free will: yep, another thread about 'that'...

[Walker]

In case you do not it is at your CLAIM that "Only the physical exists", and that this CLAIM is OBVIOUSLY False considering what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS.

In case you do not it is at your CLAIM that "Only the physical exists", and that this CLAIM is OBVIOUSLY True considering what thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS.

- “Non-material,” is nothing more than an arbitrary classification of what doesn’t fit the pre-conceived models of “material.”
- At its best, the term non-material is a reference to what does not exist. However, thoughts exist. Therefore, thoughts are material.
- However, although material, thoughts are of a physicality that requires a complex instrument to detect.
- The brain is the instrument.

[promethean75]

Yeah any specific philosophical vernacular involved in talk about the 'existence of the immaterial' is possible because distortions and violations of grammar and logic have persisted for so long, that a thinker takes up the habit almost unwittingly... simply because such talk has become part of the furniture.

What you have is a complicated linguistic entanglement of grammatical functions and rules which pass undetected by people who force such concepts as 'being' and 'existence' into nonsensical propositions and their meanings. You see this immediately in the statement 'the immaterial exists', which violates every notion we ordinarily have of what constitutes the nature of an existing thing, e.g., that it is extended in space, has mass, and persists or changes through a duration of time, etc.

Another point that makes this confusion imperceptible is the existence of other concepts which, while not being physical things, nonetheless exist and have being. Things like 'process', 'dynamic', 'relation', 'state', and so on. The thinker accidentally extends the notion of these descriptions being 'of' physical things and their characteristics, into an ontological category of their own. The result; because these items, which are not 'things', can exist, it follows that some 'immaterial' things are real and exist... in which case one can speak haphazardly about immaterial things existing... and even include some rather vague and ambiguous concepts of the 'soul' into this kind of reasoning without producing senselessness and confusion.

Further promoting this contorted use of language is actually the fear, dread and anxiety one feels at the thought of no soul existing. One WANTS it to exist, and so takes language hostage and forces it to do such work. Why this is possible is because the sense of certainty is dubious by nature, which permits this kind of suspended but experienced-as-such, sensibility of concepts. It shorter words, one is so baffled and disappointed by the thought that only the material exists, one accepts without reservation the apparent sense of the distorted language they are using, and is only certain that they prefer it (not certain that it makes any sense) It's a complex confirmation bias and process of rationalization.

Here's some excellent analysis of the problem and how it evolved in philosophy: https://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Rest_ ... c%20Genius

As partner essay supporting the above as a basic criticism of metaphysics in general: https://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_a ... nsical.htm

[promethean75]

Blast! Forget that first essay above... that's not the one I was looking for... and now I can't find it. I mean it's good but not the one I meant to post.

[henry quirk]

One WANTS it to exist

for a very long time: I didn't

even now: I don't want it to exist

it just does: I recognized that (late [cuz I'm kinda slow])

so: there's still hope for ya, guy

[promethean75]

Oh absolutely, that's why I am a practioner of the NW (Nietzsche's Wager).

If I'm right and the eternal recurrence is true, awesome sauce!

If I'm wrong, and it's false, it duddint matter.

But soul migration and gods and heavens and hells and shit, that's just incredibly dumb nonsense that people who are already half-dead irrelevants, believe. If you can honestly look at this world and not be immediately repulsed even by the thought of a 'god', you should be taken out back and summarily shot.

Belief in 'god' is not just childish bologna, but downright appalling and offensive. Step out of your bubble and look at the world.

[promethean75]

And forget about natural disasters and famine and wars and all that shit. I'm talking about stuff like Beyonce. What kind of 'god' would create a universe in which a Beyonce is even possible?

You need to do some serious soul searchin', Henry.

[RCSaunders]

(I)f all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom. There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

The fundamental mistake here is the false assumption that life, consciousness, and volition are things, like substances or entities. They are not things, they are attributes (properties or qualities), which do not exist at all separate from those entities they are the attributes of.

It is this mistake that has befuddled all of philosophy. It is obvious there is life, consciousness, and human volition and equally obvious they are not physical things, leading to the false assumption, there must be other things which are not physical. [Since the physical is usually considered all that exists, "naturally," the other, "existents," are falsley assumed be, "supernatural."]

Material existence is all that exists and has the nature it has, independent of anyone's consciousness or knowledge of that existence. The physical attributes of material existence are all the attributes of existence which can be discovered by being directly perceived or deduced from that perceived evidence, i.e. the physical sciences. The mistaken assumption of philosophy is that the physical attributes of material existence are all the attributes material existence can have. The physical attributes are all the attributes that can be directly percieved, but there is neither evidence or any reason to assume those are the only attributes possible to material existence.

In fact, it is ludicrous to deny the evidence of life, consciousness, and volition just because they cannot be directly perceived. They are undeniable facts. But it must be understood, they are not things, not substances, not some kind of independent existents. They are only attributes of some physical entities, attributes that cannot be explained in terms of the physical attributes, but additional, perfectly natural attributes, in addition to the physical attributes.

[RCSaunders]

Here's some excellent analysis of the problem and how it evolved in philosophy: https://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Rest_ ... c%20Genius

Wonderful example of typical philosophical self-induced insanity constructed on the false premise, that, "being," is an independent attribute. The concept, "being," identifies the class of things with attributes (qualities, properties, characteristics). To have the attribute, "being," means to have some identifying attributes. A thing cannot have, "being," before it has other attributes--it is the fact something has attributes that the concepts, "is," "exist," and, "being," refer to. [Nothing can exist without attributes.]

[RCSaunders]

Blast! Forget that first essay above... that's not the one I was looking for... and now I can't find it. I mean it's good but not the one I meant to post.

Good! Glad you see it's nonsense, as I just posted.

[henry quirk]

soul migration and gods and heavens and hells

don't know what soul migration is; didn't say jack about heaven or hell, neither figures into my deism

If you can honestly look at this world and not be immediately repulsed even by the thought of a 'god'

that there is a complaint you can lay at the theist's feet, not mine

you should be taken out back and summarily shot.

I shoot back

Belief in 'god' is not just childish bologna, but downright appalling and offensive.

to you, bubba

Step out of your bubble and look at the world.

you first

[henry quirk]

You need to do some serious soul searchin', Henry.

I do that regularly...I can cuz I got one to search

[henry quirk]

I disagree

[promethean75]

"Glad you see it's nonsense, as I just posted."

Holy crap RC, you're actually agreeing with the essay (which targets the hermetic/hegelian tradition), and you don't even know it?

Everything you explain in your post there is precisely covered in the essay, only far better than you did.

Like how did you miss that?

[promethean75]

Oh shit I see what happened. I had the page scrolled when I copied the link, so it put you at the wrong spot. But it's the wrong essay. So it's the wrong spot in the wrong essay. Jesus did I botch that one.

[RCSaunders]

"Glad you see it's nonsense, as I just posted."

Holy crap RC, you're actually agreeing with the essay (which targets the hermetic/hegelian tradition), and you don't even know it?

Everything you explain in your post there is precisely covered in the essay, only far better than you did.

Like how did you miss that?

I was commenting on Rees, not the author, Rosa Lichtenstein, whose erudition is impressive. Her analysis of continental philosophy is quite right (even including Hume). Her mistake is a totally different one, the belief that meaning, purpose, or value resides in or derives from society or collectives and that economics is an aspect of philosophy. I'm not criticising that, however.