As for one's own "consciousness", or subjectivity, I think it is only assumed and not observed (any more than an eye sees itself seeing). — 180 Proof
I don't have any observational grounds to doubt or disbelieve that I am (at least, occasionally) "conscious". Do you? — 180 Proof
Indeed - I should have said, 'is purported to operate throughout... ' etc. I agree. — Tom Storm
Numbers are abstract objects (or structures) which are real only in so far as they are physically instantiable. I guess this view makes me more Aristotlean (hylomorphic) than Platonic-Pythagorean (supersensible).Where do you sit on the notion that maths is Platonic? — Tom Storm
Yes; ergo, IMO, a fiction.Would mathematical Platonism quality as immaterial?
Using proper brain scans and algorithms one could easily observe your real-time un/conscious-states.You could observe me in either of these states, but you would not be able to know for sure whether I was conscious of what I was looking at, at the time. — Janus
I said the immaterial IS supported by physical processes. The reasoning is because we contain immaterials such as past and future (that physically do not exist) and that is evidence our brains have this ability. — Mark Nyquist
And as 180 Proof pointed out abstract objects really only exist in a physically instantiated form, which I agree with. — Mark Nyquist
Ideas, theories and generalizations only exist insofar as they are physically instantiated. Also, the idea of "material substance" is questionable; at the very least it is ambiguous. In ordinary usage it refers to tangibility, to some sensorially apprehensible aspect of the objects we see, hear, touch, and so on. — Janus
The search for proof for the incorporeal is at the heart of idealism, I guess. — Tom Storm
This confuses me. Please clarify how an "immaterial" Y is "contained in" a material Z.... contained in my brain as an immaterial representation ... — Mark Nyquist
I am an emergentist (re: holism), not "monist" (dualist or pluralist).↪180 Proof If you are a monist ... — Mark Nyquist
Since there seem to be only two kinds of proof or evidence: the logical and the empirical, I think it's going to be a
very
long.........................................................................................................................(and fruitless)
search.
:fire: — Janus
Okay, a step away from talk of the "immaterial" to the "imaginary" is progress. But how do you "hold an imaginary" X? A map of Middle Earth, for example, is instantiated on actual paper, but that map does not correspond to an actual place.... to hold an imaginary ... — Mark Nyquist
It might be just word problems. For me the immaterial is something brains can assign parameters to but they don't exist other than as brain state. — Mark Nyquist
As a basically rational & non-religious introverted personality*1 --- who has been called "Spock-like" on another forum, and a "New Age mystic" on TPF --- I stand somewhere in the middle of the Materialism/Mysticism spectrum. So, I can understand why the early scientists preferred the pragmatic philosophy of Materialism to that of impractical Mysticism. A typical view of the spectrum might say that Materialism appeals to "rational" practical/realistic intellectuals on one end, while Mysticism is embraced mostly by "emotional" theoretical/idealistic feeling-type persons on the other extreme*1. Doctrinal Religions though, captured the loyalty of sheep-like masses who want/need to be told what to believe. { Note -- The Rational vs Emotional labels are simplistic either/or categories that ignore the median*2.} Ironically, the thinkers on both ends often view the opposite type as a member of the brain-washed majority.Enlightenment philosophy may have demystified established doctrines of the era, but at the same time, initiated its own doctrines under religious, or at least theological, conditions, so the Enlightenment didn’t categorically reject all religious doctrines. — Mww
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.