I accept the evidence of my senses that pain is real. Does anyone really have to demonstrate or provide you with evidence that you experience pain?

How do you determine the difference between phantom pain and physical pain? It's an important distinction, as the difference drastically changes what should be done moving forward from that point. You go ahead and trust your senses if you like, but they're dirty bastards, and not to be relied upon without some sort of verification. You know, evidence.

@ChadWooters:

Actually, my questions were for Marx, but I agree with you in spirit that short of having accepted realism as an assumption, idealism remains a live option (though I generally refer to it as anti-realism, largely on account of the prejudice against both solipsism and Idealism). I have yet to encounter any proof which is able to satisfactorily distinguish between Idealism and realism (for me). However, I don't think that is Marx's starting position, for if it were, the question of determinism would not arise in the way it has.

The questions I ask are ones I ask in the context of realism, and, in which context your claim that pain is "real" requires qualification in what sense you mean real, for it on most accounts is not a material thing, simpliciter. If you are unwilling to either grant, or even simply entertain arguendo the proposition of realism, then our discussion lies elsewhere.

(March 9, 2012 at 11:08 pm)apophenia Wrote: ...your claim that pain is "real" requires qualification in what sense you mean real, for it on most accounts is not a material thing, simpliciter.

Agreed. Pain is not a material thing. Although objective observation of a brain's physical state may indicate its presence that does not prove that the physical state is itself the pain.

(March 9, 2012 at 11:08 pm)apophenia Wrote: If you are unwilling to either grant, or even simply entertain arguendo the proposition of realism, then our discussion lies elsewhere.

This also goes to your other quote above. I get the sense that you use the terms realism and anti-realism in the same way I use materialism and idealism. This could cause a lot of confusion between us. My basic position is that physical reality, i.e. that part of reality governed by physics, is not the whole of the universe. The universe also includes the pre-conditions on which physics depends and the subjective experience of the physical universe.

I have no problem with that as a belief. I would however have a problem if you asserted it as knowledge. My take on the whole affair is, our minds exist in a small bowl of jello-like flesh inside our skulls. It has no direct apprehension of the real, all information it receives about the real is indirect, and the ways it represents the real in thought bear no resemblance to the reality they are meant to resemble. From that point of view, it would seem well nigh impossible for a human mind to have true knowledge of reality, nor any direct way to demonstrate the truth of its beliefs even if it did. The mind, for better or worse, is built to do certain things, and it does them remarkably well; reality, absent or present, has little to do with the probabilistic trajectories of our squishy little minds.

(March 9, 2012 at 11:50 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 9, 2012 at 11:08 pm)apophenia Wrote: ...your claim that pain is "real" requires qualification in what sense you mean real, for it on most accounts is not a material thing, simpliciter.

Agreed. Pain is not a material thing. Although objective observation of a brain's physical state may indicate its presence that does not prove that the physical state is itself the pain.

Pain is just information processed by the brain. As anyone who has ever dealt with an information system knows it can go horribly wrong.

Similarly, we can watch the nerves go haywire, and send a very "material" signal along their very "material" lines to your very "material" brain, which you might then express with your very "material" mouth to a doctor who will give you very "material" pain relievers. Pain isn't a ghostly signal sent and received by ghostly apparatus Chad.

You're assuming that there is more to this than what we see, and then declaring that by simple power of your assumption the well evidenced view cannot be proven. I remain unconvinced. You keep referring to experiences, such as the experience of color, and being unable to prove this or that, then explain to me, precisely how do we test for colorblindness? How do we know when and how much to sedate patients that are completely under during major surgery? We just might be able to explain and account for more than you give us credit for Chad. Your philosophies of this or that are powerless in the face of what is applied across many fields all day every day, with results that can be demonstrated, firmly material mechanisms that are better understood with every passing year. Maybe what you mean to say is that your philosophy cannot account for this or that (though I'm fairly certain you have your own favorite explanations, which is precisely why you attempt to insert mystery, to allow for them, so why say we cannot account for them, when you probably already have). Well, no worries, others who leverage more demanding tools have handled that for you.

Metaphysics did not discover the polio vaccine or give us semi-conductors. But it does provide a narrative that allows me to contemplate the universe, my place in it and my relationship to other human beings. Symbols and values a vital part of being alive in the truest sense of the word and they have to be lived in order to become real. But if that’s all baloney to you, then so be it. I have repeatedly stated that I am not here to convert or convince anyone. That said, I feel compelled to briefly summarize my philosophical understanding of the universe for anyone that may be interested. So….

The Totality is all that is, was, and ever will be. The Totality is complete since by definition it cannot lack anything. It already contains everything that could possibly be. As such, only the Totality could be the “Supreme Being”. This does not mean that the Supreme Being, the Totality, is the same thing as physical reality. The Totality is also called the One or the Good.

The Totality has at least three essential aspects: form, substance, and potential. The Totality as to its substance is Primal Matter. The Totality as to its form is Ideal Form. The Totality as to its potential is called Emanation. None of these divisions within the Totality has priority over any other nor can any one aspect be contingent upon the other. They exist as a perfect unity.

Primal Matter is universally present in all things and has one essential attribute, being-itself. Primal Matter has no limitations on the forms it may assume. The infinitely divisible first substance, out of which everything is made, is Primal Matter.
An abstraction is a representation of a particular thing or class of objects. The human process of abstraction results in a visual or auditory prompt that calls to mind the object represented. For example, an artist may extract the proportions and three-dimensional shape of a person and carve it into stone. The sculpture serves as a symbol that refers to the person by showing select aspects or attributes of the person.

The exact opposite of an abstraction is a form. A form is the metaphysical reality from which particular physical examples are abstracted. Physical reality crudely presents a fractured version of metaphysical reality. Even metaphysical forms, being capable only of manifesting particulars, incompletely express the perfect wholeness of the One. Metaphysical forms are not vague abstractions extracted from many examples. Instead the various particular embodiments are each cruder versions of a fuller and more comprehensive Ideal Form.
Just as abstractions manifest themselves in physical substance, so also metaphysical entities manifest themselves in substances that transcend the physical. (Every form has a substance.) Abstract ideas like truth, freedom, and justice remain vague and hazy to the physical mind until fleshed out using examples. The examples are abstractions that have been abstracted from the metaphysical reality. The physical brain cannot contain the fullness of these metaphysical realities, just like the paint splotches of a portrait cannot hold the character and detail of the complete person.

Particular entities come into being when substance actualizes form. Nothing can be only substance, though you can imagine an amorphous mass having particular properties. Nothing can be only form, though you can imagine disembodied shapes and relationships. Creation simply means causing something to exist. Within the Totality entities have their identity within a larger context. As such you experience each entity as a unit, a one, even though physically no definitive demarcation separates any one thing from another. Only consciousness by means of thought allows us to single out a specific portion of physical reality and call that portion one thing, a whole unit. Parts come into being and persist for as long as they partake of the Totality's inherent unity, or oneness as perceived by a consciousness entity. Parts are contingent upon the One. Each person is one consciousness. The One is the fullest expression of consciousness that extends completely throughout reality and is fundamental to it. Each personal existent would dissolve into nothing if its oneness was not maintained through unity with the One.

So there it is…all the magic…all the “woo”…all things you do not see in the world. As for me, I see it all around me, I feel its presence, and I try to bring more of into my life.

The problem is that you cannot demonstrate what you see. "I wish for this to be so, ergo it must be". Your post could have been shorter, could it not?

ChadWooters Wrote:Physical reality crudely presents a fractured version of metaphysical reality

What exactly do you mean by metaphysical reality?