DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
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..
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?
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
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.
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.
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…
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.
Creating 'back links' by posting links to articles on this website on blogs and social media sites is one way.I think we should investigate paid google advertising too.
SocialistPunk wrote:I meant to type £10 million. Would I be a capitalist if I won £10 million?Would depend entirely on how you used it. If you kept it under the mattress or spent it on wine and women you wouldn't. If you banked or invested it and lived off the interest or dividends or rents you would be.
