Surface seers/Finger philosophers ?

[twinc]

imho it seems that materialists,in the main tend to be surface seers and finger philosophers and readily accept illusion rather than relativity and reality - we cannot trust our eyes and ears and hands for their range is too limited to show us the true state of nature.Only the untutored and unscientific now hold the naive belief that the world is solid stable and stationary other than in appearance.For they set up the familiar experiences of everyday as their standard of explanation.Theirs is the finger philosophy which makes what is felt by the fingers into a criterion of ultimate reality,this has a limited truth but does not resist scrutiny for
reason reverses the judgement of the senses and philosophy silences the voice of opinion and culture inverts the vulgar views of nature[Brunton] - more later - twinc

 

[Eudaimonist]

Only the untutored and unscientific now hold the naive belief that the world is solid stable and stationary other than in appearance.

Perhaps, but philosophical materialists, both reductive and non-reductive, shouldn't be confused for such unphilosophical people.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

Ironically this discussion of materialists is rather superficial.

 

[Paradoxum]

Why do you think materialism is wrong?

I guess I tend towards materialism in most things... except consciousness. Science might explain it, but I'm not strongly materialist on that issue.

 

[twinc]

Why do you think materialism is wrong?

I guess I tend towards materialism in most things... except consciousness. Science might explain it, but I'm not strongly materialist on that issue.

but why should the common-sense criterion of absurdity be regarded as the final and conclusive one ? It is the irony of human ignorance that those who loudly assert the mentalist to be deluded are themselves steeped in delusion ! for the essence of their error consists in believing that when the mentalist denies the existence of matter he also denies the existence of things and people or else turns them into mere spectral ghosts of their former selves. On the contrary,he says they are certainly there. And he admits that they are not present within our heads but outside them.Only,he points out they are mentally made. He does not deny the existence of solids,liquids and gases.Only he remarks,they are mental existences.He accepts the feeling of resistance and the touch of pressure as indicating the presence of a solid body but declares that feelings are really sensations of the mind itself[Brunton] - more later - twinc

 

[Paradoxum]

but why should the common-sense criterion of absurdity be regarded as the final and conclusive one ? It is the irony of human ignorance that those who loudly assert the mentalist to be deluded are themselves steeped in delusion ! for the essence of their error consists in believing that when the mentalist denies the existence of matter he also denies the existence of things and people or else turns them into mere spectral ghosts of their former selves. On the contrary,he says they are certainly there. And he admits that they are not present within our heads but outside them.Only,he points out they are mentally made. He does not deny the existence of solids,liquids and gases.Only he remarks,they are mental existences.He accepts the feeling of resistance and the touch of pressure as indicating the presence of a solid body but declares that feelings are really sensations of the mind itself[Brunton] - more later - twinc

I'm not totally sure I understand your position, but I don't think it is crazy. I wouldn't phrase it like you do, but I do wonder if there is something more to the physical that allows us to have consciousness. Perhaps the fundamental particles are 'mental' in some sense.

I don't take a firm position either way. I'd advocate science's search for the mind, as well as looking for other theories just in case science in the end fails to explain sensation.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't have any problem with the idea that there are mental properties. I simply think that they supervene on phenomena that themselves have physical properties. I take an emergentist, dual-aspect view of the mind-body relation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[pjnlsn]

Some people speak of "materialists" with some amount of distaste, but deep down, everyone is. We subconsciously accept our sense information as part of something real, and that our actions have consequences. Consciously, and perhaps, philosophically, we can believe that this world is an illusion, set up by some deity or otherwise, but if we truly believed that, deep down, we'd cease to function.

 

[super animator]

Some people speak of "materialists" with some amount of distaste, but deep down, everyone is. We subconsciously accept our sense information as part of something real, and that our actions have consequences. Consciously, and perhaps, philosophically, we can believe that this world is an illusion, set up by some deity or otherwise, but if we truly believed that, deep down, we'd cease to function.

That's quite number of mind reading going on there.

 

[pjnlsn]

That's quite number of mind reading going on there.

Not as such. The conscious mind is more abstracted than the subconscious.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's quite number of mind reading going on there.

Perhaps, but I strongly suspect that he is right.


eudaimonia,

Mark