Poll on the validity of two arguments

[Logik]

Anyway yes, of course the world of experience and the world of physical are one and the same, this view is also supported by 100% of scientific knowledge, refuting materialism as well. The entirety of Western philosophy since the ancient Greeks seems to be refuted and we are left with a variant of nondualism (Eastern non-monistic nondualism) which is the simplest, default worldview.

Which for all-practical purposes is equivalent to Model-dependent realism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism ).
Which (despite its label) is no different to Kantian anti-realism.

Recursive language. What a mess!

[Speakpigeon]

If you can not or will not clarify some thing that you, yourself, wrote, then that is NOT blaming you, that is just a FACT.

The only relevant fact here is that you are arguing about what the word "we" may mean. If you don't know, look it up in a dictionary, because that's how I use it myself.
EB

[Logik]

The only relevant fact here is that you are arguing about what the word "we" may mean. If you don't know, look it up in a dictionary, because that's how I use it myself.

we. used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together.'

You shouldn't make it a habit to speak on behalf of 'one or more people' when we are present and able to speak for ourselves.

Or perhaps you should pay attention that WE are telling you that WE don't know what YOU mean.

[Speakpigeon]

Anyway yes, of course the world of experience and the world of physical are one and the same, this view is also supported by 100% of scientific knowledge, refuting materialism as well. The entirety of Western philosophy since the ancient Greeks seems to be refuted and we are left with a variant of nondualism (Eastern non-monistic nondualism) which is the simplest, default worldview.

I would disagree that we know that "the world of experience and the world of physical are one and the same".
So, in effect, we're left with one option, at least for now, i.e. a kind of dualism, namely what we know and what we believe.
What we know, i.e. our own mind, and what we believe, which usually includes the physical world.
That's the only realistic assessment of our situation. Other views are effectively at least partially metaphysical. Materialism is wholly metaphysical.
EB

[Logik]

Anyway yes, of course the world of experience and the world of physical are one and the same, this view is also supported by 100% of scientific knowledge, refuting materialism as well. The entirety of Western philosophy since the ancient Greeks seems to be refuted and we are left with a variant of nondualism (Eastern non-monistic nondualism) which is the simplest, default worldview.

I would disagree that we know that "the world of experience and the world of physical are one and the same".
So, in effect, we're left with one option, at least for now, i.e. a kind of dualism, namely what we know and what we believe.
What we know, i.e. our own mind, and what we believe, which usually includes the physical world.
That's the only realistic assessment of our situation. Other views are effectively at least partially metaphysical. Materialism is wholly metaphysical.
EB

Metaphysics is logic. https://philpapers.org/archive/ALVLIM-3.pdf

That's why I keep asking you for a truth-table.

Truth tables clear up any and all ambiguity.

Do you want to clear up the ambiguity in your argument? Doesn’t seem like it.

Till you provide a truth-table you are a sophist and an obscurantist.

[Atla]

Anyway yes, of course the world of experience and the world of physical are one and the same, this view is also supported by 100% of scientific knowledge, refuting materialism as well. The entirety of Western philosophy since the ancient Greeks seems to be refuted and we are left with a variant of nondualism (Eastern non-monistic nondualism) which is the simplest, default worldview.

I would disagree that we know that "the world of experience and the world of physical are one and the same".
So, in effect, we're left with one option, at least for now, i.e. a kind of dualism, namely what we know and what we believe.
What we know, i.e. our own mind, and what we believe, which usually includes the physical world.
That's the only realistic assessment of our situation. Other views are effectively at least partially metaphysical. Materialism is wholly metaphysical.
EB

The default view is that they are one the same. As far as we can tell, the additional and completely unsupported assumption of any kind of dualism is metaphysics on par with Flat Earth ideas. That's the realistic assessment of our situation, which is bad knews for people who like Descartes, possibly one of the most destructive humans in history.

You can even show in physics how the "contents of the mind" correlate with the "physical experiment carried out there", in other words the mind simply seems to be a part of the world like everything else.

"Cogito ergo sum" is misleading when we take the "I" too seriously, Eastern philosophy has already realized its illusory nature like 3000 years ago.

[Speakpigeon]

The default view is that they are one the same.

No, the default view was initially to ignore the mind altogether. Reality was the material world as mediated by perception. People only very gradually realised they were essentially a soul, hence religion, spiritualism and the like. Even now, children recapitulate this evolution, starting with a naive view, i.e. naive realism, which is to naively take your percept of the tree to be the tree. Then you learn to put some distance. Most people don't really go much further simply because of the demands of material life. What you call the "default view" is merely the official dogma of the materialist establishment. This is as good as make-believe. Dualism is intrinsic to any cognitive system: outside world v. internal representation of the outside world. The default mode is naive realism where you naively take the representation for what is represented. But dualism is the essential characteristic of the human mind as a cognitive system and rationality leads you inevitably to accept it as the most basic fact you know.

As far as we can tell, the additional and completely unsupported assumption of any kind of dualism is metaphysics on par with Flat Earth ideas. That's the realistic assessment of our situation, which is bad knews for people who like Descartes, possibly one of the most destructive humans in history.

It's not metaphysics. It's epistemology. We know our qualia but we can only believe there's a material world, although it is an instinctive and therefore unshakeable belief.
Descartes came very late. Plato and Catholicism had already started to rationalise dualism. Descartes only turned it into a potential personal inquiry for all of us. I think, therefore I am. Who can rationally object?

You can even show in physics how the "contents of the mind" correlate with the "physical experiment carried out there", in other words the mind simply seems to be a part of the world like everything else.

And we better believe that the actual physical world somehow correlates with our own mind. As a matter of fact, we can only perceive the material world, if at all, through our subjective experience. We don't even know what it is to be a physical thing. All we know it this subjective thing we call our mind. We take our subjective experience of our brain's representation of a tree to be the actual, physical tree. The physical world is a metaphysical construct. The only thing you know is your own mind.

"Cogito ergo sum" is misleading when we take the "I" too seriously, Eastern philosophy has already realized its illusory nature like 3000 years ago

Descartes very carefully explained what was the "I" of the Cogito: the thinking thing. So, you have to take that seriously. If you have the illusion of a ghost, then the illusory ghost doesn't exist but the illusion of ghost itself exists. That's also ancient wisdom. No big deal.
EB

[osgart]

I cant help thinking that to trace C to its roots of origin in A, we may find ourselves never able to get to the origin A because A , B, and C do not leave traceable knowings.

And from whence did A spring from. Instead of linear cause and effect, it could be a loop. Where C keeps A and B in business.

And what if A B and C are part of a spontaneous synergy.

And what if there are a great many A's B's and C's.

Perhaps C contains a property of A and B like i think you are saying, where the properties of each letter are partly inherited from the other.

Also there could be chain reactions, back and forth repetitious reactions. And any letter examined could also be uncaused at a time. An eternally uncaused happening til one day it emerges as a cause of something further.

[Arising_uk]

Metaphysics is logic. https://philpapers.org/archive/ALVLIM-3.pdf

That's why I keep asking you for a truth-table.

Truth tables clear up any and all ambiguity.

Do you want to clear up the ambiguity in your argument? Doesn’t seem like it.

Till you provide a truth-table you are a sophist and an obscurantist.

Well given the formal modal argument he's presented recently their won't be a truth table for it, it'll have to be something like a semantic tableaux proof to check if it's valid or invalid.
p.s.
Doesn't the paper you linked say Logic is Metaphysics not Metaphysics is Logic?

[Logik]

Doesn't the paper you linked say Logic is Metaphysics not Metaphysics is Logic?

I think we are tripping over explicit vs implicit meaning.

I am using "IS" explicitly. "X is Y" means "X = Y".
It seems you are interpreting "X is Y " implicitly to mean "X is a subset of Y".

Logic is isomorphic to Metaphysics. Linguistic relativity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

[Speakpigeon]

I cant help thinking that to trace C to its roots of origin in A, we may find ourselves never able to get to the origin A because A , B, and C do not leave traceable knowings.

And from whence did A spring from. Instead of linear cause and effect, it could be a loop. Where C keeps A and B in business.

And what if A B and C are part of a spontaneous synergy.

And what if there are a great many A's B's and C's.

Perhaps C contains a property of A and B like i think you are saying, where the properties of each letter are partly inherited from the other.

Also there could be chain reactions, back and forth repetitious reactions. And any letter examined could also be uncaused at a time. An eternally uncaused happening til one day it emerges as a cause of something further.

Sure, all this could be true, but that's not what the arguments are saying.
So, did you vote?
EB

[osgart]

I voted that they were both valid.

[Atla]

The default view is that they are one the same.

No, the default view was initially to ignore the mind altogether. Reality was the material world as mediated by perception. People only very gradually realised they were essentially a soul, hence religion, spiritualism and the like. Even now, children recapitulate this evolution, starting with a naive view, i.e. naive realism, which is to naively take your percept of the tree to be the tree. Then you learn to put some distance. Most people don't really go much further simply because of the demands of material life. What you call the "default view" is merely the official dogma of the materialist establishment. This is as good as make-believe. Dualism is intrinsic to any cognitive system: outside world v. internal representation of the outside world. The default mode is naive realism where you naively take the representation for what is represented. But dualism is the essential characteristic of the human mind as a cognitive system and rationality leads you inevitably to accept it as the most basic fact you know.

As far as we can tell, the additional and completely unsupported assumption of any kind of dualism is metaphysics on par with Flat Earth ideas. That's the realistic assessment of our situation, which is bad knews for people who like Descartes, possibly one of the most destructive humans in history.

It's not metaphysics. It's epistemology. We know our qualia but we can only believe there's a material world, although it is an instinctive and therefore unshakeable belief.
Descartes came very late. Plato and Catholicism had already started to rationalise dualism. Descartes only turned it into a potential personal inquiry for all of us. I think, therefore I am. Who can rationally object?

You can even show in physics how the "contents of the mind" correlate with the "physical experiment carried out there", in other words the mind simply seems to be a part of the world like everything else.

And we better believe that the actual physical world somehow correlates with our own mind. As a matter of fact, we can only perceive the material world, if at all, through our subjective experience. We don't even know what it is to be a physical thing. All we know it this subjective thing we call our mind. We take our subjective experience of our brain's representation of a tree to be the actual, physical tree. The physical world is a metaphysical construct. The only thing you know is your own mind.

"Cogito ergo sum" is misleading when we take the "I" too seriously, Eastern philosophy has already realized its illusory nature like 3000 years ago

Descartes very carefully explained what was the "I" of the Cogito: the thinking thing. So, you have to take that seriously. If you have the illusion of a ghost, then the illusory ghost doesn't exist but the illusion of ghost itself exists. That's also ancient wisdom. No big deal.
EB

I meant: the material and mental are one and the same. It's akin to a sort of cognitive optical illusion that we percieve the same world twice.

This position is outside Western philosophy alltogether and is at odds with materialism. For materialism we have to go crazy twice. First we need to divide the individsible reality into a made-up material and a made-up mental realm, and then we need to throw out the mental. It takes some time to start to see the double twist.

[surreptitious57]

The mental is simply a subset of the material rather than them being entirely separate realms as referenced by dualism
There is nothing dualistic about reality because it is one single entity where everything is connected to everything else
We only compartmentalise it in order to understand it better but we must not mistake the map for the actual territory

[surreptitious57]

Metaphysics is logic

You also said that all metaphysical claims are bullshit which makes these statements contradictory
Because if metaphysics is logic and metaphysical claims are bullshit that means logic is bullshit too
Since logic is the foundation of mathematics and mathematics is deductive then this cannot be true