Tom Jump takes on Kastrup in the absence of Kastrup.

[Dana Lomas]

Some may find this amusing and/or painfully frustrating ... Tom Jump takes on Kastrup in the absence of Kastrup ... Kind of like taking on a champion's practice partner ;)

[Ben Iscatus]

Yes, it needed the "ad hoc addition" of BK.

[Dana Lomas]

One can only guess that since TJ's  earlier discussion with Bernardo didn't come off quite as well as expected, in terms of refuting BK's position, he thought he'd have a better chance if BK himself weren't there :))

[Rigpa]

Dana, did you actually watch the entire thing? It's so hard for me to watch Jump's videos - ugh! haha

[Dana Lomas]

Rigpa ... No, I gave up at the point when TJ completely fails to see that the analogy of building a conscious wall out of non-conscious bricks magically creates an entirely different ontological category, and then proclaims it's only a matter of time before neuroscience explains how this happens. With those kind of blindspots still firmly in place, one might as well be talking to a wall  ;)

[Mark Tetzner]

this was unbearable, i watched almost all of it.
is the young man who did the interview in this group?

[Sci Patel]

"You cannot awaken the man who only pretends to be asleep."

   -Indian proverb

"The man who wants to beat a dog always finds his stick."

 -Serbian proverb

[Ben Iscatus]

this was unbearable, i watched almost all of it.
is the young man who did the interview in this group?

Do you think it's possible he was a plant?

[Dana Lomas]

Mark ... This wasn't an interview, as much as it was an informal debate, so I'm not clear about who you mean by the one doing the interview -- presumably not the guy with the backwards baseball cap, since he might as well have not been there at all. Anyway, while I'm not aware that any of them participate in this forum, there have been some recent posts by someone going by the name Kyle, so who knows.

[Mark Tetzner]

what do you mean by plant, like planted as a spy...that kind of plant? Actually I was referring to Kyle :)

[Mark Tetzner]

Thanks Dana. No I meant the guy top right, Kyle, the one you pointed out.
He was clearly overwhelmed by his opponent, who conducted himself in a partly very rude way.
Leave alone the fact that most people in this forum would not have allowed him to get away with
his.... blindspots, as you called them.
If you want to prove idealism you gotta make an experiment. Which materialists dont need,
since they have no idea how consciousness works but the evidence points in that direction
anyway. Ahh....ok. It was a really unproductive and partly stupid debate to watch, just the debate-format made it
enjoyable at times. It is weird this guy stooped so low after apparently having had a debate with Bernardo
not so long before this video was uploaded.
oh, did I forget "I dont care what he says, hes not a scientist".

[Mark Tetzner]

will BK talk to tjump again after this??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_N8i-TlwNw

[Rigpa]

Tjump is a joke.

[Mark Tetzner]

this however is absolutely amazing though I have no idea if it stays like this all the way through.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOahRrKY8SA
best entertainment ever (insert: emoji with tears streaming out of eyes)

[AGI123]

To be fair, TJump isn't a real scientist nor a philosopher; just a militant atheist, who debates mostly 'God' - not an interesting topic to be fair. I'm in the camp: 'science will solve everything at one point' but it's a neutral position; I hate religious fundamentalist and 'atheist' fundamentalist just as much; it's a disservice for science, which is mostly neutral.

We don't have every answer yet - there's even a debate if the multiverse, many-world theory, string (including supersymmetry) theories are real - would be a waste of 40 years of science if they are in-fact wrong: https://iai.tv/home/speakers/sabine-hossenfelder - these theories are far more interesting than proving  a negative.(there is (no/a) god)

And as much as I hate it to agree: we have no idea what 'consciousness' is or why we even have a subjective experience - just correlations.

[Rigpa]

AGI,

You actually think that having every possible outcome that could happen, happen (many worlds) is more plausible than Idealism?

[AGI123]

@Rigpa

nope that's why I said those assumptions ' multiverse, many-world theory, string (including supersymmetry) theories ' are probably in fact wrong, I'm supporting Hossenfelder's position here. I'm take the scientism/naturalism metaphysics for now.

[Mark Tetzner]

they talk way to fast for me, if there is ever someone writing an article on this and possibly debunking tom, that would be awesome.
tall order though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk4d35PoVPo

[Ilyass]

AGI123,
Sabine don't say we can know EVERYTHING using science

[AGI123]

@Ilyass

she's saying: string theory is rubbish, which I agree with.

[Mark Tetzner]

After re-reading this
https://iai.tv/articles/every-generation-scorns-the-picture-of-reality-which-came-before-auid-1349

and this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVWP8h-KMEI

I came to an interesting part where Tom was talking about consciousness being an emergent property of matter.
It was interesting to me how BK killed that statement by saying that (in my own words) this does not solve
the problem, because by definition (!) matter has nothing to do with consciousness. So I guess its a way
for materialists to make themselves believe that they did not admit to a new ontology, even though they did just that.

I have some weird thought in my mind and a question.

I can already tell there is probably a fallacy in there, but here it goes:

What if materialism was the nonsense that it obviously is...

But what if its true under a new definition: We tag on properties. And that is the new materialism.

The main observations of idealism would still be correct, except that nothing is in "mind".
If anything the apple tree is in space-time.

And like so we would have created the new and true materialism and idealism would be wrong as well.

Is that possible?

[Mark Tetzner]

I just caught the fallacy, it still would not explain how properties emerge from quantitative states
regardless of where you think the properties are. all good gang.

[AGI123]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC7Fe0Ec-R0& is another materialist (just like TJump) who tries to get into this topic.

Enjoy.

I didn't want to create a new post about it, as those two are quite similar.

~

Kuhn opens with a straw man, stating that "Materialism is the belief that only physical things exist." This is wrong, as materialism is not necessarily a belief; it can be an assumption or a null hypothesis; and the statement "only physical things exist" is transparently circular to make materialism seem incoherent. Of course only physical things exist, as we generally define "exist" as the state of being physical. Materialism need only assume that phenomena can be explained in terms of natural processes involving matter and energy... until some other kind of process could be demonstrated. A subset of materialism, methodological naturalism, describes the application -- the methodology -- of materialism, which we generally call science or the scientific method. Like all apologetics, the video series Closer to Truth is profoundly disingenuous, as it continues to try to work backwards from its woo-woo presuppositions, instead of following an honest line of inquiry. The shame is that Dr. Disingenuous has had the opportunity to speak with many of the great thinkers alive, and yet comes away impervious to any actual learning.

~

[Mark Tetzner]

If you are referencing the Kuhn from the BK-article, he was talking about this one:
https://www.amazon.com/-/de/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083/ref=sr_1_4?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&dchild=1&keywords=thomas+kuhn&qid=1589141249&sr=8-4

Cheers.

P.S. can you explain how a world that in essence isnt there produces a human being with consciousness or anything at all?

[AGI123]

@Mark1

he (the guy in the vid I linked) referenced this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWv-YtElLxk

[Sci Patel]

Mathematics doesn't exist? Are the logical universals physical? Are the Laws of Physics themselves physical?

AG maybe you can directly respond to articles/posts containing arguments you've been provided with, instead of running around in a panic desperate to find things that support your materialist faith?

[AGI123]

| Mathematics doesn't exist? Are the logical universals physical?

@Sci Patel

They do exist but are in fact physical - just listen to his video.

Mathematics is the computation of quantities.

Most of you guys like Kuhn, and closer to truth, so getting faced with a different view (materialism) should be interesting. There are some good comments in his (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC7Fe0Ec-R0&) comment section.

[Mark Tetzner]

we are not a secret society that has no idea what materialism is, we all started as materialists, as most do.

[AGI123]

| we are not a secret society that has no idea what materialism is, we all started as materialists, as most do.

@Mark1

well the video is not about 'what materialism is', but more like: 'why consciousness is material and Kuhn is most likely wrong'.

[Sci Patel]

Math is physical? The laws of physics are physical? Explain it to me, don't just tell me to watch some video. Give the exact time stamp the answer is given at the least.

The idea that Kuhn needs to be forced to see materialist arguments is just laughable given his background and starting point.

But it is telling that you and materialist fanatics find his balanced (if anything atheist/materialist leaning) show to be biased against you....quite amusing too....

[AGI123]

@Sci Patel

Mathematics is the computation of quantities. So they are physical. It's not in the video - every person with a slight degree in math could tell you exactly this (>>Mathematics is the computation of quantities.)

A close friend of mine is a mathematican and this exact quotation are his words.

The linked video is about 'consciousness=neuronal activity'.

It doesn't matter if he thinks that conscousness is not a material process - use drugs, remove and/or delete your memory go under anesthesia and your 'consciousness' will cease to exist. He should as a scientist know that brain=consciousness.

[Sci Patel]

What of mathematics that originally had no relation to physical qualities, and only later was found to have a usefulness? And the truth of mathematics has to be Grounded in something that isn't physical - namely the truth of Logic. From Why I am not a Physicalist:Four Reasons for Rejecting the Faith

"....If one accepts, as even Papineau suggests, that there exists what the logician Frege called “the third realm”[16] (beyond physicality and mentality) of objective truths—such as the truth of modus ponens, the properties of Pi, the Pythagorean theorem, or the Form of Beauty—truths that exist whether or not they are discovered, meaning that they are in essence neither mental nor physical (as there can be no neural correlates of non-existent mental events), then it implies that their existence has an effect upon the physical through their discovery. For example, the discovery of the golden ratio had an effect upon the bodies of its discoverers in terms of their expression of it, and subsequently upon mathematics, aesthetics, architecture, and upon me in writing this essay. Thus the existence of such universal truths implies the falsity of one of physicalism’s key tenets: the causal closure of the physical. Universals crack open the causal closure principle of physicalism, which is to say they crack open physicalism itself.

Of course, a physicalist could deny the existence of such universals, such objective truths. But in doing so, he would destroy the underlying assumptions of his position and thus succumb to inconsistency regardless. If physicalism considers itself to be a logical position, it must maintain the underlying truths of the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, formal fallacies, and so on. But these laws are not the laws of physics, which as such can be established through empirical observation or through modelling. Thus emerges another predicament for physicalism: the dilemma of logical objectivity. On the one side, if the laws of logic are to be considered objective—that is, they are true for all—then they must exist in a non-temporal, non-physical third realm that has causal influence upon the physical, thereby annulling the causal closure principle and, in turn, physicalism. On the other side, if the laws of logic are considered to be not objective, then physicalism cannot claim to be objectively logical. Either way, physicalism falters."

Your materialist fanaticism has made you confused science with materialism, but at least you've dropped your pretense that you are just a curious person rather than a fanatic trying to convert us away from Idealism (amusing since I'm not explicitly one).

If anything a study of philosophy and neuroscience, as Raymond Tallis has done, makes you realize physicalism/materialism is a delusion:

What Neuroscience Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves: Debunking the tropes of neuromythology

I doubt you'll read the article [and] get confronted with a different point of view like you demand we should do, most fanatics are too cowardly to challenge the faith that they rest their existences on...Hopefully you're not such a coward tho...

[Mark Tetzner]

sorry, too much question-begging for me in this video, too many strong assertions, and no understanding about monistic idealism, so
this is how he is batteling "whoo" wich in this case is the real straw-man. there is no whoo in idealism, at best it can be wrong,
if it is, then so be it. in any event, nonsense can never be the null-hypothesis :)
lets leave it at that ok. cheers and thanks for sharing this jewel of a philosopher with us.

[Mark Tetzner]

My OP also partly answered in here
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2020/01/a-materialism-of-qualities.html

[Scott Roberts]

On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 11:25:16 AM UTC-10, AGI123 wrote:

@Sci Patel

Mathematics is the computation of quantities. So they are physical. It's not in the video - every person with a slight degree in math could tell you exactly this (>>Mathematics is the computation of quantities.)

I was a math major, and I disagree. So (among many others) did Benjamin Peirce (mathematics professor at Harvard, and father of the logician/philosopher C. S. Peirce, who also disagreed with this. B. Peirce called mathematics the science of drawing necessary conclusions or something like that.) I would call mathematics the study of non-referential forms. Arithmetic is the computation of quantities, Mathematics studies (among many other things) why arithmetic works.