Scientist retract 50 year old paper

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from heidegger:

When you conjure up a mental visual image do you not see it with the 'mind's eye'? You don't hear it or touch it; you see it. Is this not a kind of seeing?


"A bee, by all human standards, does not have a mind." How are you using the phrase "by all human standards" here? Perhaps a bee has no mind 'by human standards' but it may have a mind in that it might have consciousness. This point of yours directs us to a need to understand the nature of mind and consciousness - a task beyond even your vast intellect.

Quoting Bertrand Russell's prose (from wikipedia):

"If we say that the things known must be in the mind, we are either un-duly limiting the mind's power of knowing, or we are uttering a mere tautology. We are uttering a mere tautology if we mean by 'in the mind' the same as by 'before the mind', i.e. if we mean merely being apprehended by the mind. But if we mean this, we shall have to admit that what, in this sense, is in the mind, may nevertheless be not mental. Thus when we realize the nature of knowledge, Berkeley's argument is seen to be wrong in substance as well as in form, and his grounds for supposing that 'idea'-i.e. the objects apprehended-must be mental, are found to have no validity whatever. Hence his grounds in favour of the idealism may be dismissed."

If the validity of your argument rests on whether a bee has a mind...

 

[stu]

Quote from heidegger:

Insubstantial makebelieve is real as insubstantial makebelieve; that is, as a mental experience

Right, so the thought (mental experience) is real.

Quote from heidegger:

All that's required for a thing to be 'real' is that it exists.

The thing which exists in this case is a thought . You use logic or material evidence to substantiate the truth of that.
However, the thing in the thought, doesn't necessarily exist.
So how you going to check if it does? With another thought as insubstantial as the one that thought of it, but couldn't access the truth of its existence?. Or with logic or material evidence, which showed you it can substantiate the truth that a thought exists .

Quote from heidegger:

A nine-million ton chicken doesn't exist and is therefore not real,

You determine the truth of this...how? With another thought of the same quality that established the concept of a nine-million ton chicken ? That would hardly be reliable

Quote from heidegger:

but the concept of a nine-million ton chicken is real in that it exists in the mind of the person who conceives it.

But the chicken doesn't exist you say.. Much in the same way a thought about " the door to a universe of truth other than that which can be supported by logic or material evidence. " doesn't exist?

Thoughts exist, things in thoughts , not necessarily. You need to add something to help see if those things in thoughts are true.
Would you not be better off using some logic or material evidence at this (and every other) point?

 

[heidegger]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

It's hilarious that you don't see (no pun intended) the fallacy of this. Without logic and material observations, what (or who) decides what exists and what doesn't? Is it everything that you can imagine? Is a unicorn real?

What about "nothing?" Does "nothing" exist? Is "nothing" real?

Why do you assume that anybody has to decide what exists or doesn't exist in order for that which exists to exist?

The universe is brimming over with things that exist without our being aware of them. These things don't wait to have their existence bestowed upon them by us.

There are details in the room in which are now that are real even though you've never noticed them.

Anything you can imagine exists in your imagination. The thing you imagine may not exist outside your imagination but your imagining of it does exist in your imagination.

I doubt that a unicorn is real (who knows? It's a big universe) but I can imagine a unicorn and that mental image of a unicorn is real.

If mental experiences are not real how is it mental experiences can affect the material world? Do bridges and skyscrapers simply appear on their own? Do your hands and feet move of their own accord?

There is no way to demonstrate that there is a clear demarcation between mind and matter. For this reason restricting reality to material things is arbitrary and unintelligent.

Does nothing exist? Excellent question, but this post is already too long and I have to get back to trading.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from heidegger:

Why do you assume that anybody has to decide what exists or doesn't exist in order for that which exists to exist?

Because if you can't decide what exists and what doesn't, then how do you know what exists and what doesn't?

 

[heidegger]

Quote from stu:

Right, so the thought (mental experience) is real. The thing which exists in this case is a thought . You use logic or material evidence to substantiate the truth of that.
However, the thing in the thought, doesn't necessarily exist.
So how you going to check if it does? With another thought as insubstantial as the one that thought of it, but couldn't access the truth of its existence?. Or with logic or material evidence, which showed you it can substantiate the truth that a thought exists .You determine the truth of this...how? With another thought of the same quality that established the concept of a nine-million ton chicken ? That would hardly be reliable But the chicken doesn't exist you say.. Much in the same way a thought about " the door to a universe of truth other than that which can be supported by logic or material evidence. " doesn't exist?

Thoughts exist, things in thoughts , not necessarily. You need to add something to help see if those things in thoughts are true.
Would you not be better off using some logic or material evidence at this (and every other) point?

Get back to you later. Gotta go out for a while.

 

[heidegger]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Because if you can't decide what exists and what doesn't, then how do you know what exists and what doesn't?

Well.. you usually don't. But often you can know. I'm rushed right now. Back to you later. You raise some good issues.

 

[Supermax]

Quote from heidegger:

Well.. you usually don't. But often you can know. I'm rushed right now. Back to you later. You raise some good issues.

are you sure you have to take off now or is it all in your head

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Supermax:

are you sure you have to take off now or is it all in your head

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

I'm not an idealist: I don't believe that the world is all in our minds. It we all croak tomorrow the universe will still be here. But I'm saying that for each of us there's a subjective reality that's as valid and true as the material world.

Hans
(Heidegger R.I.P.)

 

[pattersb]

Quote from traderNik:

The use of the word 'faith' in this sentence is misleading (no surprise coming from one of the true believers). Faith in the sense that it is relevant to this diccussion is the belief in something that cannot be proved or disproved, like a belief in a Creator God.

Faith for our purposes here is

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Faith is a specific kind of belief.

We, the men of reason, have a belief of another kind, a belief in the value of rational inquiry and the quest for the truth. We do not advocate faith in ghosts and goblins as a panacea for the fear of death.

When a Mom says to a wayward son "I have faith in you" it isn't in this sense that the word is being used.

Any other questions?

well, as a rationalist, you should be able to find value in faith, rather than an eagerness to destroy it, and prove its falsity and worthlessness.

even "the men of reason" have a leap of faith from time to time, except of course those who are already suffocated by their beliefs.