Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:47 pm 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.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:24 am 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.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:55 am 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.'

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:47 pm 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.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:04 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:47 pm 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

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:04 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:47 pm 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

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:45 pmThe default view is that they are one the same.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:45 pm 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.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:45 pm 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.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:45 pm "Cogito ergo sum" is misleading when we take the "I" too seriously, Eastern philosophy has already realized its illusory nature like 3000 years ago

Logik wrote: 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.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:01 am Doesn't the paper you linked say Logic is Metaphysics not Metaphysics is Logic?

osgart wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:31 am 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.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:46 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:45 pmThe 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.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:45 pm 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?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:45 pm 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.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:45 pm "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

Logic wrote:
Metaphysics is logic