John Jones

It should be clear that there can be no material objects that present themselves. The materal world cannot distinguish my television from the carpet it stands on. All the limits that define material objects come from the contingencies of use and need.
We can conclude that the so-called material world has no independant substantiality. The idea that the material world is independant and substantial is a confusion that arises from our forgetfulness of the ways in which we are taught that the material world is constructed, principally through science and mathematics. What is the material world? The material world is a mapping of useful processes, such as mathematics, to metaphysics, such as lines, planes, and objects, and a further mapping of these to experience.
The objects of materialism are not found in materialism, but are the names we put to abitrary mappings that we make between process, concept and experience. This argument by-passes idealism.
JJ

Iceblink Luck

You better act as if the material world is independent and substantial, however, otherwise you will probably die.

John Jones

'The material world' is a phrase we use, the meaning of which has been forgotten. 'The material world' is now no more than a vague invocation and affirmation of the darling theories of science.

Wiploc

Off to ~Elsewhere~

crc

John Jones

<wrong forum for moderation complaints - someotherguy>

Godless Wonder

Because the "atoms" that make up the "universe" bounced around in that particular way? For someone who doesn't think that the material world exists in a meaningful way to ask "why?" about anything seems a bit peculiar.

John Jones

<Please direct moderation compaints to the P&C forum - someotherguy>

Godless Wonder

Well, no, I can't tell you why (because I don't know.) I was just being a little silly with my previous post.

I suspect maybe it's because perhaps your philosophy doesn't appear to amount to much other than noting that we can't prove solipsism is false coupled with some word games that essentially equivocate the meaning of the word "exist." to try to assert that nothing really exists, while allowing that everything still has all the observable properties of existence. Maybe that's it? Just a guess.

Like I said though, I really don't know why it was moved, other than the empty "reason" that "that's the wayt the atoms bounced," which is always true.

Iceblink Luck

How do you know in which way I use the phrase "The material world?"

Koyaanisqatsi

And yet, it is equally clear that they do, in fact, "present" themselves. If they didn't, then you wouldn't be typing anything and I wouldn't be reading it.

Solipsism is untenable. One either accepts the evidence as sufficient to establish a reasonably reliable objectivity, or one does not and must therefore remain forever mute. After all, if only you exist, then it would be utterly pointless for you to ever make a sound or write a note to figments of your own imagination, yes?

The very fact that you are communicating and reading my post should be more than sufficient evidence for you to accept the concept of objective reality, so unless you can justify a requirement of "absolute" certainty, objective reality is established.

False. Pets alone disprove this. A dog or cat may not only avoid bumping into the television set and pee only on the rug, but some actually watch the programs on the TV and recognize the shapes (my ex girlfriend's dog, for example, would bark at any dogs that came onscreen, which proves that the image generated on the TV set was also discernable as a dog by her dog).

Well, which material objects are you referring to? Ones that we create specifically for a use or need? A tree, for example, exists independently of human perception and/or need and/or use.

Non-sequitur, as well as being disproved by your paradoxical use (by extension) of a material object (your computer) to type such a non-sequitur. The evidence to contradict your conclusion is the very sentence you just typed.

No, the idea that the material world is independent and substantial is learned through experience as a result of our sensory input devices (skin; nerves; eyes; etc). Just because we can reduce something abstractly, does not necessarily mean that our reduction reflects anything relevant.

We have a fallacy for just such a situation: reductio ad absurdum.

Yes, but you've got the cart before the horse. The map happens as a result of the experience, not vice versa. You are merely assuming homocentrism as valid. Why? Because you can? Because you don't have the ability to be "absolutely" certain, therefore, you will fallaciously discard 99.9% certainty for 0 certainty?

Unwarranted and more than adequately disproved every breath you take; every move you make.

While fun poetry, this comment is neither compelling nor salient, much less an "argument." Without an objectively occuring "event" or object, then there is no "process, concept and experience" to arbitrarily map, so your point is once again disproved (or at the very least, rendered moot) by your own foundations.

Again, you are fallaciously assuming homocentrism to be relevant, when in fact, it is little more than conceit. As I mentioned previously, you have two choices; you either accept the evidence around you as sufficient to establish an objective reality independent of your existence, or you deny it and pretend that only you exist.

If you choose the latter, then remain forever silent or face your insanity. If you choose the former, then hit "submit reply."