Yes, likewise. Actually for me both metaphysical views dovetail nicely into one whole, absent the rhetoric in either which denies something in the other. In fact all this argument about metaphysics we see here is largely irrelevant to me because I have developed my own metaphysic a while ago, which neither comes close to.Not exactly; when I say that I don't think that either idealism or materialism, per se are more conducive to spirituality I mean that to hold one or the other metaphysical view makes no difference.
Wouldn't any form, being extended and configured, have to be thought to inhabit some kind of a space, whether its a logical or purely conceptual space, or an actual or perceptual space? — John
Ed Feser has a good blog post on this point http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/concretizing-abstract.html. — Wayfarer
The primary aspects where I didn't agree with him were in his comments about brains, genes, etc. as (not being) "substances in their own right"--but primarily because I'm not sure just what he's claiming there, — Terrapin Station
Refering to material though my position is such that I rarely ever see it mentioned on forums like this. That material as a philosophical concept is all forms of extension, division, differentiation — Punshhh
An idealist holds that physical objects only exist in so far as they are perceived — John
For Wittgenstein, to understand the use of a word, in the manner that is relevant to philosophy, it is necessary to understand the role that sentences involving that word play in our lives. His claim in this case is that those sentences which philosophers take to express substantive statements about realism and idealism play no role whatsoever in our lives. The metaphysical sentences have no use, and so there is nothing to be understood—they are strings of words without a meaning. Wittgenstein's hope is that once we see that, in a given metaphysical dispute, both sides are divided by nothing more than their different battle cries, both parties will realize that there is nothing to fight about and so give up fighting. — John
I can't make any sense of a form that is not a configuration, and a configuration cannot be coherently thought as being dimensionless, like a point may be able to be. — John
In other words form is unthinkable without space. — John
But then if an idealist says that objects exist independently of being perceived, then that idealist must be some form of realist, which is all fine and consistent unless you equate realism with materialism. — John
would say that mathematical concepts inhabit a logical space. In any case algebraic formulae for specifying the configurations of abstract forms are intelligible only insofar as they can be converted into visualizable forms. — John
A form simply cannot be intelligibly grasped unless it is visualized, and to be visualized it must be as possessing spatial dimension — John
And, as I said, you can insist that forms are spatial, all you want, but your only fooling yourself. What's the point in self-deception? — Metaphysician Undercover
Surely on that dualistic logic, reality also includes an observed; and why should we not think it is mind-independent outside the context of its actually being observed? After all, even when it is being observed, it is clear that what is observed does not exhaust its being.
And you say yourself that is doesn't mean "that objects go in and out of existence depending on who is looking or not looking." So, isn't that "not going out of existence" when not being observed a case of mind-independent existence?
I believe I can predict what you will say; you will say that that mind-independent existence is itself conceived by a mind. But that would just be to go around in circles within a state of conceptual self-confinement. — John
We were not talking about numbers, per se, we were talking about forms.
We were talking about numbers only insofar as they be used to create formulas. Formulas can specify two dimensional and three dimensional configurations. They can even specify four dimensional configurations, but we cannot visualize those. — John
If you can explain to me a way to intuitively grasp forms which does not involve spatial thinking then I will reconsider. — John
Next, we have order, and order is a temporally based concept. We can have a succession of non-dimensional points, separated by time, and count them, one, two, three, and so on. Now we have the non-spatial unit, the point, with temporal extension, such that there is not a line, in the sense of a two dimensional, spatial line, but a succession of points, with time separating each point, such that the points may be numbered according to the order given to them by time. Now we have the fundamental mathematical concepts, the primary unity, and the ordering of numbers, and these require absolutely no spatial reference or spatial existence. — Metaphysician Undercover
The fact is that some abstract forms are intelligible by a means other than visualizing them. — Metaphysician Undercover
I already painstakingly described this, it's called "numbers". We grasp numbers through "order" which is non-spatial, it is temporal. Two comes after one, then three comes after two,, then four, then five. We do not need a spatial number line to grasp the ordering of numbers.
If you still don't get it, try the concept of "God". — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't see how such a claim is tenable. We understand many things through the means of logic, and logic is not intuitive.I actually think all understanding is intuitive. — John
But, be that as it may, this conversation started off about the forms of objects, not about numbers or mathematics. — John
When the form is intuitively grasped it is always grasped as a configured extension in space, however abstracted. It's quite simple, you can't have the form of the object without the spacial configuration of that form. — John
So, I just can't agree with you that there is confusion because people can't understand metaphysical idealism; — John
I don't see how such a claim is tenable. We understand many things through the means of logic, and logic is not intuitive. — Metaphysician Undercover
This implies that the actual form of the object, the form which determines what the object will be when it comes into existence, is completely different from the form that we grasp through perception, what we call the form of the material object. — Metaphysician Undercover
But that's not true, the form of the object is not always grasped as a spatial extension. It may be grasped as a mathematical formula. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is no objective fact of the matter in regard to such judgements, but there are truths of the spirit. — John
If it is not intuited, then how do you know that one thing follows from another? — John
The form of maple leaves for example is a general form that can only be grasped as a visualization, it will be a description that will result in a visualization, an algebraic expression which specifies the coordinates on the x/y axis which will result in a visualization, or a direct pictorial representation. — John
Now, let's take the example of the pictorial representation: it is probably never going to be the exact form of any particular maple leaf, because each particular maple leaf has its own form of the same general kind which can be abstracted to form a closer, but never perfect, visual representation. — John
But there is no sense in which the present form of the maple leaf existed prior to the present moment. Prior to the present moment there were a succession of slightly different forms that evolved to the present form. — John
The visual form of an object cannot be grasped as a mathematical formula, well at least I can't grasp it as such, and I have spoken to mathematicians who say the same. The form can be modeled as a mathematical formula, the formula can of course be understood in purely mathematical terms, but it cannot be visualized directly, as mathematical formula; by definition it can only be visualized as a visual form. If you still disagree then there is no point continuing, because I am just going to say you are wrong; and you are probably just going to say I am wrong, and it will be a waste of time and energy. — John
There is no immediacy here, the conclusion requires mental effort, so it is impossible that logical conclusions are "intuitive", instead, they are "rational". — Metaphysician Undercover
I think that it is impossible to grasp a general form through a visualization. — Metaphysician Undercover
So I am in agreement with you, that the visual form of the object cannot be grasped by the mathematical formula. The two are deeply incompatible, and that's why I advocate dualism. Here's an explanation of this incompatibility: — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.