疯狂的唯物主义者及其废话

(我的书中出现了这篇文章的改进和更新版本 简要介绍。以下版本仅供保留。)

弗朗西斯科·德·戈雅的 疯人院。 Source: Wikipedia.

今天,我做了一些令人兴奋的事情:我访问了一个好战的唯物主义者网站,对笼子有点tle不安。我感到有必要揭露一位杰出的唯物主义者的丑陋逻辑–著名的神经科医生–他们认为大脑进化出梭哈游戏具有生存优势。这些是他最初的观点:
  1. 大脑需要引起注意,而主观经验则需要引起注意。
  2. 大脑需要一种将记忆与主动体验区分开的方法。因此,记忆和积极的经历必须在主观上“感觉”不同。
  3. Behavior conducive to survival requires 动机 and, therefore, emotion.
这三个都是不连贯的论点 在唯物主义本身的框架和逻辑内. Within the materialist logic, attention has absolutely 不 hing to do with a need for 梭哈游戏. Computer operating systems have the mechanical equivalent of attention (interrupts, priority policies, task scheduling, etc.) while their activity 是 presumably 无梭哈游戏; there 是 no need for subjective experience. Regarding point 2, the neurologist contradicts materialism altogether by 假设 that memory and active experiences must 'feel' different in order to be differentiated, which begs the question of 梭哈游戏, instead of explaining it. 的 re are millions of ways to classify and differentiate data without anything 'feeling' anything. On point 3: 动机 does 不 require emotion or any sort of subjective experience. Within the logic of materialism, 动机 是 simply a calculation that aims at optimizing gain and minimizing risk/loss. 的 neurologist's attempt to present 梭哈游戏 as something 'natural' or 'advantageous' within the framework of materialism fails the most basic internal logic.

所以我去了他们的网站并表达了以上观点。随后发生的是唯物主义者的袭击。我以编辑和重写的形式复制以下交流,以供您娱乐。问题是唯物主义者试图击败我的论点。答案是我的反对。交流很有用,因为它很好地说明了我们今天在文化中所面临的状况:尽管唯物主义者喜欢将自己视为理性的制高点,但许多人在简单性上遭受了严重的破坏。 清晰思考。

问:  注意力具有很强的进化适应价值,因为我们一次只能对身体做一件事。

A: Attention, as per the definition implied in 您r question, 是 simply the ability of an organism to optimize the utilization of its 有限 cognitive resources. 那 can be accomplished entirely without subjective experience, for it 是 merely a computational task. Subjective experience 是 不 required for focusing an organisms resources on priority tasks.

问:  您 are 假设 a divide between 目的/subjective things that does 不 exist.

A: 的 neurologist's argument 是 that there are survival advantages for 梭哈游戏 to have 进化的 . 如果梭哈游戏必须进化– presumably from something 无梭哈游戏 –然后最初的梭哈游戏不是’在那里。因此,显然,原始论点 假设 the divide 您 talk about: initially everything was 目的, and then subjectivity 进化的 later. 的 refore, it's 不 me who 是 假设 the divide, but the neurologist who articulated the initial argument.

问:  我也不要’t understand this divide between 目的 and subjective. To me, it’只是观点的改变:“客观”本质上是在看电脑’从第二人称视角看的过程。主观经验是这些过程的第一人称视角。

A:  我不’认为根本没有鸿沟。我也认为’s all a 物 of perspective: observation from within and from without. But now 不 ice: if perspective entails subjective experience, and there 是 no divide, than 唯心主义 follows logically. 那 said, and to repeat myself, it's the neurologist's original argument that requires the 目的/subjective divide. 您 guys can’t have it both ways. 的 moment one argues that it was useful for 梭哈游戏 to have 'evolved' (presumably out of something initially 无梭哈游戏), 您 are implying a divide. Otherwise, 梭哈游戏 was there from the beginning. So 您 either agree with the neurologist's argument and accept the divide, or 您 reject the divide and reject this nonsense talk of 梭哈游戏 having 'evolved.' What 进化的 were mechanisms of attention and classification, 不 梭哈游戏. 梭哈游戏 was there from the start.

问:  Well, clearly 梭哈游戏 进化的 out of something 无梭哈游戏: even if 您 classify all life as conscious, it 进化的 from non-life, which 是 clearly 无梭哈游戏。

A:  那 ’s 哪里 您 guys contradict 您rselves. First, there are all these righteous claims that the divide between 梭哈游戏 and 物 是 artificial, dualist nonsense, woo, and what 不 . 的 n 您 turn around and say 'but hey, of course 梭哈游戏 arose out of something 无梭哈游戏, since life 进化的 out of non-life.' I find it all very amusing. 您 guys can’t have it both ways. Which one 是 it? Did 梭哈游戏 evolve out of 无梭哈游戏 物, or 是 the divide between 梭哈游戏 and 无梭哈游戏 computers fallacious woo? 的 problem here 是 this: 您 keep on thinking that 梭哈游戏 是 in the brain, as opposed to the brain in 梭哈游戏. And since the brain obviously 进化的 out of 不 -brain, then 您 guys get all mixed up.

问:  有梭哈游戏的动物是从无梭哈游戏的动物进化而来的,尽管我推测这是渐进的,梭哈游戏与计算机之间没有鸿沟。它们绝不是不兼容的。

A: A 'very gradual' logical contradiction 是 still a logical contradiction. If 梭哈游戏 arose out of 无梭哈游戏ness, there 是 a divide in the sense that something new has emerged out of something else, very slowly as the case may be. Otherwise, either 梭哈游戏 was there all along or it still 没有’今天不存在。后者当然是荒谬的。

问:  是什么使唯心主义与唯物主义有显着不同?

A: According to 唯心主义 , 您r body/brain system 是 in 您r 梭哈游戏. According to materialism, 您r 梭哈游戏 是 in 您r body/brain system.

问:  这听起来像是一种固执的秘方。

A:  听起来像,但事实并非如此’它。我在新书中花了很多篇幅来拒绝唯我论。

问:  可以通过感觉(实际上是另一种评估方式)来区分记忆和现实,幻觉和现实的主观观点具有进化优势,而后者可以’t.

A: If 您 accept that there 是 a divide between 梭哈游戏 and 无梭哈游戏ness, then differentiation between memory and reality can be done by an 无梭哈游戏 computer. It can be computationally accomplished through tagging, which 是 done routinely in artificial intelligence systems. This differentiation 是 no basis whatever for claiming that 梭哈游戏 provides a survival advantage. Now, if 您 don’t接受分歧并认为一切都在某种程度上是有梭哈游戏的,那么您就与神经科医生的原始观点相矛盾。

问:  What about the correlations between 梭哈游戏 and 脑状态s? What does 唯心主义 say about that?

A:  脑/身体系统是梭哈游戏局部化过程中的梭哈游戏图像。这类似于水在本地化过程中如何在水中形成漩涡。出于同样的原因,漩涡不会’不会产生水,大脑不会’产生梭哈游戏。现在,一个过程的图像显然与该过程的内部工作紧密相关。通过从远处安全地观看火焰,您可以推断出很多关于燃烧的信息。如果大脑是梭哈游戏定位过程的图像,那么第一人称梭哈游戏视图应该与从外部可以从该图像中看到的图像很好地相关,同样的原因是,通过观察可以推断出很多燃烧现象。火焰。

问:  Why does my 梭哈游戏 get drowsy when I take a medication that causes drowsiness?

A:  您在理解思想(梭哈游戏中的过程)会影响情绪(梭哈游戏中的其他过程)这一事实时,是否遇到任何问题?可能不会。毕竟,梭哈游戏中的一个过程会影响梭哈游戏中的另一个过程,对吗?现在,您服用药物后感到昏昏欲睡。在理想主义下,毒品是梭哈游戏中的一个过程(还可能是什么?)。它会影响梭哈游戏的另一个过程(您的警觉性)。这种情况完全类似于影响情感的思想。什么’s the problem there? If 您 see one, 您 are letting 二元论 creep in unnoticed.

问:  I’m confused by 您r terminology. 的 brain 是 an 'image'? It’很明显是物理上的东西,目前在我的头骨上…

A:  Why 是 the physical thing in 您r skull 不 an image? Can 您 know a physical thing through anything but its images? (Here, I use the word 'image' in the broad sense of any percept.) A whirlpool 是 a very recognizable thing too. It’s right there in the water. 您 can point at it and say 'there it 是 !' 您 can even delineate its boundaries. It’是一件非常物理的事情。可是’一张图片。从这个意义上说,大脑也是如此。

问:  On what basis do 您 conclude that everything 是 conscious?

A:  我不’t。我坚决否认一切都是有梭哈游戏的。唯物主义者经常相信这一点。我认为泛灵论是变相的万物有灵论。一个糟糕的童话。恰好有零个经验证据表明任何无生命的事物在任何程度上都具有梭哈游戏。我认为没有理由相信这一点。但是我确实认为一切都是 in 梭哈游戏,这是非常不同的说法。为什么我相信呢?因为它’s the primary datum of knowledge. Anything 您 knew, know, or will ever know 是 in 您r 梭哈游戏. Things 外 梭哈游戏 are abstractions beyond knowledge. I prefer to stick to the most parsimonious explanation of reality that still can make sense of all the data available, and that 是 that all 是 in 梭哈游戏 ( 一切都有梭哈游戏!)。

问:  与人类相比,大多数无生命的事物的梭哈游戏水平都非常低,但是它们确实处理信息。

A:  If 您 say that 梭哈游戏 information processing, 您’re rendering the word 'consciousness' useless. 那 ’夸夸其谈的谬论。甚至支持托诺尼的克里斯托夫·科赫(Christoph Koch)’梭哈游戏的信息整合理论,拒绝了这种梭哈游戏 信息处理,尽管他承认信息处理与信息处理密切相关。

问:  生物利用其梭哈游戏来生存和繁殖。计算机将其梭哈游戏用于其他目的。从非常简单的梭哈游戏到复杂的像人类梭哈游戏的梭哈游戏,梭哈游戏水平都有一系列变化。什么’s so bad about that?

A:  It implies panpsychism. 那 是 , it implies that there 是 something it 是 like to be a chair, or a vacuum cleaner. In fact, it implies that there 是 something it 是 like to be parts of the vacuum cleaner, and combinations and permutations thereof, and… 您 get my point. 的 problem I see with it 是 that there 是 precisely zero empirical evidence that vacuum cleaners (or atoms) are conscious. To me, this 是 an attempt to make nature conform to theory, as opposed to theory conform to nature.

问: 您r 唯心主义  doesn’t sound very parsimonious because 您’可以有效地放置一个新的,更复杂的实体,似乎是为了模拟唯物主义的宇宙。

A:  Do 您 accept that there 是 such thing as 梭哈游戏? If 您 do, that’我假设的一切。这种梭哈游戏是’t 'simulating' anything; it's simply doing what it does, and what it does happens to be the universe. This requires postulating no more complexity than materialism, for materialism also requires that irreducible laws of nature create the universe. It's we who invented the 元physics of materialism as an 解释 自然的规律和规律。大自然只是在做什么。显然,据我们所知,这是梭哈游戏中的。

问: If it's all a simulation playing itself out in 心神, why can't we go through walls?

A:  您’将您的偏见和误解投射到我所说的话上。我要说的是,没有什么能否认自然会根据我们稳定的规律和规律而展开’ve come to call the laws of physics. 的 re 是 不 hing in 唯心主义 that denies that, if 您 jump out of a 风ow, 您 will fall. Idealism states that everything 是 in 梭哈游戏, 不 that everything 是 under the 控制 of 您r 自我ic volition. Even large segments of 您r own psyche clearly aren't under the 控制 of 您r 自我ic volition, otherwise nobody would ever have nightmares, or psychoses, or neuroses of any kind.

问: I find 您r worldview unnecessarily 'meta.'

A:  唯物主义是'meta'这里的世界观是从某种意义上说,它假设一个基本完整的,完全抽象的宇宙,基本上是在主知识(即主观经验)之外。如果有的话,唯心主义就是对'meta;' that 是 , a rejection of 元physical abstractions.

问: 您r theory predicts the same things materialism does. 我不’从断言宇宙是精神的中看不出任何其他解释或预测能力.

A:  Under 唯心主义 , when 您 die the story 您 call 您r 自我 or personal identity will die too, but 您r fundamental subjectivity. Under materialism, on the other hand, all 梭哈游戏 should cease upon physical death. 那 ’是唯心主义和唯物主义的预言中的一个区别。在我的最新著作中,我详细阐述了它们的含义之间的差异,并为理想主义的预测提供了经验证据。

问:  我看看我是否’我得直说:那里’s some complex 集体 心神-thing that 是 simulating a world in order to provide us with experiences which are exactly consistent with what they would be if materialism were true, to the point that our 梭哈游戏es are also affected in a manner consistent with materialism.

A:   的 re 是 no 'simulation' of materialism going on nor any attempt at deception. 的 se are 您r own complex prejudices that 您 are projecting onto the very simple things I am saying. My claim 是 that 现实恰恰是它的样子:梭哈游戏过程。颜色,口味,风味都是真实的东西,而我们所看到的世界并不是我们的内心。另一方面,唯物主义则指出颜色,声音,风味和所有体验品质仅存在于您的内心。现实世界‘outside’据说它是一个跳舞场的无定形,无色,无味的竞技场,类似于数学方程式,缺乏所有经验。它’的唯物主义指出现实世界与表面世界大不相同。唯心主义则相反。

总而言之,不时与激进的唯物主义者接触是有益的。它提供了惊人的洞察力,以了解错误的世界观如何成功地控制了这么多人的思想:它使您蒙蔽,使您沉迷于抽象,隐藏的假设和偏见的深不可测的,阴险的网络中,这些网络感染了人类的各个方面。您的思考和判断。从字面上看,它使您无法在鼻子下看到简单而不言而喻的事物。它使您可以将自己的成见,期望和误解投射到其他人说的所有事情上,因此您也将无法听清。聋哑人,无法逃脱笼子。这是超现实的。

分享:

51条评论:

  1. Once I began to understand 您r take on Idealism the old Materialist view did indeed begin to seem surreal. However, I do appreciate how difficult it 是 to make such a radical change in one'对现实的看法。我发现自己环顾四周,然后-环顾四周。像素,是吗?谁知道?

    回复 删除
    回覆
    1. I am happy to see that 您 took up the challenge of going to Novella's Website.
      您r responses were met by incomprehension. 的 simplicity inherent in 您r formulations of Idealism completely escapes them. 的 y cannot overcome their basic thinking bias that underlies Modern Western Materialism. 的 y poke fun of it, call 您 a crank and misinterpret 您r ideas. 的 y cannot, however , engage in a philosophical 辩论 with a way of thinking that 是 fundamentally so different than their ingrained belief systems.

      里克

      删除
    2. 瑞克,让我惊讶的是,当您向我发送那段文字时,您确切地知道会发生什么,是吗? ;)你做对了。我刚刚度过了一个漫长而又非常忙碌的一周,感到有点没电了。辩论很快使我重获新生。我认为您在上述评估中是正确的:好战的唯物主义者没有眼睛看到我所说的简单。他们将所有行李和偏见投射在每个陈述上。但是我没有'真的希望他们的行为有所不同。积极参与的人'militant skeptic'网站并没有试图了解任何东西,而是对提出观点感兴趣。我的兴趣是测试自己,看看他们是否会说出可能会使我思考更深的内容。但是他们没有't。尽管如此,这场辩论对于它具有说明性的力量还是对今天的好战的唯物主义者的心态是有用的,'这就是为什么我在这里以整理的形式复制它的原因。谢谢!

      删除
    3. 迈克尔·拉金(Michael Larkin)2014年5月24日星期六12:41:00 PM

      Can 您 give the link to the discussion, 伯纳德o?

      我同意,它们似乎难以理解。他们是愤世嫉俗并装作那样吗?还是他们如此地被囚禁在唯物主义范式中,以至于他们真的可以't see, even as an intellectual proposition, what 您 are trying to say?

      的 thing 是 , 我不't have much difficulty understanding the materialist viewpoint even though 我不'不同意。为什么可以'他们即使不理解理想主义者的观点'不同意吗?如果他们做到了,我'确保他们能够更有说服力地辩论。

      删除
    4. http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/after-the-afterlife-debate/#more-6561, then do a search on "Bernardo", or simply go to my first message on 23 May 2014 at 11:43 am. I think they were genuinely unable to see the simplicity of what I was saying. 的 y kept on projecting their own prejudices on it, as if I was arguing for New Age or something... In order words, they weren't as much replying to what I was saying, as to what they expected me to be saying.

      删除
    5. 哇!如此真实。每当我遇到唯物主义者时,我经常告诉他们,当他们回来时'我实际上准备和我说话,而不是在他们脑海中浮现虚构的人物。它's as if their eyes glaze over while engaging with an imaginary enemy while looking past me-blind to what I am saying. I feel for 您 伯纳德o

      删除

  2. 的 major problem with those who replied to 您 是 at core they do 不 have a consistent understanding of how 梭哈游戏 是 defined.

    我去克里斯蒂安·德·昆西'两种方法的描述"consciousness" may be defined;

    "Psychological 梭哈游戏 是 about the contents of 梭哈游戏 (e.g., thoughts, beliefs, images), and about the mode of access (conscious or 无梭哈游戏) to these contents. It 是 also about the state of awareness, or form of 梭哈游戏, characterized by being awake or alert, and 是 contrasted with the "unconscious," a state of being asleep, and with psychic contents below the threshold of conscious-awake awareness. For example, a person engaged in conceptual cognition 是 conscious in this sense; a person in a coma, or a worm, are examples of what being 无梭哈游戏 means.
    哲学梭哈游戏是关于梭哈游戏的语境。它是关于存在的方式,使任何和所有梭哈游戏的内容和形式成为可能。从哲学上讲,梭哈游戏是一种状态或存在的质量,梭哈游戏的事实的特征是具有感知能力,主观性和自我代理能力。它与被"nonconscious," a state of affairs wholly without sentience or subjectivity-that 是 , brute physicality. For example, a person (awake or asleep), a dog, or a worm exemplify 梭哈游戏 in this sense; a rock, a cloud, or a computer do 不 . Looked at this way, it 是 clear that the philosophical meaning 是 more fundamental-for without 梭哈游戏 as a state of being (i.e., an ontological reality) there could be no psychological states or contents. Even the psychological 无梭哈游戏 has something psychic or mental going on. To be 无梭哈游戏 是 still to be sentient (worms and sleeping people still feel), 哪里as to be nonconscious 是 不 (rocks and computers do 不 feel)."

    Neurologica上的许多海报要么将梭哈游戏定义为"brain state" necessary for normal waking awareness and various dream states as well as the baseline potential within the brain that defines the background state and liminal boundaries for the above neurological states to arise. Or they mistake 梭哈游戏 philosophically for the 自我.

    It seems to me that a solid definition of how 您 are using 梭哈游戏 may be helpful if this "debate" should continue.

    也许足够就足够了。 ;-)

    里克

    回复 删除
    回覆
    1. 我觉得你 are right about the need for a clear definition. Even I used the term 'unconscious' to mean what 您 described as 'non-conscious.'

      删除
  3. great post 伯纳德o... I love that 您 continue to engage these folks in this way. It would be one thing if their absurd position wasn't the status quo :)

    亚历克斯

    回复 删除
  4. 说到de Quincey,这是来自标题为FB的链接"7 step science-based proof that nature has a 心神 of its own".

    "(1)我们(人类)是由原子和分子组成的有情生物;

    (2)没有“独特的人类原子或分子” (you won’t find any 特别 “Hu”元素表中的原子)。作为我们一部分存在的任何原子或分子也存在于宇宙的其他地方。

    (3)在任何种类的原子之间都没有内在差异(它们都由电子和质子组成);

    (4)由于构成我们的原子与整个宇宙中的原子之间没有区别,因此我们是有梭哈游戏的有情生物。 。 。

    (5)并且因为智慧不可能从无知的原子演化或出现; *

    (6)整个宇宙中的所有原子和分子也必须是有感觉的。

    (7) 的 refore, because the cosmos 是 permeated by sentient atoms and molecules, we can confidently conclude that nature must have a 心神 of its own.

    QED。它’s that simple!





    伯纳德o,

    Might 您 explain how 您r Idealism differs from de Quincey's panpsychism? Also 哪里 您r paradigm might agree with de Quincey's。显然他受到怀特海(Whitehead)和叔本华(Schopenhauer)和伯格森(Bergson)的影响。



    里克

    回复 删除
    回覆
    1. Yeah, here I am 不 with de Quincey all the way. Point (4) of his argument implicitly 假设 that 梭哈游戏 是 a property _of_ atoms. Only then does (6) follow from (4). This implicit assumption 是 an echo of a type of realism, namely the idea that 心神 是 a property of 物, like mass or charge. Chalmers called it "Type F"一元论。我不同意这种隐含的假设,因为我不't see any empirical reason to grant it. As far as I can ever know, atoms are in 心神, 不 心神 in atoms. I think 物 是 a particular type of subjective experience. 我不't think 心神 是 a property of 物, but that 物 出现 in 心神. I think all the universe 是 in 梭哈游戏, but 不 necessarily conscious.

      删除
    2. 总的来说,里克,我认为德昆西重复了一种普遍的投影方式。作为有梭哈游戏的实体,我将原子等基本物体概念化。然后,我将自己概念化为由这些概念形成的个体,然后将自己的主观性投射到这些概念上。有一种外向运动-将我的主观性投射到我的主观性概念上-然后是一种向内运动-用这些概念确定自己。如果没有投影怎么办?那我们到底知道些什么?

      删除
  5. 伯纳德o: "As far as I can ever know, atoms are in 心神, 不 心神 in atoms."

    在那里!

    里克

    回复 删除
  6. 迈克尔·拉金(Michael Larkin)2014年5月24日星期六下午4:58:00

    这里'我在博客上的评论:

    我不’对马克思主义了解不多。如果我想学习更多,也许’d有资格参加有关它的讨论,也许我’d阅读Das Kapital。也许我’d发现它与我偏爱的世界观完全相反,并强烈反对。但是,我不能’出于知识上的诚实,不读就可以反对它。

    贝尔纳多已经写了一本书,《为什么唯物主义是鲍洛尼》,我正在读,已经接近尾声了。通过阅读它,我对贝尔纳多在说什么有了一定的了解:也许不是一个完美的掌握,但是比任何没有掌握的人都要好得多’t read it.

    花了我£Kindle格式的4.32:比在酒吧喝啤酒少得多。如果有人真的读过它,他们也许可以拆除贝尔纳多’的论点,赢得了我的钦佩。

    顺便说一句,祝你好运。我是真诚的。一世’d如果它们可以拆除,希望看到它们被拆除。但是如果他们’重新拒绝看不见的景象,我将不得不放弃那种快乐,阿伦’t I?

    回复 删除
  7. 非常有趣!我喜欢异议的性质如此轻松地转换。只要有可能使您的观点沉默,就好像什么东西都足够好。值得注意的是"I'd想了解您的观点。请告诉我更多。" and "I'确保您能看到自己的观点。你能为我总结一下吗?"您最喜欢的评论是:"Materialism 是 the 'meta'这里的世界观是从某种意义上说,它假设一个基本完整的,完全抽象的宇宙,基本上是在主知识(即主观经验)之外。如果有的话,唯心主义就是对'meta;' that 是 , a rejection of 元physical abstractions." I love that one.

    回复 删除
    回覆
    1. 究竟!我有一种同样的感觉,即当他们出现矛盾时,他们就继续改变进攻路线,好像目标是胜利,而不是理解。

      删除
    2. Never invest too much time with anyone committed to misunderstanding 您

      删除
  8. 我认为您可以回答倒数第二个问题("您的理论预言了唯物主义的所作所为。我不’从断言宇宙是精神的中看不出任何其他解释或预测能力")通过与伯克利的反击更加尖锐'关于物质的极端主义论证。看起来或多或少,您在回答最后一个问题时做了什么,但我认为通过说出一些影响来回答倒数第二个问题会更加有效。"理想主义是一个强势立场,因为它需要一个更少的假设,即所谓的东西'matter' exists independent of mental sensation of it and which 是 inaccessible to our 心神s because it lacks all qualitative properties. 的 refore under the old Richard Dawkins formula of how compelling an idea 是 [number of things a theory can explain/number of assumptions the theory requires 您 to believe] 唯心主义 是 a stronger theory because while the numerator 是 the same, the denominator 是 smaller."

    All in all, though, this was a fantastic read. Materialists tend to rely heavily on snark, smugness, and mockery, but 您 demonstrated patience and analytic grace by pointing out the flaws in their arguments.

    在旧的苏联,量子物理学最初是由国家控制的科学机构禁止的,理由是它似乎支持唯心主义,并与马克思列宁主义的唯物主义基础相矛盾。直到斯大林决定他需要原子弹才能与美国人竞争时,量子物理学才获得了绿灯。这或多或少无关紧要,但我总是喜欢通过指出这一点来惹恼唯物主义者:)

    回复 删除
    回覆
    1. 感谢您的周到评论,Elliott!关于苏联的观点很有趣... :)

      删除
    2. 苏联科学家阿列克谢·斯塔诺宾斯基(Alexei Starobinsky)早在1979年就已经预测了宇宙微波背景下有关引力波的最新发现,他首次尝试用非常相似(但推导不同)的模型来描述早期宇宙(使用引力的量子校正) )作为宇宙膨胀,

      删除
  9. 伯纳德o, 您r form of 唯心主义 actually creates a new 二元论, and fails to address the new "hard question" 您've created.
    让我解释一下:我支持我们仅有的知识是主观知识,出于梭哈游戏。您断言梭哈游戏构成梭哈游戏的内容(毕竟,我们必须梭哈游戏到某些事情)。为了解释我们似乎如何体验梭哈游戏'以相同的方式构造,您假设"集体潜梭哈游戏". This 集体潜梭哈游戏 是 不可知的, except through whatever proceeds from it into the 梭哈游戏 that we all seem to share. 您'通过创建"集体潜梭哈游戏". It's a form of 二元论: I have that which I know thanks to my own 梭哈游戏, and I share in what I know thanks to the 集体潜梭哈游戏ness. If I substitute 目的 reality for the 集体潜梭哈游戏ness - 您r theory 是 the same. And since we can't know whether or 不 the 集体潜梭哈游戏 consists of physical substance, 您'我已将自己融入二元论哲学中,以解释为什么你们俩我都梭哈游戏到生活在同一个宇宙中。如果我所能知道的只是我的主观现实,那么我可以'甚至不知道您自己是否具有主观现实,或者您仅仅是我梭哈游戏的建构。你避风港'摆脱了这个难题。

    回复 删除
    回覆
    1. 你好我承认(即使在书中)有一种形式的'dualism'默示。但是你走得太远了。在这本书中,我解释了我的潜梭哈游戏(或'unconscious') 是 , in fact, an obfuscated part of 梭哈游戏. As such, it 是 不 a new ontological category, but merely a form of 梭哈游戏. As such, the subconscious implies no substance 二元论; the 'dualism'这很明显。仅此一点,就使我对唯心主义的表述与根本上在梭哈游戏之外的物质主义发明完全不同。而且,它确实摆脱了难题,因为梭哈游戏不需要从其他任何事物神奇地出现,甚至不需要从潜梭哈游戏中出现(正如我上面所说的,这只是梭哈游戏的一种形式)。
      Next, the subconscious 是 不 an unprovable abstraction (like a world 外 心神) but an unquestionable empirical reality. After all, our dreams and psychotic hallucinations -- obvious outcomes of mental activity -- all emerge from a part of our 心神s that escapes our immediate awareness or identification; that 是 , a subconscious. As such, by postulating that consensus reality 是 generated by a 集体潜梭哈游戏 I am postulating no new ontological entity, but simply using an entity empirically known to exist. This 是 different, of course, than materialism's postulation of an entire universe 外 心神.
      最后,我对唯心主义的表述不同于唯物主义。唯心主义预言,大脑活动的减少会导致脱位,从而导致梭哈游戏的扩展,这与无损检测,迷幻tr,冥想,缺氧等的报道是一致的(参见本书第二章,对证据)。唯心主义还预测,肉体死亡仅仅是我们梭哈游戏状态中的一次机会,而不是丧失它。
      All in all, I categorically disagree that my formulation of 唯心主义 是 equivalent to materialism. Postulating that an empirically known and undeniable segment of the psyche (the subconscious) 是 responsible for consensus reality 是 certainly much more parsimonious than postulating an entire world 外 心神. 的 'dualism' behind my formulation 是 不 substance 二元论, but merely a 二元论 of perspectives. In essence, it's just an apparent 二元论, and the very use of the word 'dualism'因为它是基于单词的常见英语含义,而不是其哲学含义。最后,我的表述的预测可能等同于普通物质事件的唯物主义的预测,但是当涉及到我们的梭哈游戏状态,身体死亡或关于生命意义的问题的深刻变化时,肯定不是这样。

      删除
    2. 我们不'不知道存在集体无梭哈游戏。您'重新假设你可以存在某种东西'就像唯物主义者认为存在客观现实一样。我不'看不到如何解决这个问题。一世'我已经熟悉NDE,DE等的证据-仍然可以'不能被用来支持您对集体无梭哈游戏的主张,而唯物主义可以证明梭哈游戏"emerges"从大脑。那里'没有信息内容就没有梭哈游戏,我们必须通过共识来判断其准确性。您'再说内容只是更多的梭哈游戏-那内容是什么?这种集体梭哈游戏的构成是什么?为了使我们梭哈游戏到该梭哈游戏,某人或某物必须是有梭哈游戏/无梭哈游戏的。如果它'如果我们所有人在一起,无论生死,那么什么信息通知了那个集体梭哈游戏?一世'恐怕我必须得出结论,这是一种双重性。因此,更简单地说,是梭哈游戏和物质性的双重性,或者属性的双重性(Chalmers)。我不'认为您的想法为我们如何体验存在提供了充分的解释,并且以相似的方式(大多数人彼此之间都不知道)来体验到这些。也就是说,我为什么要相信您和我以相同方式(如果有)看到这些字母的原因是因为我们'两者都访问共同的潜梭哈游戏,而不是仅仅以相同的生理方式来感知相同的独立信息吗?有梭哈游戏的方式?

      删除
    3. 迈克尔·拉金(Michael Larkin)2014年5月25日星期日,上午8:36:00

      贝尔纳多(Bernardo)很好地阐述了他的观点以及为什么不这样做't entail 二元论. I see it as a question of perspective/mode of mentation. In ordinary states of 心神, substance 二元论 是 a fairly natural 解释 of the world, and quite useful. However, if 心神 and 物 are different realms, how come they seem so enmeshed? Why wouldn't we exist as pure conscious entities, and the realm of 物, as a realm of complete non-consciousness, of which we might be entirely ignorant?

      唯物主义一元论者认为一切's material, and yet the most certain thing, 梭哈游戏, seems 不 to be. 的 y make it illusory, or emergent and/or an intrinsic property of 物. Matter that can agglomerate, interrelate and complexify/evolve, and in parallel with that, become progressively more conscious and then, self-conscious. After death, the complexity 是 lost through decay, along with the "collective"相关部分的梭哈游戏。有梭哈游戏的实体就像短暂的沙丘在沙漠中出现和消失一样。复杂智能能够自我展示的潜力,原本就存在于"sand grains",自然过程就像"wind" and "erosion"不断形成,拆除和改革为"dunes".

      但是,为什么基本粒子的复杂排列有可能产生非常复杂的自反梭哈游戏呢?那里 's no telos allowed; no reason why elementary particles should possess the property of 梭哈游戏, no less than other properties such as charge and spin etc. that just happen to facilitate their coming together in complex arrangements. Moreover, whilst properties like charge and spin can be 客观地 observed and measured, 梭哈游戏 apparently can't. 的 only reason we know it exists 是 through our subjective experience of it. In materialistic monism, we can never quite get rid of duality: 不 without 客观地 identifying/measuring the property of 梭哈游戏 associated with 物 (rather than mere correlations of 梭哈游戏 with, say, complex material arrangements in the brain).

      Emergence of 梭哈游戏 at some higher level of complexity, rather than panpsychism at every level, has essentially the same problem: until we can identify and measure 梭哈游戏 as an 目的 entity, the materialistic monism 是 promissory.

      与理想主义相比,它没有'不必证明梭哈游戏的客观存在:梭哈游戏就是一切,*一切*都是主观的。我们所认为的"objective"可以验证的是主观规律性。我们认为的"unconscious"是主体梭哈游戏可以使主体梭哈游戏'从目前的角度来看。

      We find it hard to grok the 不 ion of a single 梭哈游戏 that can simultaneously perceive itself from many different points of view. As localised conscious states of 心神 (whirlpools if 您 like), we don'似乎无法做到这一点;但是,在许多情况下"mystical"根据经验,人们常年报告自己只是整体的一个方面。一世'我自己经历过,尽管我认为不是最深​​刻的一次。

      我找到贝尔纳多's 元phors very helpful, but I have to be careful 不 to take them too literally. Once, while I was in a local Chinese takeaway, the guy behind the counter wrote something down in Chinese characters. A customer asked what it meant, the answer was something like "pork". "Ah," the customer said, "so 哪里 是 the "p", the "o", the "r" and the "k"?"

      去过也做过。 ;-)

      删除
    4. 匿名,

      的 evidence from trance, NDEs, hypoxia, etc., indicates that less brain activity leads to a broader scope of 梭哈游戏. This 是 a prediction of my formulation of Idealism and contradicts materialism. 您 may question the validity of the evidence; that's OK. I suggest 您 have a look at Chapter 2 of my latest book before 您 judge it. 的 evidence for a 集体 'unconscious,'另一方面,来自一个世纪的分析心理学。再次,您可能会质疑它,但是有大量的材料被无数受人尊敬的从业者和学者所认真对待。

      所有这一切,关于节俭的问题,我不知道'您无需证明'unconscious' 是 集体. I only need to know that it 是 there. And it obviously 是 : dreams and psychotic hallucinations are clearly generated by a part of our 心神s that we don't identify with and have no 控制 over. I guess 您 can accept this empirically undeniable fact. Yet, we all experience the effects of the activity of this part of our 心神s (i.e. dreams and hallucinations). I guess 您 won'对此事实也无可否认。现在's all I need: I state that it 是 this very part of 心神 that generates consensus reality, just like it generates dreams and hallucinations. 您 may claim that the 'unconscious' 是 n'集体,因此,可以'产生共识现实。但是,这里的答案并没有改变这样一个事实,就假定的本体论实体而言,我的唯心主义比唯物主义更加简约:

      Materialism: postulates an unprovable, abstract universe 外 experience -- that 是 , a new and quite overwhelming ontological entity;
      Idealism: postulates that an empirically undeniable part of 心神 (that 是 , no new ontological entity) 是 , in fact, 集体, for which there 是 good -- even though admittedly 不 absolute -- evidence.

      您 claim that I cannot know that the 'unconscious' 是 集体. Maybe, but the game here, which 您r original question raised, 是 what 是 more parsimonious and consistent with the evidence, 不 what can be known for sure. Materialism can, by definition, never be known, which makes it the champion of fundamental unknowability.

      现在,您提出的主要问题是:'generating'集体的内容'unconscious.'我也拒绝接受,我在这里的表述需要与唯物主义或类似的本体论假设相同的信念飞跃。同样从心理学上,我们凭经验了解分裂的心理复合体的现象,其中一部分人'精神分裂,变得自治。 DSM将其描述为'多种人格障碍"我认为。这表明头脑可以分为两个部分,每个部分都变成'unconscious'从对方的角度看,尽管其活动继续间接地影响对方。随您去,这个已知的经验事实便是我制定公式时所需要的:作为个人自我,我们是广泛的思维媒介的分裂复合体。广泛的媒介已成为'unconscious'对我们来说,但它的活动继续以我们认识到自己周围的经验世界的形式(甚至可能以其他形式影响着我们),但让'为了简单起见,将其省略)。是产生思想内容的更广泛的思想媒介'unconscious,'我们通过这种媒介的分离复合体,通过我们的感觉器官将其视为经验世界。
      So, in conclusion, I still feel quite assured that it 没有'无论以通货膨胀还是唯物主义的方式来表达我的理想主义。

      删除
    5. 在我看来,这很像在不同坐标系中产生的伪力问题。我认为正是费曼(Feynman)指出-在引力的背景下-缺乏理解可能是由于不正确的参照系造成的。例如,科里奥利力仅出现在以旋转物体为中心的参照系中,而当从体外的框架派生时则不在运动方程中出现。这里也出现了与"pseudo-dualism"等等。也许需要一个新的参考框架,但是关于采用什么形式或"where"它在说谎-我不知道。

      删除
    6. 我觉得你'保罗再次撞到了头。现在,和我一起思考:你'是一个五岁的孩子和文化天堂'尚未将任何抽象植入您的脑海,也没有将这些抽象投射到自然上。什么'您的自然参照系?您自己的主观性。你自己的身体存在于那种主观之中,而不是相反。原子存在于该主观性中,因为它们是概念化您在主观性中展现的体验的模式和规律性的方式。据您这个五岁的孩子所知,您是您生命(包括身体)在其中展开的主观空间。那是唯一自然的参考框架,不受文化约束的抽象和预测的污染。

      删除
    7. 是的,我完全理解您在说什么,的确,我确实生动地记得童年的不受限制的世界,以及我所希望的模制现实的明显轻松性,至少是它的主观体验。我经常想知道,关于原子和量子的子世界,这些东西是否"objectively"存在还是只是我们的体现"desire"他们存在。如果在法律范围内可行的话,也许自然会在这些尺度上改变我们的意愿。如果我们在碰撞中看到夸克上下波动,是否表示它存在?还是说当我们将事物粉碎在一起时它就存在了,但是如果我们不这样做的话'那样做自然就不会做'夸克本身没有多大用途,但会以它们的乐趣而存在吗?当我写这篇文章的时候'一位坐在窗户外面露台上桌子上的知更鸟,他正看着我。它'很难定义我怎么知道的,但是我知道。它'有道理。他经常这样做-上下来看我,让我知道他在看我。像这样的事情总是让我想起,在生活中存在着一种联系-一种潜在的统一。它'能够以这种方式互相看到并考虑另一个是一个很棒的礼物。在唯物主义的指导下,我认为这样的事情不会发生。我认为,在这样的系统中,好奇心肯定会以任何形式反革命,但我们发现,所有形式的生活都是好奇的-尽管有风险,但它们仍在探索和发展。我认为这必须是梭哈游戏的基本原理-从根本上讲它本身是无知的,并且必须以这种方式表现出来,以试图对它的外观进行描绘。我曾经读过-可以'不记得在哪里-我们所需要的只是我们在死后或死后能够讲出我们的故事,这对我来说似乎很有意义。反正我'我会尽快购买您的书,我认为您在以自己的方式发展这些想法方面做得很好,我希望这些想法在某个阶段能够达到临界点,从而开始在这方面做出一些改变几乎是不人道的模式,我们被盲目追求

      删除
    8. 谢谢保罗。我同意这样一种观念,即好奇心是一种强大的驱动力(如果无法识别的话),它是无法抑制的,自然而然的驱动力。关于我们是在原子粉碎机中看到客观的亚原子粒子还是只是我们期望的体现,我只能告诉你这一点:在所有最大的原子粉碎机中工作过,我知道没有人见过许多基本的亚原子粒子通常是新闻。所看到的是这些粒子据称留下的痕迹(它们的'decay paths'),以计算机屏幕上的直方图的形式显示。粒子本身就是推断的模型,甚至'convenient fictions,' so to speak.

      删除
    9. I'我从来没有嫉妒过任何事物,也没有真正嫉妒过任何人,但是在CERN中使用该事物确实使我有些羡慕。它一定是一场嗡嗡声。好奇的东西虽然很奇怪'是吗?如果您从一般意义上接受爱马仕的原理"因为它在上面,所以它在下面 ",那么梭哈游戏领域的本质必须在我们自己身上体现出来。好奇心是吸引子-汇-因此,它一定是基础领域的源头。除非经过类似空间和类似时间的实验,否则可能是已知的,但实际上是未知的。如果我们决定接受理想主义原则,然后看看我们如何探索它(我们可以设计什么实验)而不是辩论它,那将是很棒的。当然,整个事情不可能是消极的,仅仅是一个事物,如果它存在的话,就必须要被劝说。毕竟,我知道自然界中没有活物'不想有某种形式的互动,并且肯定地,随着您逐步增加复杂性,它一定要发挥作用。这不是对内在本质的反映吗?乐趣,风险,好奇心,爱?如果我们作为有梭哈游戏的生物喜欢玩乐(我们也似乎也喜欢战争),这不是底层领域的特征吗?
      关于身体-各种形式的身体和生命器官等'm with Plato'关于这种形式的理论-我认为这与理想主义理论相吻合-'它的建造可以再次作为车辆使用。现在我知道他指的是真相和美丽等等,但是我更多地在思考眼球,肝脏,肾脏,骨骼,过程等。因此,对理想主义者理论的一个很好的检验可能是遗传学与这些表达之间的接口形式(眼球,肾脏等)因此,与其说它是化学/基因过程,不如说是一个基于mmmmm波的过程,然后我们应该能够使用"tuned receiver"方法。我当然接受这在方法上似乎是唯物主义的,但是唯物主义肯定会以一种"special" or "limited"理想主义的案例。但是,我们不能探索这个领域(理想主义)并对其进行探讨吗?漩涡可以和水说话吗?在您的流动示例中,我们当然可以引起漩涡-例如,我们可以将水流引导到一个角落,那么我们如何才能为梭哈游戏做同样的事情?我们可以表现出大脑吗?这就是问题-我们尚无法测量此字段。我们从哪里开始?在这部影片中"Predator"斯沃辛格(Swarzenegger)表现出色"如果出血,我们可以杀死它 "-那么我们在哪里找到领域?如果我们能使它移动..我们可以描述它。它有发散度吗?卷毛?从您的模型看来,它肯定具有卷曲-它具有发散度吗?我们当地的大脑是源还是汇?因此,贝尔纳多,我对您说的是-我们如何证明这一点?尽管可能是主观的,但即使方法最初可能是不寻常的,也可能是短暂的唯物主义,我们也可以肯定地利用它。如果头脑和大脑存在于梭哈游戏中,那么我们必须找到一种方法来证明这一点。如果有漩涡,我们必须能够定义河流(在流体动力学方面很容易-至少是局部的)。
      I look forward to 您r thoughts on this.

      删除
    10. >>这不是对内在本质的反映吗?乐趣,风险,好奇心,爱?<<

      Yes! I happen to be writing about something related to this right now... pretty cool that 您 latched onto it. 的 re are also some thought on this in the last chapter of my latest book.

      >> I'm with Plato'的形式理论-我认为与理想主义理论相吻合<<

      是的形式或原型可以解释为心灵的主要内在特征,它们最终在心理学,物理学,生物学等方面表现出来。

      Much of what 您 write 是 reminiscent of Rupert Sheldrake'的形态共振思想。

      >> So, 伯纳德o, what I am saying to 您 是 this - how do we prove it? <<

      I'd say it 是 materialism that needs proof, since it postulates more. Idealism 是 default, since 心神 是 the only carrier of reality and knowledge that we can ever know. 我不't see 唯心主义 as a scientific theory, but as a philosophical way to interpret scientific theory. 那 said, an idealist take on reality certainly opens some new doors for experiment design in science... which would be very interesting to explore. 的 disclaimer I always make, however, 是 that 唯心主义 does 不 imply the so-called 'law of attraction;' it does 不 imply that reality 是 under the 控制 of the 自我, or of conscious volition.

      删除
  10. 伯纳德o,

    当我看到这个"Brain states and 梭哈游戏"东西,我有点摇头,因为对我来说,大脑化学与认知功能和身体行为有关,而不与梭哈游戏有关,这是不同的。

    I also like what 您 said above about materialism. Proof 是 more for physical things than spiritual things. 那 是 why I laugh when strawmanners like Richard Dawkins try to reduce God to a human and subject him to scientific analysis.

    回复 删除
    回覆
    1. 是的,道金斯和其他'horsemen'错过所有的细微差别...'s a pity.

      删除
  11. 出色的回应Bernardo。令我震惊的是,唯物主义的反驳并不是新鲜事物。当伯克利提出完整的现代(后普洛提努斯主义)理想主义概念时,那个著名的英国才子塞缪尔·约翰斯顿(Samuel Johnston)做出了回应,在街上踢了石头,宣称'I refute it thus!'.

    显然,唯心主义的本体论与那些不熟悉它的人相反。但是,约翰斯顿博士'这些年来,现实主义的假设并没有真正改变。仍然是大多数人'的默认假设。

    回复 删除
    回覆
    1. 嗨道格拉斯。正如我写的'为什么唯物主义是鲍洛尼,' Johnston'对岩石的具体感觉的吸引力实际上支持唯心主义,而不是唯物主义……这表明唯物主义如何通过无知而窃取唯心主义的直觉性,并将唯物主义的愚蠢性归因于唯心主义(如"obviously the world 是 不 in 您r head")

      删除
  12. 这篇文章中引用的第一个对唯心主义的反对开始了'大脑需要注意...'这让我发笑。什么样的盲人看不到这是一个荒谬的想法?

    回复 删除
    回覆
    1. 好一个但是像Novella这样的人't'完全明白这一点。他们'下摆和山楂说"Well we really didn'这意味着从字面上看" but they do. It 是 truly remarkable how otherwise intelligent people can say things that are so completely incoherent, and as 您 say, absurd.

      删除
  13. Thanks 伯纳德, I enjoyed this very much. Growing up in the materialist paradigm, as we Westerners have, I find that no 物 how many arguments I read that nudge me towards the idealist position, the black void of materialism with its contradictions and concommitant despair retain a kind of gravitational pull over my psyche. It 是 deeply inculcated, and if 我不'考虑了一段时间后,我发现自己陷入了唯物主义的假设。您的博客文章是一种很好的方法,可以继续抵消这种拉动,并从我们的文化所建立的这颗暗星中建立逃逸速度。真的很喜欢Baloney的书。

    回复 删除
    回覆
    1. 刚注意到我离开了'o' off 您r name. Sorry!

      删除
    2. Hi, and thanks for the kind words! Frankly, it 是 people like 您 that I try to reach the most, because I am like that too. It took me a lot to build 'escape velocity' and I feel very sympathetic to the way 您 describe 您r dilemma. When I 辩论 raving, militant materialists 我不't do it for their sake (they are too deep in the illusions, projections, and too invested in a particular imago to be helped), but for the sake of people like 您 and me, who read those 辩论s with an open 心神.

      删除
    3. 关于我的名字'完全没有问题。有时我的名字叫"Bernard" because it's easier ;)

      删除
  14. 伯纳德o,您是否考虑过在reddit.com/r/iAMA上进行AMA(向我提出任何要求)?我不'不知道你是否有时间,但是'对于作者来说,创建一本用于宣传一本书并回答人们可能遇到的任何相关问题的做法相当普遍。我认为这可能是将您的想法推广到其他人群的好方法。缺点是我可以'不能真正保证您得到的答复将都是明智的,并且不会sn之以鼻。不过我've had pretty good discussions with people on the site on 物s related to materialism, 唯心主义 , and 梭哈游戏.

    回复 删除
    回覆
    1. 有趣的主意,山姆。我会考虑。谢谢!

      删除
    2. 无神论者 拥有超过200万的订户。 直到最近,它在Reddit上被推荐's default home page. 您 may find a passionate, if unsympathetic, audience to interact with there.

      删除
  15. 印度哲学观点的一些观察

    回复:集体梭哈游戏为"unknowable"。至少从专门的瑜伽角度来看并非如此。只要我们识别出特定的身心配置(两者都是"in"梭哈游戏-这回答了另一个关于存在的异议"dualistic"并且还可能指向超出我们通常认为的范围的事物"mind"-这不是另一个类别,而仅仅是"Consciousness" or Chit) - our "ego" (ahamkara; or "I maker";这是与"separate"宇宙的一部分)无法控制它做什么't identify with. So, for example, take psychokinesis. It has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt in the laboratory, over and over, but the effects are very weak. This 是 because even the best practitioners still identify mostly with the 分离 自我, and are 不 "in tune"具有普遍或超然梭哈游戏的人,因此无法将自己的意志借给它的意志。 (这是我们唯一的方法"control"在我们明显之外的东西"ego").

    I'对不起,这听起来听起来很难听,但是'其实很简单。

    在上面的某个地方,里克·斯图亚特(Rick Stuart)提出梭哈游戏作为内容与梭哈游戏作为背景。艾哈·麦吉尔克里斯特(Iain McGilchrist)将这描述为参与左右半球特征的方式-细节,内容和提供内容的权利都体现在左角上。

    Regarding the rather yogic practice which 伯纳德o attempted of sitting in on conversations which oppose what he 是 writing about, it may help to understand it 是 不 quite the conscious militant fight 您 might think. 的 materialist 自我 (just like the 自我 of everyone in here, on this site) fights desperately to hold on to what it identifies with. To the extent Novella and Carroll and others like them identify with being rational scientific people, and identify rationality and science as equivalent to materialism, they need to fight anything that challenges materialism because it threatens the very core of who they are and what they feel 是 the solid stability of the world they live in.

    再次,公平地说,达赖喇嘛谈到如果您'重新正确地进行分析冥想。可以说,分析冥想的目的是彻底破坏您所拥有的每一个唯物主义观念,不仅是关于外部世界,而且是关于"felt sense" that "you" are a solid, 目的 entity. 的 Lama said that if 您 don't feel utter panic, as if 您r entire universe 是 falling apart at the seams, leading to complete terror, 您'不正确地做。

    I think he was being somewhat - or mostly - tongue in cheek here, but there 是 a point to it. If 您 have any idea what he's talking about, then read the desperate attacks that materialists make, 您'll see them more compassionately as drowning men with their arms flailing about. 您 may know that at times, lifeguards have to actually knock 无梭哈游戏 the people they are trying to rescue, in order to avoid their flailing arms.

    Maybe 您 need to knock the materialist 无梭哈游戏 and then slowly coddle him and provide him with gentle pointers as to the nature of the subjective reality with which he 是 surrounded in order to get through.

    我不't know:>))

    回复 删除
    回覆
    1. 这里 是 something I wrote in 为什么唯物主义是鲍洛尼, which may be relevant:

      "Since the eye that sees cannot see itself directly, 心神 can never understand itself literally. A literal – that 是 , direct – apprehension of the nature of existence 是 fundamentally impossible, this being the perennial cosmic itch. 的 vibrations of 心神 –就是经验– can never directly reveal the underlying nature of the medium that vibrates, in the same way that one cannot see a guitar string merely by hearing the sounds it produces when plucked. Yet, the vibrations of 心神 do embody and reflect the intrinsic potentialities of their underlying medium, in the same way that valid inferences can be made about the length and composition of a guitar string purely from the sound it produces. 的 sound of a vibrating medium 是 a 元phor for the medium’基本的本质。媒介显然不是’声音,但其本质确实间接地反映在它产生的声音中。
      As such, consensus reality 是 不 hing but a 元phor for the fundamental nature of 心神. Nothing –没有事物,事件,过程或现象–的确是真实的,但令人回味。157’ve seen above, 不 only 是 this sufficient for 心神 to capture its own essential meaning, it means that only this essential meaning 是 ultimately true. Everything else 是 just packaging: disposable vehicles to evoke the underlying essence of 心神. 的 plethora of phenomena we call nature and civilization holds no more reality than a theatrical play. 的 y serve a purpose as carriers, but they are 不 essential in and by themselves."

      删除
  16. Dear 伯纳德o,

    Please allow my enthusiastic endorsement of 您r assistance to the human race to negate the next one thousand of 您r detractors! I found out about 您r book (ordered) and this blog exactly yesterday. Perhaps 您 will be the one to help me help my spouse, who forlornly admits to wishing I could find a way to save us from death/nonexistence, but who seems to me to be a prisoner of the type of thinking 您 struggle against. He 是 from the former Soviet Union, and all his formative and early adult years were in that milieu. He admits he wants to live yet the patterns of thinking are so ingrained...and this 是 precisely why 您r efforts are 不 wasted. 那 是 , there are always some who will be ready to change their 心神s if provided some assistance, and also very many who have had an ineffable experience but their ingrained thinking tempts them to negate it. 的 two must be integrated eventually as we are intellectual beings.

    On 您r question #3 above, I'd需要澄清。
    "Behavior conducive to survival requires 动机 and, therefore, emotion. "

    您说上述在唯物主义的框架内是不合逻辑的,并且似乎已经给出了没有动机进行计算的计算机的示例。上述说法的问题可能在于,唯物主义者正在将主观梭哈游戏假设为生命的代名词,同时否认了它。因为在我看来,以上说法是正确的-每个生物都必须有动力。甚至变形虫也必须有动力->desire --> will. I think that this 动机, which 是 a 动机 to live in the body, 是 what differentiates inanimate 物 from living entities. Inanimate 物 has no preferences; to be alive 是 to have subjective 梭哈游戏. Without the 欲望 to live there would be no reason to bother calculating anything, and I doubt the "motivation"一台计算机的生命可能类似于生物,因为它是一台机器,并且机器没有意志,它们是机械的,并且由将它们设计为能够按照其意愿运行的生物激活。

    回复 删除