[DJP]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Not a subscriber so can't read it sadly, but thanks!

Google "Quantum Bayesianism"."Quantum weirdness" may be the result of how our minds work and not something to do with the external world…

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

'Materialism' can't explain 'ideas'.If it can, why isn't it called 'materialism-idealism'? Why the stress upon the 'material', to the denial of 'ideas'?

It just plainly seems you haven't understood what is meant by "materialism""Materialism" isn't an explanation but a metaphysical assumption.To me it seems that there are plenty of materialist / physicalist theories that explain "ideas" better than any of the others going. I have to admit that at the minute Dennett is a favourite."Materialism" doesn't deny ideas, it just presumes that these are just one of the many facets of the material / physical world (whatever the material / physical world may be). You may as well say "Why not call it materialism-idealism-electromagnetism-etc-etc?"I mentioned "dualism" earlier they are two kinds of dualism:Substance dualism – there are two kinds of "stuff" in the universe, mental "stuff" and physical "stuff"Property dualism – there are two kinds of *properties* of stuff, mental properties and physical properties. Property dualism is just another kind of materialism or physicalism.But if we want to do "Philosophy of Mind for Beginners" perhaps we should start a new thread.

[DJP]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Also, that what we observe depends on whether or not it's being observed. 

You'll like this:http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229680.400-qbism-is-quantum-uncertainty-all-in-the-mind.html

[DJP]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Idealism  – Ignoring material conditionsMaterialism   – Taking material conditions into consideration

This is not right at all."Idealism" – EVERYTHING is mental stuff (whatever mental stuff may be). See Bishop Berkeley"Materialism / Physicalism" – EVERYTHING is material or physical stuff (whatver material or physical stuff may be). Marx, Deitzgen, Einstein, Dennett, Harris etcMetaphysical "Monism" – The universe is one. All things are made of one "kind of stuff" (both idealism and materialism are kinds of monism). All modern science is monistic.Metaphysical "Dualism" – The mental and the physical are the two seperate aspects or dimensions of reality. Descrates is the famous proponentMetaphysical "Pluralism" – There are many seperate aspects or dimensions of reality. Leibniz held this view.There are many different kinds of materialism and idealism. You can only reasonably argue that Marx (and Dietzgen) was not a "crude" materialist like perhaps Lenin, not that he wasn't a materialist. To do that you may as well rename yourself Rosa Lichenstien. 

[DJP]

Yes. We are now running on over twice as much RAM.It's still not where it needs to be but should hopefullu be speaking to a pro over the next few weeks to get it properly sorted out..

[DJP]

Please also bear in mind that the website will run a lot quicker if you view it whilst logged out..

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Vin Maratty wrote:

Lbird. Why don't you try backing your theory up with some facts?

Vin. Why don't you try telling us your theory that determines your 'facts'?

Deja Vu?

[DJP]

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

The religious certainty of the 'materialists' leaves no room for doubt or discussion. For them, the Truth is Concrete. No if or buts, or any nonsense about active, creative human minds, or conscious theory.

BULLSHIT

[DJP]

jondwhite wrote:

If its 'designed for tablets and kindle' then the document should be reflowable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflowable_document) not a PDF.

It's a pdf because thats the most universally compatible format. A zip with all different formats could have been an option but I thought that would just confuse people.

[DJP]

Yes Brian we cannot read minds. I can only presume that if someone clicks on a link that says 'click here to download an information pack' they will want an information pack. 

[DJP]

It is 47 pages, but it's in LARGE print and designed with tablets and kindles in mind.I sure any interested person is more than capable of read 7 articles from the Standard, which is what these are…

[DJP]

Explain who this 'we' is that is exploiting poor countries?

[DJP]

Marxist-Lennonism?

[DJP]

Sorry Robbo I still think you're off key here. Isn't he taking about supervience and not "emergence" here?Saying consciousness is an "emergent" property just doesn't explain anything at all. http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/I don't profess to be a expert on Dennett, though I have just spent the last 2 weeks writting an undergraduate essay on Dennetts rejection of  "real seemings" and the "Cartesian theatre"EDIT: I've just re-read that Dennett quote. I don't see even anything in that quote that is even an argument for non-reductive explanation of consciousness, after all it only those that subscribe to the "hard problem" that would claim that a reductive explanation of consciousness is impossible. Dennett's "theory of consciousness" is physicalist and reductionist, it's people like Chalmers that say the opposite.

[Author]

Posts