Posit: The Concept of the Supernatural Cannot Exist.

[Bunyip]

Cephus

The point is that they are synonymous in the given context. If one is defining them in a way that is not synonymous it would sure help to know how he is defining those terms.

 

[Cephus]

Cephus

The point is that they are synonymous in the given context. If one is defining them in a way that is not synonymous it would sure help to know how he is defining those terms.

Most of them are simply redefining the terms in a way that makes them feel good. It's entirely valid to point out the misuse of the English (or other) language, but it's almost entirely done for emotional, not rational reasons.

 

[Bunyip]

synonymous does not mean completely equivalent.

Synonym, n. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language. "Real" does not mean exactly the same thing as "physical", even if they are synonymous (the thesaurus here lists material as a synonym of real, but not physical; although it lists real as a synonym of physical in the other direction. heh)

Sure. What I am asking is that if by 'real' George does not mean 'having a physical existence' what does he mean? He seems to reject the idea of astral matter as being conceptual,- which would resolve the confusion. So I am trying to find out what the difference is between 'conceptual' and 'real' as George sees it.
He is making a distinction between 'conceptual' and 'real' that I can not make sense of, given that he is defining 'real' in a way that is NOT synonymous with physical.

 

[Bunyip]

Most of them are simply redefining the terms in a way that makes them feel good. It's entirely valid to point out the misuse of the English (or other) language, but it's almost entirely done for emotional, not rational reasons.

Just to make myself clear; Commonly 'real' is employed to distinguish between the physical and the conceptual. If 'real' is not being used as a synonym for physical - then what is the distinction being made between Brahma being 'real' and Brahma being conceptual?

 

[lovemuffin]

real - having some objective existence, that is, existence independent of any mind.
physical reality - that part of reality which is characterized by "physical" properties

The distinction between real and conceptual is the difference between the map and the territory

 

[Bunyip]

real - having some objective existence, that is, existence independent of any mind.
physical reality - that part of reality which is characterized by "physical" properties

The distinction between real and conceptual is the difference between the map and the territory

Under those definitions what is the difference between physical and real? How do you distinguish between them?

 

[Cephus]

Just to make myself clear; Commonly 'real' is employed to distinguish between the physical and the conceptual. If 'real' is not being used as a synonym for physical - then what is the distinction being made between Brahma being 'real' and Brahma being conceptual?

Brahma is certainly conceptual and concepts are certainly real. I just don't buy that Brahma is anything more than conceptual. Unicorns are conceptual too, they just don't exist in any demonstrable fashion. I think a lot of this is just becoming semantical and word games don't impress me.

 

[lovemuffin]

Under those definitions what is the difference between physical and real? How do you distinguish between them?

Maybe a good example is mathematical platonism:

Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets.

The most important argument for the existence of abstract mathematical objects derives from Gottlob Frege and goes as follows (Frege 1953). The language of mathematics purports to refer to and quantify over abstract mathematical objects. And a great number of mathematical theorems are true. But a sentence cannot be true unless its sub-expressions succeed in doing what they purport to do. So there exist abstract mathematical objects that these expressions refer to and quantify over.

Frege's argument notwithstanding, philosophers have developed a variety of objections to mathematical platonism. Thus, abstract mathematical objects are claimed to be epistemologically inaccessible and metaphysically problematic. Mathematical platonism has been among the most hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mathematics over the past few decades.

-- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
​

I included the third paragraph just to be clear that this is not entirely without controversy, but at least it demonstrates the idea. Under platonism, mathematical objects are real, despite being abstract, because they are mind-independent. In this case, it's a question of distinguishing whether mathematical entities are real or merely conceptual (which is the alternative view). The argument for them being real (to grossly oversimplify; the article goes into much more detail) is because mathematics seems objective to us. That is, we feel like we merely discover certain mathematical truths, rather than having invented them. In the case of mathematical platonism, if mathematical objects are real, the means by which we know them is purely through the rational intellect, rather than through empirical observation.

​

 

[Bunyip]

Brahma is certainly conceptual and concepts are certainly real. I just don't buy that Brahma is anything more than conceptual. Unicorns are conceptual too, they just don't exist in any demonstrable fashion. I think a lot of this is just becoming semantical and word games don't impress me.

Yes, exactly. Some are arguing for a third category - real, conceptual and some other state that is somehow distinct from conceptual, and distinct from the physical.

 

[Cephus]

Yes, exactly. Some are arguing for a third category - real, conceptual and some other state that is somehow distinct from conceptual, and distinct from the physical.

A category that they have no means of showing actually exists, it just fulfills some emotional cavity and therefore, they insist it's there. If you ask them how they came to that conclusion, what tests they put it to, they tend to get upset. Irrationality does that to people.

 

[George-ananda]

George

Maybe we can simplify: You say Brahma is real but not physical.

In English 'real' and 'physical' are synonyms.

There are 13 different definitions of each. Not all synonymous.

If you are not using 'real' to refer to physical existence - what are you defining it as? I ask because this is confusing - 'real' but not 'physical' is a contradiction in terms in English.

'Real' to me means existing. Something doesn't have to be physical to exist; like consciousness.

I'm not insisting on a specific definition, I'm not demanding, dictating or ever suggesting one - I am just saying that under their common definitions they are synonyms - and your just denying that they are is confusing. If you are defining 'real' and 'physical' in a way that is not synonymous - it would really help if you could supply those definitions?

Real=exists
Physical=made of matter of some plane (physical, astral, etc.)

 

[Bunyip]

A category that they have no means of showing actually exists, it just fulfills some emotional cavity and therefore, they insist it's there. If you ask them how they came to that conclusion, what tests they put it to, they tend to get upset. Irrationality does that to people.

Exactly. What I see is the attempt to sneak in some kind of unspoken distinction between the way concepts are real, and the way Astral matter (for example) is 'real', when I would see both as real in the same way - they are conceptual and concepts are a real idea.

There are 13 different definitions of each. Not all synonymous.

'Real' to me means existing. Something doesn't have to be physical to exist; like consciousness.

Yes, and consciousness is a concept - we have already agreed that they exist and do not challenge materialism.

Real=exists
Physical=made of matter of some plane (physical, astral, etc.)

Yes and we agree that concepts exist. What is this third category of 'matter' that is neither concept nor physical?

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, and consciousness is a concept - we have already agreed that they exist and do not challenge materialism.

My view of consciousness challenges materialism because I believe it is fundamental and matter is a product of consciousness/Brahman.

 

[Cephus]

My view of consciousness challenges materialism because I believe it is fundamental and matter is a product of consciousness/Brahman.

Just because you believe a thing doesn't make that thing true. I don't know that anyone is asking your opinion, which is all you're really supplying, they're asking how you've verified that your opinion is factually valid.

 

[Bunyip]

My view of consciousness challenges materialism because I believe it is fundamental and matter is a product of consciousness/Brahman.

I'm not sure how that challenges materialism,it is just an assumption. But thanks.
In order to challenge materialism you would need some evidence, something more than opinion.

 

[George-ananda]

Just because you believe a thing doesn't make that thing true.

Correct

I don't know that anyone is asking your opinion, which is all you're really supplying, they're asking how you've verified that your opinion is factually valid.

Who has asked that question in this thread, That's another discussion I'd be happy to chime in on.

 

[Cephus]

I'm not sure how that challenges materialism,it is just an assumption. But thanks.
In order to challenge materialism you would need some evidence, something more than opinion.

He's not really doing anything different than most theists around here are doing. He's just asserting that his beliefs are true without demonstrating that his beliefs are true. It's just emotional coddling, same as everyone else.

 

[Cephus]

Who has asked that question in this thread, That's another discussion I'd be happy to chime in on.

Then feel free, let us know how you can demonstrate that your beliefs are objectively and factually real.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm not sure how that challenges materialism,it is just an assumption.

other opinions are what challenge other opinions.
But thanks.

In order to challenge materialism you would need some evidence, something more than opinion.

My evidence beyond my opinion would be; the evidence from mystical and paranormal experiences, the teachings of many masters of a wisdom tradition. This is evidence (not proof which; no one has a right to claim).

 

[Bunyip]

Correct


Who has asked that question in this thread, That's another discussion I'd be happy to chime in on.

Yes, please do elaborate. Thankyou.