Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Useful
#41
(02-16-2018, 02:12 PM)stephenw Wrote: That's is an easy question.  Pythagoras and his teachers, as they grasped the underlying mathematical nature of reality.  This stands as opposed to projection of the magic of physical objects.  This is ongoing still - as people still worship and believe in" flat earth", geocentric universe,  the power of lucky charms, guns and the perverse reasoning that financial power rules humanity.

The development of math principles and their applied use, to render our reality predictable, is well recorded.  Is there anything more useful than math concepts??????

Take away the transcendent capability of numbers from science and tell me what good has materialism done except to encourage despots and rulers.  Want to learn about this view - read the outstanding work of design theorist and thinker; Bucky Fuller.


They is a hell of a lot of worship and love of the material power released from the control of oil.

Spiritual beliefs (immaterialism) can and does encourage despotism.  I'm absolutely certain depots were part of the human animal psychology long before those words or speech. Such behavior is known among chimpanzees for example.
Reply
#42
(02-16-2018, 02:58 PM)Steve001 Wrote: Spiritual beliefs (immaterialism) can and does encourage despotism.

You are not clear with your semantics.  Do you mean that beliefs enforced on a community by a leader who uses religion connotations as a tool to mask their personal manipulations - OK true.

If you mean actual spiritual beliefs about charity, service, self-examination, control over impulse, exhibiting kindness and respect to the neighbor - OK false.

Science is all about clear,  accurate and measurable assertion of fact.  I would be critical of myself in being clear in my expressions.  The key to that is actually using words that mean specific things that fit logically into a computable or programmable form.  Your use of the terms: immaterialism and spiritual beliefs are not connected in fact or meaning.

Quote: immaterialism: a philosophical theory that material things have no reality except as mental perceptions

I have had a long career in the applied use of the material sciences.  Let me assure that I believe that both chemicals and digital information are real.  I have a firm grasp of the practice of methodological materialism, without denying that immaterial measurements like channel capacity, bandwidth, centers of gravity, math quantification and logical structure are just as real - just at a different level.
Reply
#43
(02-16-2018, 03:40 PM)stephenw Wrote: You are not clear with your semantics.  Do you mean that beliefs enforced on a community by a leader who uses religion connotations as a tool to mask their personal manipulations - OK true.

If you mean actual spiritual beliefs about charity, service, self-examination, control over impulse, exhibiting kindness and respect to the neighbor - OK false.

Science is all about clear,  accurate and measurable assertion of fact.  I would be critical of myself in being clear in my expressions.  The key to that is actually using words that mean specific things that fit logically into a computable or programmable form.  Your use of the terms: immaterialism and spiritual beliefs are not connected in fact or meaning.


I have had a long career in the applied use of the material sciences.  Let me assure that I believe that both chemicals and digital information are real.  I have a firm grasp of the practice of methodological materialism, without denying that immaterial measurements like channel capacity, bandwidth, centers of gravity, math quantification and logical structure are just as real - just at a different level.
I'm saying isms aren't the cause of bad behavior.
Reply
#44
(02-16-2018, 02:12 PM)stephenw Wrote: Take away the transcendent capability of numbers from science and tell me what good has materialism done except to encourage despots and rulers.  

First, I’m not talking about Materialism (that nothing exists except matter) - it is irrelevant to my use of the term “useful”. Second, Materialism in the sense of a love of possessions and physical comfort is really, really irrelevant. I was hoping we could avoid this kind of crap, for once.

Linda
Reply
#45
(02-16-2018, 06:18 PM)fls Wrote: First, I’m not talking about Materialism (that nothing exists except matter) - it is irrelevant to my use of the term “useful”. Second, Materialism in the sense of a love of possessions and physical comfort is really, really irrelevant. I was hoping we could avoid this kind of crap, for once.

Linda
In reality, I think you are speaking of Physicalism.  If you want to name author's quotes that represent this well-developed philosophy I am glad to respond.  (J. Kim being the leading voice)

I have declared in prior posts that materialism in science is called methodological materialism and its value is well-respected and practiced appropriately.  I give it a ringing endorsement.

However, I was addressing the metaphysical materialism expressed in the posts- and whether you like it or not - the practices and the behavioral outcomes of it are fair game.  The idea that purpose and intent are beyond science, is propaganda and not what is going on in reality.  (hence: the references to Affective Science; I strongly recommend anything by Diane Nahl)

Thinking from the 5 senses and their extension via measuring equipment - works great in observing the physical world.  However, if thinking from the point of view of how information and meaning work in the environment - methodological materialism has nothing to say about how living things understand anything at all.  The is no material or physical definition of how any living thing understands information.
Reply
#46
(02-16-2018, 08:39 PM)stephenw Wrote: In reality, I think you are speaking of Physicalism.  If you want to name author's quotes that represent this well-developed philosophy I am glad to respond.  (J. Kim being the leading voice)

To be honest, as I said in the OP, I'm not much interested in a philosophical stance.

Quote:I have declared in prior posts that materialism in science is called methodological materialism and its value is well-respected and practiced appropriately.  I give it a ringing endorsement.

However, I was addressing the metaphysical materialism expressed in the posts- and whether you like it or not - the practices and the behavioral outcomes of it are fair game.  The idea that purpose and intent are beyond science, is propaganda and not what is going on in reality.  (hence: the references to Affective Science; I strongly recommend anything by Diane Nahl)

I agree that the idea that purpose and intent are beyond science is propaganda, which is why I don't have much interest in it either.

Quote:Thinking from the 5 senses and their extension via measuring equipment - works great in observing the physical world.  However, if thinking from the point of view of how information and meaning work in the environment - methodological materialism has nothing to say about how living things understand anything at all.  The is no material or physical definition of how any living thing understands information.
FYI, the idea that there are 5 senses is a myth:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141118...o-you-have

Also not much interested in a philosophical stance which leaves out vast swathes of experiences (assuming that what you have to say about methodological materialism is true).

Linda
[-] The following 1 user Likes fls's post:
  • stephenw
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)