Materialism; A flawed philosophy

[bola]

Well, I have another viewpoint on the issue as well.
People say it can be all subjective, but what rules guide this subjective, mental world?
Wouldn't we need a complete set, aka a whole universe in itself to do that?

I leave you with this little 'essay' I wrote on the subject one sunny day.

A fellow asked me today.. 'how do we know the universe exists? What if it's purely a mental illusion?'.
I pondered it for awhile and came up with an answer.

The universe is made up of sub-atomic particles, and we are too. Our mind is chemistry and biology all rolled into one.

So I said to him, 'what's the difference between a physical universe, and a mental one? is there even a difference?'.
He uttered a most expected 'umm..'.

Because, can we really determine WHAT something is? It seems to me we only have the power to say if something 'exists' or doesn't exist.
Our psyche comes from our brain. This is proven.
So we have to take this into account. When we ask ourselved 'does the physical universe exist?', what are we actually asking?

We're basically asking ourselves 'what exists, and what doesn't?'

If we assume the universe is all 'mental', where is all this information stored? Inside out riny brains with chemistry and biology? Can our puny brain matter really hold that much information?
Or is there some larger, metaphysical universe, a shared consciousness if you will, where all these minds live, making up their own world, interacting.

The problem is, regardless of WHAT the universe is, it still needs to exist as SOMETHING.
Whether a particle we can observe in the labratory is 'something's is certainly feasible to say.
When people say the universe is a mental construct I do not understand them, because the separation between a physical and mental universe is zero.

EDIT:
oh yeah and id like to add:
I can't prove it as in observe it and make a theory, but I can make a logical set of hypothesis and then logically assign them theoretical proof.

If we assume that the brain cannot distinguish between a physical world and a mental world, but that there exists a world that is seemingly outside of our brains, then my point was the only logical conclusion is that there's no difference between the two worlds, since we can't distinguish between them anyway.

The illusion is too perfect.
Isn't that proof on its own?

 

[RAD4921]

Down time

Bola Sorry it took a while to get back to ya, I was out of town for 3 days. By the way is yout first name "e".

Your essay is interesting
Robert

 

[olde drunk]

Rad - cheer up!

Rad, a lot of what you say or that Capra says has merit.

the problem with this forum is that it is a hard core experiment, measure and prove enviornment.

the realm of philosophy is mental and beyond objective proof. while an experienced dream is very real and the emotions real, it does not lend itself to physical measurement. it is a very valid experience. even the hard core guys dream, occasionally (lol).

there will always be the debate about the dream being a chemical reaction in the brain, etc. again, even that argument is subjective.

once we get into the subjective, IMHO, we are entering the QT arena. i doubt that it will see proof in a lab, because it is a mathematical method of understanding reality and/or the universe.

this physical world is real, it just ain't the universe. in time with more QT work we will see that the word universe is lacking.

again, all of this is subjective. yes, i have a physical computer that my physical self is using, BUT is it really what it appears to be when viewed from another dimension. it may simply appear as a small energy configuration for my use.

keep thinking and keep trying, the ancients knew how to visit other dimensions besides dreaming, we will get there. i hope in my life time.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[RAD4921]

Thanks for the pat on the back

Rad, a lot of what you say or that Capra says has merit.

the problem with this forum is that it is a hard core experiment, measure and prove enviornment.

the realm of philosophy is mental and beyond objective proof. while an experienced dream is very real and the emotions real, it does not lend itself to physical measurement. it is a very valid experience. even the hard core guys dream, occasionally (lol).

there will always be the debate about the dream being a chemical reaction in the brain, etc. again, even that argument is subjective.

once we get into the subjective, IMHO, we are entering the QT arena. i doubt that it will see proof in a lab, because it is a mathematical method of understanding reality and/or the universe.

this physical world is real, it just ain't the universe. in time with more QT work we will see that the word universe is lacking.

again, all of this is subjective. yes, i have a physical computer that my physical self is using, BUT is it really what it appears to be when viewed from another dimension. it may simply appear as a small energy configuration for my use.

keep thinking and keep trying, the ancients knew how to visit other dimensions besides dreaming, we will get there. i hope in my life time.

love&peace,
olde drunk

Olde Drunk; Thanks for the pat on the back but I am not down and out about this thread. At best Lose your name neutrualized my argument and he did so with logic, something I cannot argue. I still highly value Capra's book, "The tao of Physics" and his ideas. His book is endorsed on the back by physicist Victor Mansfield (who I have had the pleasure of corresponding with and read 2 of his books), and the "Tao of Physics" is also endorsed by the famous mythologist Joseph Campbell. I realize most of what I am hearing here is opinions some of which are projected by people with serious blind spots. Thanks all the same. Robert

 

[CharlesP]

Getting back to reductionism, we physicists wanted to be able to calculate everything but found that on many levels things happen that could not be anticipated. These things are now called "emergent phenomenon" and they are often strongly history (read accident) dependent.

I label a scenario objective if it is measurable and reproducible. In this sense quantum mechanics is objective, but causality has suffered.
The experiment I have in mind is the dual slit diffraction setup with a very weak laser and a screen consisting of large numbers of photomultiplier tubes. Photons proceed one at a time and land on the screen in a chaotic pattern. After large numbers of photons have passed the diffraction pattern is apparent. However individual photon count locations are considered to be uncaused.

Even this causal problem is not a challenge to materialism.