RE: An intro to my non-materialist view
May 30, 2017 at 12:32 am
(This post was last modified: May 30, 2017 at 1:17 am by Bunburryist.)
(May 29, 2017 at 9:01 am)Hammy Wrote: @ the OP
Interesting... you're not only an Immaterialist (a fact of the (im)matter that I find rather immaterial, to be honest)... but also, according to the "religious views" section of your AF profile you're also not an atheist you're an athiest. So I take it you don't believe in the existence of thighs. Either that or you believe your legs are made of soul-stuff
Bad spelling is depressing.
I have certain keyboard habits, and one is that I always spell atheist athiest and have to go back and change it! I think it's probably because, to me, phonetically, athiest looks more like we pronounce it than atheist, which to me looks like it ought to be pronounced ay thay ist. "Atheist" never looks right to me.
(May 29, 2017 at 9:54 pm)Khemikal Wrote:(May 29, 2017 at 9:42 pm)Bunburryist Wrote: That's not neutral. It's right out of the materialist dictionary.?
Not at all (and representationalism predates materialism, by the by). A representation could be made out of anything, and regardless of what anything is made out of our consciousness is demonstrably a representation.
Yes, I think that a material explanation is the simplest and most parsimonious explanation -for- that representation.....but if it wasn't true, the representation would still exist and require an explanation. That representation, regardless of what it;s made out of, makes the question "Is this experience the material world" moot point. OFC it's not. It's a version of the world, material or otherwise™.
If you walk up to someone with a basic science background and ask them what "visual representations" in the brain represent, they will say something to the effect of "things it the world." To the average listener, it doesn't merely refer to This Experience, it says what it is and does, and implies a worldview. That's no neutral pointer. I don't think the neutral pointer concept is that complicated, nor is it in some way deceptive or vague. It does exactly what it's supposed to do - no more, no less. It refers, or "points to" to this experience we learn to call "the world," without implying a worldview. Sometimes if we want to understand new ideas and perspectives we can't be rigid and insist on using old concepts from different paradigms - we need to accept and use new concepts.
