Why Physicalism is Wrong

[Atla]

"The point" is always somebody's point. My point , or agenda, is to combine philosophy east and philosophy west in a whole understanding, for me largely inspired by the immediate need to protect the biosphere within twelve years as we are reliably informed.

But (to me) then we are no longer talking about philosophy itself, we are talking about an "agenda", even if a benevolent one.

I respect your agenda of course, even though it's impossible to combine the two philosophies in 12 years, and at the end of the process substance theory would still be discarded.

Western philosophy is usually materialism, idealism, substance dualism, and all kinds of retarded dual-aspect ideas. Usually not neutral monism, so my solution is that Western philosophy needs to be thrown out since Plato.

Wouldn't you say that that LaoTsu ' describes' it well?

I don't know much about Taoism. But "seeing the Tao", "being Zen", and the proper Advaitan "nondual state", are more or less three names for the same thing, Eastern nondualism.

I think where Taoism goes wrong is that, while acknowledging the underlying nondual, it takes the everyday dual appearance too literally. The everyday dual is just a convention, a way of thinking, way of being, but Taoism makes a literal system out of it, like it was part of nature too.

[TimeSeeker]

But (to me) then we are no longer talking about philosophy itself, we are talking about an "agenda", even if a benevolent one.

What? Philosophy has no agenda? So anything goes ? Cool!

And yet on the other thread you keep insisting that there is a 'right' and 'wrong' way to do philosophy!

Can you PLEASE make up your mind!

[Belinda]

Atla wrote:

I think where Taoism goes wrong is that, while acknowledging the underlying nondual, it takes the everyday dual appearance too literally. The everyday dual is just a convention, a way of thinking, way of being, but Taoism makes a literal system out of it, like it was part of nature too.

That is the Chinese convention , to use such visual images as terrain and weather. It's metaphor writ large. If you cannot understand layers of meaning that is your loss.

But (to me) then we are no longer talking about philosophy itself, we are talking about an "agenda", even if a benevolent one.

O come on! You don't think that philosophy floats around disembodied in the ether?

[Atla]

But (to me) then we are no longer talking about philosophy itself, we are talking about an "agenda", even if a benevolent one.

What? Philosophy has no agenda? So anything goes ? Cool!

And yet on the other thread you keep insisting that there is a 'right' and 'wrong' way to do philosophy!

Can you PLEASE make up your mind!

Of course you can philosophize through basic cognitive errors too. Just don't expect to make much of an impact.

[TimeSeeker]

Of course you can philosophize through basic cognitive errors too. Just don't expect to make much of an impact.

You can also philosophize through basic cognitive errors like the Kantian error of a-priori "knowledge".

Which, naturally, begs the question: How do you know (a priori) what a 'cognitive error' is if you have never experienced them ?

Bookworms. To think I used to be one...

[Atla]

That is the Chinese convention , to use such visual images as terrain and weather. It's metaphor writ large. If you cannot understand layers of meaning that is your loss.

They take for example the Yin and Yang quite literally. Even though such duality systems are made up. Their loss not mine.

O come on! You don't think that philosophy floats around disembodied in the ether?

Floats around disembodied?!
Philosophy in general has no agenda, other than the search for "truth". Trying to make some sense of the world.

[Belinda]

Atla wrote:

Floats around disembodied?!
Philosophy in general has no agenda, other than the search for "truth". Trying to make some sense of the world.

But there are so many different notions of what is truth.
https://www.bartleby.com/3/1/1.html

They take for example the Yin and Yang quite literally. Even though such duality systems are made up. Their loss not mine.

I agree that if they cannot see layers of meaning it's their loss. I am more interested in what poetry or religion can provide for my agendas than what the author may have meant. Yin and Yang look to me like illustrations of change itself i.e. relativity itself.

[Atla]

But there are so many different notions of what is truth.
https://www.bartleby.com/3/1/1.html

There are many defintions, but to men it usually simply objectivity (approaching the ideal of objectivity as much as possible). It's a way how the male mind naturally functions. The person who most closely demonstrates the truth/is the most objective, is usually considered the winner of the debate. This feature of the male mind is there even without any agenda, but then of course many people go on to mix it with an agenda.

[TimeSeeker]

but to men it usually simply objectivity (approaching the ideal of objectivity as much as possible). It's a way how the male mind naturally functions. The person who most closely demonstrates the truth/is the most objective, is usually considered the winner of the debate. This feature of the male mind is there even without any agenda, but then of course many people go on to mix it with an agenda.

Begging the question

There are so many notions of 'objectivity'. Which one is the 'correct' notion of objectivity?
Also - you don't speak for all men...

How does one 'demonstrate truth' ? What are the rules for 'winning' ?

It seems to me you have none - so the 'game' is just pure old 'alpha male domination'? Or a bandwagon fallacy?

Am I am 'alpha male' or am I playing the game by the rules established by previous 'alpha males'?
How would you tell the difference?

Don't hate the player - hate (the rules of) the game or something

[Atla]

but to men it usually simply objectivity (approaching the ideal of objectivity as much as possible). It's a way how the male mind naturally functions. The person who most closely demonstrates the truth/is the most objective, is usually considered the winner of the debate. This feature of the male mind is there even without any agenda, but then of course many people go on to mix it with an agenda.

Begging the question

There are so many notions of 'objectivity'. Which one is the 'correct' notion of objectivity?
Also - you don't speak for all men...

How does one 'demonstrate truth' ? What are the rules for 'winning' ?

It seems to me you have none - so the 'game' is just pure old 'alpha male domination'? Or a bandwagon fallacy?

Am I am 'alpha male' or am I playing the game by the rules established by previous 'alpha males'?
How would you tell the difference?

Don't hate the player - hate (the rules of) the game or something

There are also many exception of course, for example insecure, narcissistic Aspie men with a not properly functioning right hemisphere, will suck at interpreting anything.

[TimeSeeker]

There are also many exception of course, for example insecure, narcissistic Aspie men with a not properly functioning right hemisphere, will suck at interpreting anything.

You are still hanging onto the Aspie thing? And the non-stop ad hominem?

You know that there are no such things as 'exceptions' without such things as 'rules', right? And you haven't exactly managed to produce the 'rule book' (despite my numerous requests). Have you misplaced it or something ?

Whatever floats your boat Just keep paying!

[TimeSeeker]

In other words, the observance of the firing of neurons in your brain will in no way reveal the precise nature and makeup of that island paradise you may have visited last night while drooling on your pillow...

Uhhh. Nothing makes it impossible. All we need to understand is how brains (in general) or YOUR BRAIN (in particular) encodes information.
If it happens that all brains work in similar manner then it will actually be easier. It may be IMPRACTICAL in 2018, but that is only because human brains are far too complex, and because ethics committees spoil all the fun!

Worm brains are par for the course:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... connectome
https://newatlas.com/c-elegans-worm-neu ... ork/53296/

[Belinda]

In other words, the observance of the firing of neurons in your brain will in no way reveal the precise nature and makeup of that island paradise you may have visited last night while drooling on your pillow...

Uhhh. Nothing makes it impossible. All we need to understand is how brains (in general) or YOUR BRAIN (in particular) encodes information.
If it happens that all brains work in similar manner then it will actually be easier. It may be IMPRACTICAL in 2018, but that is only because human brains are far too complex, and because ethics committees spoil all the fun!

Worm brains are par for the course:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... connectome
https://newatlas.com/c-elegans-worm-neu ... ork/53296/

But brains don't have feed back nerve endings like joints have: we can immediately correlate what we feel our joints are doing because of those nerve endings, but we cannot immediately correlate what neural connections in the brain are doing as brains cannot feel.

[TimeSeeker]

But brains don't have feed back nerve endings like joints have: we can immediately correlate what we feel our joints are doing because of those nerve endings, but we cannot immediately correlate what neural connections in the brain are doing as brains cannot feel.

And? We can construct a feedback loop.

We feed you icecream and record what your brain does.
We put you in a hot room and record what your brain does.
We put you on an actual paradise island and record what your brain does.

We simulate the dream. We can use something like Google Glass to record an approximation of what your optical nerve is receiving. We can use machine learning algorithms to turn the video content into digital data (palm trees, beach, sand etc.). We can correlate that with the brain recordings.

[Belinda]

TimeSeeker wrote about feedback loops:

We feed you icecream and record what your brain does.
We put you in a hot room and record what your brain does.
We put you on an actual paradise island and record what your brain does.

Would they be synchronised as fast as biological feedback loops?