time. Wanting to have both requires quite some effort: mere gazing at the lines won't yield the result, but people who are sufficiently trained mentally can remain even in the undecided state of mind. What they did is grasp the facts, thereby creating mentally a representation which encompasses both in the tertium comparationis. The choice at will is crucial — and precisely what the cognitive sciences will never be able to find, because it is unthinkingly excluded from their categoreal structure and can thus not appear in their query.
Summing up: I think for a real understanding of material structures it is necessary to operate in categories which allow to handle already the two opposed aspects of law and agency in an adequate way. This is not warranted in the usual terminology. In my approach I add another two opposed categories, two conditions of dynamic equilibrium, which allow to handle also the aspects of aliveness. My categoreal structure opens the door to a natural science that can handle all of life -- eg. in the face / vase example, the aspect of force / will (and for the details, the two conditions of dynamic equilibrium) makes an understanding effortlessly clear, as opposed to the results of science, where in the end you have to BELIEVE in something that is not totally clear (which must be shifted into smaller entities all the time), or in what somebody else (like a science guru) says...
Probably what Iacchus32 calls "navigator" is -- with some modifications -- what I would call the overall order of an entity / process (when dealing concretely eg. with lithium, we refer to the overall order of lithium, not of something else). And what Iacchus32 seems to attribute to this overall order, if I understand him correctly, is something like an ability of putting together and steering the entity / process -- in the example of lithium, that a composition of 4 neutrons, 3 protons and 3 electrons actually results and is maintained (not producing eg. a lithium+ ion or a lithium 6 isotope).
I have a hunch that we don't find an agreement because we don't talk in a sufficiently precise way, or maybe even not about exactly the same. Some talk more about the aspect of law of nature of this entity / process. Usually physicists talk about the law of being eg. a lithium atom (while in this example I prefer to talk about the law of the process of lithium appearing, existing, and disappearing, because only this is the whole picture, not only an aspect). Others talk more about the aspect of agency, which produces the changes according to that law. And sometimes there is even a conceptual mixup. But for understanding, the two aspects are not the same, because no law can act on its own, while a force (agency) needs a law to obey. In any entity / process, both aspects operate together, but for understanding that entity they must be distinguished (which is precisely no act of dissection).
The trouble with what Iacchus32 says is that we cannot attribute the same type of overall order (i.e. of "navigator") to all entities. There is indeed a difference between inert and alive entities / processes, insofar as in an alive entity / process something (whether an entelecheia or some or genes is not defined yet) organizes the thing, while an inert entity / process is organized by its environment. The difference is that all alive entities can modify part of their own order (eg. they can move, they have a metabolism, etc.), while inert objects are fully determined by external elements. Many people believe chemistry proves that matter acts on its own. They forget that something must place the bits of matter so that -- in the words of Iacchus32 -- a radio results out of the bucket of parts, or in physics an atom of lithium out of neutrons, protons and electrons (not eg. some ion or isotope).
Sometimes science produces objectively unnecessary problems. In the given example, we can either see a vase or two faces, but not both simultaneously. The question is how we interpret this empirical fact. Zero seems to believes there are real optical illusions, that the senses cannot be trusted and that cognitive theory must be believed. BUT ... We can notice that once we saw both, we can decide which one to see, and switch at will. In this way we can experience what makes the real difference (since the percept as such is the same): the mental representation that we produce through our interpretation at will. Offhand we can coherently have only one representation at a time. Wanting to have both requires quite some effort: mere gazing at the lines won't yield the result, but people who are sufficiently trained mentally can remain even in the undecided state of mind. What they did is grasp the facts, thereby creating mentally a representation which encompasses both in the tertium comparationis. The choice at will is crucial — and precisely what the cognitive sciences will never be able to find, because it is unthinkingly excluded from their categoreal structure and can thus not appear in their query.
Summing up: I think for a real understanding of material structures it is necessary to operate in categories which allow to handle already the two opposed aspects of law and agency in an adequate way. This is not warranted in the usual terminology. In my approach I add another two opposed categories, two conditions of dynamic equilibrium, which allow to handle also the aspects of aliveness. My categoreal structure opens the door to a natural science that can handle all of life -- eg. in the face / vase example, the aspect of force / will (and for the details, the two conditions of dynamic equilibrium) makes an understanding effortlessly clear, as opposed to the results of science, where in the end you have to BELIEVE in something that is not totally clear (which must be shifted into smaller entities all the time), or in what somebody else (like a science guru) says...
Last edited:
- #368
Esoteric
Great thread
I side with the Materialist.
I side with the Materialist.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #369
sascha
- 127
- 2
Esoteric, your siding is revealing in a way you probably don't realize. I wonder whether you have read thoroughly the substance of this thread. I doubt you did, because otherwise you must have noticed that the purely materialist stance is useful for some limited practical questions, but on the theoretical level it has finally no foundation other than beliefs / myths, and can offer nothing but beliefs / myths -- no strict completeness of grasp, no absolute certainty of any sort. At the very end of any of its lines there is always some undecidability (Finsler, Goedel, Cohen, etc.), or a paradox, a trilemma (Agrippa / Fries / Albert), a "differance" (Derrida), a "differend" (Lyotard), etc., etc.: a new mystery of some sort, which is then laboriously shoved from one level of reality to the next, until believing it is overcome by having pushed it out of sight (which is of course never a durable solution). The mysterious features of QT (complementarity / nonlocality, which are illustrated but not explained by ideas of 'entanglement'), or the absence of an ultimately relevant frame of reference in RT (it can depict relative motion, but not account for the relevance of laws and forces) are examples from physics. Some still believe that the endless prolongation of this game is real progress. But it is in no way sure that we are not losing ourselves in an expensive hobby.
This whole tantrum is pointless because at the outset there are assumptions (in this case those of materialism) which close off the possible insight into the completeness of reality. Only partial laws can be found on this path, no strictly universal laws. The example with the "optical illusions" show how eg. the relevant will (agency, force) for finding the solution to what seem to be illusions can precisely not be accounted for in the purely materialist stance. As demonstrated a little bit on this thread, on the level of theory the only way out is to clarify fundamentally the role of the categoreal foundation in thinking. One of its essential elements is whether formally any assumptions are imposed, or whether a better (i.e. truly universal) path to structured openness is found. For example analytic philosophy cannot offer this, by its very principle. A real solution is feasible only by experiencing clearly the reality of thinking -- which the purely materialist stance has axiomatically excluded from the outset.
This whole tantrum is pointless because at the outset there are assumptions (in this case those of materialism) which close off the possible insight into the completeness of reality. Only partial laws can be found on this path, no strictly universal laws. The example with the "optical illusions" show how eg. the relevant will (agency, force) for finding the solution to what seem to be illusions can precisely not be accounted for in the purely materialist stance. As demonstrated a little bit on this thread, on the level of theory the only way out is to clarify fundamentally the role of the categoreal foundation in thinking. One of its essential elements is whether formally any assumptions are imposed, or whether a better (i.e. truly universal) path to structured openness is found. For example analytic philosophy cannot offer this, by its very principle. A real solution is feasible only by experiencing clearly the reality of thinking -- which the purely materialist stance has axiomatically excluded from the outset.
Last edited:
- #370
Zero
sascha, you are absolutely full of it, did you know that? The POINT of this thread wasn't to say thata materialist worldview was perfect, but that it has more to offer than some of the ideas that are being used to replace it. We don't throw away an idea just because it is incomplete in some areas, we use other ideas to improve it. Materialism is 'right' in the way that Newtonian mechanics is 'right'. New theories come and explain the gaps in it, but for common, everyday use, it is as useful as ever.
For all your linguistic superiority, some of you are on the same level as some housewife with her magical candles, or a yuppie with his feng shui, or some quack selling colliodial silver to cure anything. Materialism excludes nonsense, and THAT is why there is a bias against it. You would prefer to create answers from whole cloth, instead of seeking real, if incomplete, answers. Quantum doodads aside, materialism works, and if we are going to figure out odd quantum effects, materialism(in its broadest sense) will likely at least point the way to the correct answer.
For all your linguistic superiority, some of you are on the same level as some housewife with her magical candles, or a yuppie with his feng shui, or some quack selling colliodial silver to cure anything. Materialism excludes nonsense, and THAT is why there is a bias against it. You would prefer to create answers from whole cloth, instead of seeking real, if incomplete, answers. Quantum doodads aside, materialism works, and if we are going to figure out odd quantum effects, materialism(in its broadest sense) will likely at least point the way to the correct answer.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #371
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,894
- 11
I think Sasha's post is basically right. Materialism doesn't produce secure knowledge. Any physical theory is always at risk for falsification.
But what is the alternative? Idealism is moonshine. Religion is meaningful to those who have it but balderdash to others, including devotees of other religions.
The very contingent truth that materialism offers is the only genuine variety of truth available.
But what is the alternative? Idealism is moonshine. Religion is meaningful to those who have it but balderdash to others, including devotees of other religions.
The very contingent truth that materialism offers is the only genuine variety of truth available.
- #372
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
The only problem with materialism is that what we see is the effect, not the cause. The true reality is the intent or motive, the interior aspect (or design) which stirs "the effect" into existence.
In other words the outer reality is merely the manifestation of the inner reality.
In other words the outer reality is merely the manifestation of the inner reality.
- #373
Zero
At least somebody gets it...
- #374
Zero
You keep talking about 'true reality', but at some point, you have to pull back the curtain and show it! Otherwise, what purpose does it serve?
We can determine a lot about causes from effects, once you measure the effect. In fact, I would say it is vital to any coherent way of looking at things to be able to measure effects accurately and consistently. If not, then you really can't say anything at all about causes, can you?
- #375
Dissident Dan
- 238
- 2
Who says that there has to be an intent or motive?
- #376
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Which would you rather do? Admire the house from the outside? Or, get down to the business of settling in and experiencing the house for what it was designed for -- "living."
Now you tell me which is the greater reality?
Hey, maybe you got the nicest house on the block, but what good is it if you don't live in it?
- #377
Zero
Maybe if you would stop covering up the weakness in your argument with metaphors which don't represent reality...never mind, I've asked you before, and you refuse. You look at a wall, and see a house.Originally posted by Iacchus32
Which would you rather do? Admire the house from the outside? Or, get down to the business of settling in and experiencing the house for what it was designed for -- "living."
Now you tell me which is the greater reality?
Hey, maybe you got the nicest house on the block, but what good is it if you don't live in it?
- #378
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
With human beings? Definitely. There's no doubt about it. In fact there's nothing about the human condition which doesn't belie "intent."
Speaking of which, why is it most prevalent amongst living things, from the smallest one-celled organisms, with just an inkling of it, all the way to the top of the food chain, man himself, with all the fully blown ramifications? Why is that?
Could it be that it has something to do with consciousness, and the intelligence derived therefrom? In which case you can take that to mean yes. But what is consciousness, if not that which is transcendent? And why do we only seem to have "coherence" when we're fully functional and intact? How else could we transcend the whole scope of the field -- "objectively" -- at a single glance?
Thus seemingly the "highest of proclivities," where does it come from? And what do we mean by "conscious intent?"
Last edited:
- #379
Zero
Huh? one-celled organisms are conscious? No, they aren't...except tehy have to be, for your made-up fantasy to work.
- #380
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
No, what you're telling me, is that a house has no functionality to it (this is the key
), in which case there's really no sense in building it because nobody "intends" to live in it.- #381
Zero
That doesn't make any sense...could you stop speaking in metaphor for like 10 minutes?Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, what you're telling me, is that a house has no functionality to it (this is the key
- #382
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
How is it that we "feel" the sense of touch then, if it wasn't for the myriads of single cells which make up our skin?
Or what do you say we step it up a couple of levels to the family dog? Why would he bother to come when you called his name?
- #383
Zero
Are you saying that atoms are conscious too?
- #384
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
All I'm saying is that the "objective reality" is the house -- from afar if you will -- which does not belie the true reality -- as subjective as that is -- of the life "lived" within the house.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
- #385
Zero
Because there is no evidence that there is an 'inner' and 'outer' reality.