The Good Place

real things are by any definition physical

Well, that's not correct.  From Merriam's:

Code:

real adjective
re·al | \ ˈrē(-ə)l  \
Definition of Real (Entry 1 of 5)
1 a : having objective independent existence
  b : not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : GENUINE
     also : being precisely what the name implies
  c (1) : occurring or existing in actuality
    (2) : of or relating to practical or everyday concerns or activities
    (3) : existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard
  d : COMPLETE, UTTER
  e : FUNDAMENTAL, ESSENTIAL
  f : measured by purchasing power
  g (1) : belonging to or having elements or components that belong to the set of real numbers
    (2) : concerned with or containing real numbers
    (3) : REAL-VALUED
2 : of or relating to fixed, permanent, or immovable things (such as lands or tenements)
3 of a particle : capable of being detected — compare VIRTUAL sense 4

Real things = exclusively physical would seem to imply a reductionist, materialist worldview definition, no?

Well, that's not correct.  From Merriam's:

Code:

real adjective
re·al | \ ˈrē(-ə)l  \
Definition of Real (Entry 1 of 5)
1 a : having objective independent existence
 
     also : being precisely what the name implies
  c (1) : occurring or existing in actuality
   
    (3) : existing as a physical entity and having properties
 

Real things = exclusively physical would seem to imply a reductionist, materialist worldview definition, no?

I've removed the definitions not applicable. That fact that you don't like the reductionist materialist view is of no concern to me and irrelevant to determining what is real. "Your" choice is binary. Either the things "you" believe are real or illusory.

I'm saying that if something is non-material/non-physical, it doesn't become material/physical through the process of being described scientifically.

Dead on.

Well, your track record using this technique is poor. I've lost count of the number of times I've put up with the same stupid merry-go-round where I say something and you or someone else responds as though I've said something else. And then we see multiple pages of threads where I patiently attempt to point to what I said and provide further clarification, only to then have to listen to accusations of being deceitful, devious, obfuscatory, or mentally ill when what you or others want me to have said (usually some sort of straw man or false statement which is easily defeated) doesn't match up with my words. So please excuse me if I am suspicious of your claim that you or anyone else will be able to accurately suss out my position by ignoring what I say about my position.

That you would post this is reflective of how unaware you are of your own methods. You said you were describe as the "posterchild" for someone who wouldn't get banned at JREF. Here, you are the posterchild for worthless discussions in semantics.

You constantly complain that people are misrepresenting your position when the vast, vast majority of the time that just isn't happening. I've said it to you in the past and it's worth saying again: that means that either you do a horrendous job of being clear in what you're posting, or you're just intentionally being obtuse. I tend to think that you probably just do an awful job of being clear, because it's impossible for so many intelligent people to so consistently not understand just what it is you're trying to say. I've also never accused you of of anything resembling mental illness. You constantly post things, to which people directly respond with a completely reasonable interpretation of what you wrote, and you come back, every time without fail, with "Oh no, that's not what I meant, you've misunderstood." If that's always the case, and you're actually trying to be genuine, maybe look in the mirror. 

In any event, I'm not going to waste time or any more space on this thread engaging with you over something that is so absurd. Silence said it's fair to infer from the poster's actual posts over time what their position is. If you don't consider that a fair thing to do, then you're not being reasonable.

Anyone still listening to Skeptiko? The last couple of episodes (Al Borealis for anyone reading in the future) are masterclasses in "Keep talking and speculate". We also seem to have arrived at Hiroshima denial in the show thread.

I can't think of any pursuit more productive than talkin' and and speculatin'
There seems to be a rampant disease across the web of unmitigated denial. I do wish there was a vaccine for it.

I know this is what you've been stating the whole time. The answer is insufficient though. You see Chris, the very process of describing something scientifically is by definition a description of real things and real things are by any definition physical.

Steve, come on. This is just not a true statement. You're trying to equate science/the scientific method with materialism and physicalism, which it is not. It's not related to either of those philosophical positions. I actually believe Linda has said as much in this thread (forgive me if I'm misremembering or misquoting). This is scientism at its apex.

Cute, but incorrect.  No, it was my rather plain and direct way of saying I read what you and others write.  That includes the potential quandary for when someone might make a statement about themselves that is inconsistent with their posting history.

That’s one approach, I suppose.

When I find myself in that sort of quandary, I suspect that I have misunderstood something. So I ask for clarification and carefully consider the answer. It turns out that this approach can be remarkably effective at resolving seeming conflicts.

Linda

I don't mind critiques of god - even my god - but I do mind the assumption that because I use the word god, I must believe in the god of the fundamentalists. Actually, there is a term that fairly well describes the god-concept I have in mind but to use that term might suggest that I'm a devotee of yet another religion, which I am not. The term is Brahman.

Fascinating. I came to same conclusion, but from a more Shamanic understanding. At first, the idea of "Dao" suited me quite happily, but seemed to have it's descriptive limitations, so I discovered that the term "Brahman" encompassed the ideas covered by "Dao", and described a greater set of potentialities.

Daoism has been noted by some to have existed before it was described by Lao Tzu, and that it was a Shamanic folk religion, of sorts. The idea of Brahman also feels deeply Shamanic to me, at least the non-religious interpretation of the word does.

I know this is what you've been stating the whole time. The answer is insufficient though. You see Chris, the very process of describing something scientifically is by definition a description of real things and real things are by any definition physical.

I think you are talking past each other. I suspect that you are thinking of immaterialism and materialism as opposites. But the way "immaterialism" is used, it is more of a subset of materialism. That is, in both cases, materialism and immaterialism make references to events and experiences (which makes something amenable to methodological naturalism) which is generally what we think of as matter, energy and interactions (materialism). But immaterialism also seems to be saying that when we get to the bottom, what we find won't resemble something we might call "matter" or "energy", like conscious awareness, for example.

Linda