Materialism, Idealism and realism: Which one is correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
Reality is singular and independent of the thinking mind.
Click to expand...
That is not true in idealism. What do you mean with singular?
o_mlly said:
A subjective idea that conforms to reality is true independent of whether that idea emanates from idealism or materialism.

An idea that does not conform to reality is false independent of whether that subjective idea emanates from idealism or materialism.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please elaborate?
 
Tomdstone said:
I don’t see why the emergent theory of mind must necessarily be considered epiphenomenal.
Click to expand...
Because it is claimed that in materialism that any motion in matter can be completely explained by laws of nature hence there is no room left for mind.
Tomdstone said:
Nor is it impossible.
Click to expand...
Any state of matter in materialism can be completely expressed by laws of nature. There is no emergent phenomena. In simple word you cannot have anything extra, emergent phenomena for example, than what laws of nature explain.
Tomdstone said:
In his 1991 book, Consciousness Explained, Daniel Dennett says that consciousness arises from interaction of physical and cognitive processes in the brain.
Click to expand...
He is wrong. Consciousness is an attribute of mind.
 
My estimation is that you are forever trying to show and prove how smart and clever you are while all the points you make are abstract. No one can prove the material, as matter is not fully understood, how or how is ultimately created, or that realism is not much more than a theory, another abstract that you can not prove. All three are abstracts that can not be proven, but are the study of…We could go back to the original Big Bang Theory and try to imagine where the “spark” came from and now some of the most eminent scientist admit they just don’t know or have all the answers. If you get to the point where you can understand and explain the universe and all therein I might bow down and call you G-D, but it isn’t likely.

I have read some your previous postings before-why do I get the feeling that you are trying to undermine the spiritual leanings and religious beliefs of all those who read your post? I don’t know the answers to everything that you question or present; I don’t need to. Peace.
 
Bahman said:
He is wrong. Consciousness is an attribute of mind.
Click to expand...
If you read his book you would see that his point is that the mind is an interaction of physical and cognitive processes in the brain.Where is your proof that he is wrong.
 
Bahman said:
Because it is claimed that in materialism that any motion in matter can be completely explained by laws of nature hence there is no room left for mind.
Click to expand...
This is not clear because animals have rudimentary mental processes. Do cats go to heaven?
 
Tomdstone,

Have you read Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos? It’s a short little read – and a bit dense – but a very good one I think. It’s been a while since I’ve read his book, but he’s a non-materialist naturalist of a more sophisticated stripe. He toys around with the notion of accepting some sort of immanent teleology. Not the caricatured versions which say “the purpose of my nose is to rest my glasses on,” but the more Aristotelian kind which simply says that certain potentials are directed towards certain actualities. The potential for an ice cube to melt on my counter is directed towards actually melting on my counter, rather than, say, turning into a life-sized portrait of Richard Simmons.

Likewise, in Nagel’s view it seems, there is something about matter that is more than res extensa corpusles floating around, or something totally reducible to mathematical terms. Rather, something in matter is teleological, which allows it to be directed towards things such as consciousness. I think Nagel’s phrase was something like that mental phenomena are “latent in the nature of things from the beginning.” Of course, he’s not an Aristotelian, but it’s interesting to see a naturalist take up teleology as a response to materialism. The book at least is an exciting read.

I don’t have anything substantial to add to the thread other than the book recommendation. I think I’ll take a look at Dennett’s book myself. I’ve never actually understood the position.
 
Mary_Estelle said:
My estimation is that you are forever trying to show and prove how smart and clever you are while all the points you make are abstract. No one can prove the material, as matter is not fully understood, how or how is ultimately created, or that realism is not much more than a theory, another abstract that you can not prove. All three are abstracts that can not be proven, but are the study of…
Click to expand...
As it was mentioned, a theory is acceptable if it is anomaly free. It was shown that Materialism and Idealism are not anomaly free hence they could not describe reality.
Mary_Estelle said:
We could go back to the original Big Bang Theory and try to imagine where the “spark” came from and now some of the most eminent scientist admit they just don’t know or have all the answers. If you get to the point where you can understand and explain the universe and all therein I might bow down and call you G-D, but it isn’t likely.
Click to expand...
You don’t need to be God in order to find an error in a theory. You also don’t need to be God to understand reality because understanding everything is only a matter of time unless we are being who are not cognitively open to understand reality. That cannot be true because I don’t think a God who is Love leave us permanently in state of ignorance.

By the way, why Jesus didn’t describe the reality in His teaching?
Mary_Estelle said:
I have read some your previous postings before-why do I get the feeling that you are trying to undermine the spiritual leanings and religious beliefs of all those who read your post? I don’t know the answers to everything that you question or present; I don’t need to. Peace.
Click to expand...
No offense, but do you prefer to stay in state of ignorance?
 
Tomdstone said:
This is not true at all. You can have emergent phenomena at oxide interfaces.
qpec.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/img/Nature%20Mater%20Review%202012.pdf
Click to expand...
You didn’t understand me well. Matter behaves differently depending on its structure and stimuli. Matter responses blindly to any stimuli because it simply follows the laws of nature. This means that consciousness cannot be a state of matter because it allows experience.

Moreover, consciousness is an attribute of mind because it allows us to experience so we can decide in a given situation and act properly. This means that Mind simply doesn’t follow the laws of nature.
 
Tomdstone said:
If you read his book you would see that his point is that the mind is an interaction of physical and cognitive processes in the brain.Where is your proof that he is wrong.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that you have free will? How you could be free agent if your mind emerges from matter knowing the fact that matter behaves based on laws of nature?
 
Bahman said:
How you could be free agent if your mind emerges from matter knowing the fact that matter behaves based on laws of nature?
Click to expand...
Because the laws of nature are really not absolute laws, but are mathematical models used to describe what happens in nature. Some models are deterministic, such as Newton’s laws of motion. Other models are probabilistic and allow for uncertainty, such as quantum physics. The mathematical models describing nature have their limitations and even though some mathematical models may be deterministic, it does not mean that nature will always and everywhere act in such a deterministic fashion.
Just because there are no mathematical or physical models adequately describing conscious processes does not mean that consciousness does not arise from an interaction of physical and cognitive processes in the brain.
 
Tomdstone said:
Because the laws of nature are really not absolute laws, but are mathematical models used to describe what happens in nature. Some models are deterministic, such as Newton’s laws of motion. Other models are probabilistic and allow for uncertainty, such as quantum physics. The mathematical models describing nature have their limitations and even though some mathematical models may be deterministic, it does not mean that nature will always and everywhere act in such a deterministic fashion.
Click to expand...
Suppose you find the absolute laws of nature. How you could have free will when your decision is subjected to a set of laws?
Tomdstone said:
Just because there are no mathematical or physical models adequately describing conscious processes does not mean that consciousness does not arise from an interaction of physical and cognitive processes in the brain.
Click to expand...
What you have inside a brain is solely neurons and electromagnetic field. This means that any machines which work based on electromagnetic field is conscious if we accept the fact that consciousness arises from electromagnetic field.
 
Tomdstone said:
Because they may not be deterministic.
Click to expand...
The only option that we have is probabilistic law/quantum mechanic unless you have another option. Do you mean that free will can also emerge from quantum firing of neurons?
 
Materialism pre-supposes you understand the metaphysics of life. The meaning of divine metaphysics is the integrally known mathematical means of salvation. Ontology of God is divinely approved proof that God exist.

Idealism: a sure fact of knowing that divine truth exist.

Realism: assuring that the church exist
 
kdbueno said:
Materialism pre-supposes you understand the metaphysics of life. The meaning of divine metaphysics is the integrally known mathematical means of salvation. Ontology of God is divinely approved proof that God exist.

Idealism: a sure fact of knowing that divine truth exist.

Realism: assuring that the church exist
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top