A materialist, fool!, apparently maintain that ideas are material, that all that is, is material. Which. I. Have. Made. Clear. Is. Not. What. I. Think. Get your terms straight! — tim wood

You haven't made it clear. Saying that there are real things which are not part of reality is contradiction, rather than making things clear. And you think I need to get my terms straight.

Saying that there are real things which are not part of reality is contradiction — Metaphysician Undercover

I have made clear four or five times exactly what I mean - no contradiction. You're claim of contradiction, in not addressing what I mean, is merely offensive. Your talking about what you mean and not connecting with me at all. A waste of my time, and a waste of yours, btw.

And you go on about how I'm this and that, wrong and contradictory. But you've got nothing to show on your side except your unsupported claim, that itself can stand only as an unsupported claim. So I invite you for the last time to make your case.

i claim there are things like bricks in the world, and things like ideas. Ideas are mind dependent; things themselves are not. And if nothing else, there is that fundamental difference between them. Nor, it would seem can either ever be the other.

With anything that you disagree with here, make a substantive argument against or be quiet. The world both near and far has enough of unsupported claims.

I claim there are things like bricks in the world, and things like ideas. Ideas are mind dependent; things themselves are not. — tim wood

Dr. Samuel Johnson claimed to disprove Bishop Berkeley's immaterialist philosophy - that there are no material objects, only minds and ideas in those minds - by kicking a large stone and asserting, "I refute it thus." This is called ‘argumentum ad lapidem’, ‘appeal to the stone’.

But then, as soon as I entered this, I regretted it; but there’s no ‘delete’ function on this forum.

I regretted it — Wayfarer

Yeah, no material objects, except.....

...those that lack intrinsic reality.

I was going with esse est percipi; no material objects except those perceived by a mind.

.....just guessing about your regret.

My regret was that I think it’s obvious that we - Tim Wood and I - are ‘talking past one another’ as so often happens in Internet forums. When that happens, the suitable response would be not to respond further - but I did. I should’ve shut up already.

Oh. Well.......I always was a lousy guesser.

Incidentally - while you’re here - that book I cited earlier - The Powers of Pure Reason: Kant and the Idea of Cosmic Philosophy Alfredo Ferrarin - looks an interesting title.

You're claim of contradiction, in not addressing what I mean, is merely offensive. — tim wood

You can give "reality" whatever definition you want, and proceed to talk in very strange ways, claiming not to contradict yourself, but then your definition contradicts what the rest of us know as "reality". That is how your claims are contradictory. The claim that there are real things which are not part of reality contradicts the conventional use of "reality", which we know as the collection of all real things. And you've given no supportive reasons for your exclusive definition, demonstrating that your definition is merely the product of a materialist bias.

But you've got nothing to show on your side except your unsupported claim, that itself can stand only as an unsupported claim. So I invite you for the last time to make your case. — tim wood

You did not address at all what I've shown as support for what you call my "unsupported claim".

That was the matter of how intention, which is immaterial and not part of reality in your book, can move, and even create, material things like bricks, which are part of reality in your scheme. I used this as evidence that the division, or distinction you have made is not a true division, it is not consistent, or correspondent with observed reality.

How do you propose to maintain this distinction when things like intention cross the boundary. Intention appears to exist as an immaterial thing in the mind, but causes effects on, and creates material things. Where does intention exist relative to your division? Is it part of material reality or not? You have yet to address this, but I suppose it is not, being a thing of the mind. But if it is not, then how does it have such a massive effect on material things if it is not a part of that material reality?

I read as much as the preview would allow, from your “reason transcends nature” link. Overall, the guy does a very good job of highlighting modernity’s miscalculations, I think, even if I, myself, have trouble with reason transcending anything. I understand what he’s trying to say; I just don’t think that’s what Kant would say, and it’s his book treatise, so......

On the other hand, and something I meant to add last time, Ferrarin says:

“Reason is the subject of thought and rules, and “I” is the way it (reason) operates. Both transcend the individual “I” who is the consciousness of rules it finds and has not made”

So we have reason transcending both empirical nature and the transcendental “I”, which seems to put reason completely out of reach of anything with which a human might find himself concerned. And if that’s the case, reason can hardly be thought as a speculative faculty, or a theoretical methodology, which Kant specifically nominates reason as being.

But, Ferrarin has letters after his name and I don’t, which I must admit, makes him the boss.

intention, which is immaterial and not part of reality in your book, can move, and even create, material things like bricks, — Metaphysician Undercover

Are we really just about a word, or something more important. If you can tell me how intention moves or creates anything like a brick, then you can be sure I'll pay attention.

In the meantime, I distinguish between material things and immaterial things, these latter being ideas. Do you? And if you do, on what basis? And if you don't, why not?

Edit:

Intention appears to exist as an immaterial thing in the mind, but causes effects on — Metaphysician Undercover

"Causes"? How?

Dr. Samuel Johnson claimed to disprove Bishop Berkeley's immaterialist philosophy - that there are no material objects, only minds and ideas in those minds - by kicking a large stone and asserting, "I refute it thus." This is called ‘argumentum ad lapidem’, ‘appeal to the stone’. — Wayfarer

You yourself and I myself covered exactly this ground itself some time ago. As I recall I covered the sense of it while you claimed education. My recollection is that what Berkeley refuted wasn't matter, but so-called philosopher's substance, which point Johnson missed.

We differ. I hold there are two main categories of things, things themselves, characterized by possessing mass and existing independently, and ideas, not having any mass and being mind-dependent in the sense that if there is no mind, then there are no ideas. You apparently claim a third category, which contains (some?) ideas, and not apparently any subset of the first two.

And there are, imo, mainly two ways of supporting a claim. 1) as a matter of personal faith or belief, or even opinion. To my way of thinking, this way always gets a pass because while it can be questioned, perhaps educated, it is not based on anything that can be reasonably or successfully challenged. But as faith, at the same time, its powers to compel are confined to those who share that faith. And 2) with reason and evidence. And this latter the marketplace of ideas where they stand on their own merits or fall, and appeals to faith or anything else not evidentiary or reasoned is both bad form and bad faith.

I cannot find anything about your third category that rescues it from being merely a belief on your part. In as much as I'm not a communicant in your faith, please don't preach, but rather instead give us a good secular proof. Why my way and not yours? Because it is you who wants entry.

Here's quite a good summary of key elements of the scientific method:

Modern science emerged in the seventeenth century with two fundamental ideas: planned experiments (Francis Bacon) and the mathematical representation of relations among phenomena (Galileo). This basic experimental-mathematical epistemology evolved until, in the first half of the twentieth century, it took a stringent form involving (1) a mathematical theory constituting scientific knowledge, (2) a formal operational correspondence between the theory and quantitative empirical measurements, and (3) predictions of future measurements based on the theory. The “truth” (validity) of the theory is judged based on the concordance between the predictions and the observations. While the epistemological details are subtle and require expertise relating to experimental protocol, mathematical modeling, and statistical analysis, the general notion of scientific knowledge is expressed in these three requirements.

Science is neither rationalism nor empiricism. It includes both in a particular way. In demanding quantitative predictions of future experience, science requires formulation of mathematical models whose relations can be tested against future observations. Prediction is a product of reason, but reason grounded in the empirical. Hans Reichenbach summarizes the connection: “Observation informs us about the past and the present, reason foretells the future.”
— Edward Dougherty

'Evidence' has to fall within the scope of that methodology to be considered scientific. But scientific method itself operates within conditions, and those conditions by their very constitution limit what is considered 'evidence' to what is measurable according to this method. To say that is not to criticize science, but simply to draw something out that is often left unstated. — Wayfarer

This view of science limits it to physics - the fundamental science. Not wrong for everything builds off of it, even biology but I don't recall limiting evidence to physical quantities. Come to think of it, the need for quantification is only a secondary characteristic of the sciences - it only exists to increase the precision/accuracy of predictions. I have a hunch that the earliest laws in physics have non-quantitative versions that make perfect sense e.g. the law of gravity can be phrased as "all things fall toward the center of the Earth".

Thanks for the informative post.

There is no fault, there is only dialectical disagreement.

Faith and rationality are certainly not simple concepts; there is a clear distinction between them; I don’t agree the distinction is based on evidence. And unrecognizable is relative. — Mww

27 Then saith he to [Doubting] Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand[ wounds on Jesus' side as evidence for the crucifxion and resurrection], and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. — Gospel of John, Chapter 20

Glad I’m not Thomas.

Are we really just about a word, or something more important. If you can tell me how intention moves or creates anything like a brick, then you can be sure I'll pay attention. — tim wood

I already told you. A person gets angry at you, sees a brick, and gets the idea to hit you with the brick, picks up the brick and hits you on the side of the head. Obviously the person's intention to hit you with the brick causes the person to pick up the brick and hit you with it. What more do you want? In philosophy we call this "final cause". In case you are unfamiliar with it, it is a recognized form of causation, and intention plays an important role in law.

You can play dumb, and pretend that it was not the person's immaterial intent and immaterial ideas which causes the brick to get up and hit you, but then why be two-faced, trying to deny your materialism as you have been? If you do not agree that it's the person's idea to hit you with the brick (intention), which causes you to be hit with the brick, then just admit that you're a determinist materialist, and argue what you believe, .instead of pretending. If it is not the intent of the person which causes you to be hit with the brick (final causation), then is the person not morally or legally responsible for this act?

In the meantime, I distinguish between material things and immaterial things, these latter being ideas. Do you? And if you do, on what basis? And if you don't, why not? — tim wood

If you had read the posts I made addressed to you, you would know that I do not make the same distinction as you. And, I gave the reasons, I think that there are more accurate and productive distinctions to be made.

Furthermore, I think that yours is a false distinction because what you call material things, like bricks, have what must be according to your distinction, an immaterial aspect, as demonstrated by quantum mechanics. And what you call immaterial things, human ideas, have what must be according to your distinction, a material aspect, as demonstrated by the involvement of the human brain in these ideas. So if we wanted to distinguish between material and immaterial we would have to make the division in a different way from what you suggest.

In philosophy we call this "final cause". In case you are unfamiliar with it, it is a recognized form of causation, — Metaphysician Undercover

In trust you have access to the Greek, what is that word for "cause."

Furthermore, I think that yours is a false distinction because what you call material things, like bricks, have what must be according to your distinction, an immaterial aspect, as demonstrated by quantum mechanics. — Metaphysician Undercover

From what I understand, quantum mechanics is observable, and therefore material. Not arguing for or against your point, I just haven’t seen this claim before, so I fail to see the connection. Care to explain?

In trust you have access to the Greek, what is that word for "cause." — tim wood

Huh? How is Greek relevant? I was speaking about what English speaking philosophers refer to as "final cause". Don't change the subject, address the issue. Do you accept that the will, and therefore intention is a cause of human action, or do you believe in a determinist materialism?

From what I understand, quantum mechanics is observable, and therefore material. — Pinprick

We were talking about the wavefunction, which describes the existence of the particle when its not being observed. The particle only has material existence when it is being observed because when it's not being observed it cannot be said to have a determinate spatial-temporal existence. How could there be a material thing which has no determinable spatial-temporal location?

Don't change the subject, address the issue. — Metaphysician Undercover

As you have hijacked the issue, please tell me what it is?

From what I understand, quantum mechanics is observable, and therefore material. — Pinprick

Well, it's a much deeper issue. The turning point was the discovery of 'the uncertainty principle' - that you could know the position or the momentum of a quantum object, but not both at the same time. This later became the basis of the 'measurement problem' in quantum mechanics, whereby the act of measurement determines the state of the entity being measured. The whereabouts of the object prior to its being measured is described by the Schrodinger wave equation, but it only ever describes the probability that the object will be in a particular location. When the measurement is taken then all of those possibilities vanish, which is the 'collapse of the wave function'. It is still a hugely contested issue in physics and philosophy precisely because of the impossibility of finding a precise demarcation between observer and observed. (The current favorite amongst mainstream commentators seems to be Everett's Many Worlds, about which see this essay.)

This is the subject of a couple of good books I have read, one being Uncertainty: The Battle for the Soul of Science, David LIndley, and another being Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality Manji Kumar. Note well the title of that second book: this is what is at stake. Science was hoping to find some physical ultimate, perhaps even an indivisible point-particle, but instead found a mystery.

@Metaphysician Undercover @Wayfarer

Thank you both for this.