RazeveX
Smash Ace
Hmm...who would have thought that my first debating thread would also be the longest?
I saw this thread:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=215270
and thought that it could be beneficial if we, the proving grounds members, also had a debate on the concept of existence.
The opening post is this:
This is a idealist view of life, suggesting that everything we see is a mental concoction.
Personally, I don't think that this theory is true. Why? Two reasons.
1. Common sense suggests that it is likely not true without any evidence to suggest it.
2. I find the interactions between me and others to be far too believable.
This is not a scientific argument, simply a belief, as it is very difficult to disprove the "Brain-in-a-Vat" theory.
Now that I have covered the OP and what I don't believe, I will move on to other concepts of existence and what I do believe. I will try to simplify these theories down to easily understandable morsels of information.
Firstly there is MONISM, which holds that there is only one kind of "stuff" in the universe.
Materialism is the theory that everything around us is made of physical matter.
This theory has no room for "souls" or anything else that doesn't have a physical existence, and suggests that everything (eg. the mind, consciousness) can be explained by some form of physical substance.
Another Monist belief is Idealism, which is what was covered above; the notion that everything is mental, as opposed to physical.
Then there is DUALISM, which dictates that there are two kinds of "stuff" in the universe; often separated into physical and mental, or sometimes mind and body. Two popular dualist views are:
Substance dualism, which follows from what you were probably thinking about dualism. It holds that there are two kinds of substance; physical and non-physical. Things such as the mind or soul would fall into the non-physical category, while most other things would fall into the physical category.
The other main dualist theory is Property dualism, which I find to be gaining popularity. Simply put, it holds that there is only one kind of substance; physical substances. However, there are TWO kinds of properties that any physical matter may have; physical and non-physical properties. This theory suggests things such as "the mind is a non-physical property of the brain".
There are countless other classifications and sub-classifications of what the universe is to us and how exactly it exists, but it would take far too long for me to go into any more detail (I'm sure I'm already rambling).
In my opinion, the view that everything is physical, Materialism, works the best for me. It follows on from my knowledge of science, physics, and logic. There is no way that I could defend a view that suggests otherwise, simply because I wouldn't believe it. This doesn't raise any issues for me, as I am not religious and do not consider the "soul" to exist.
So what do you think? What side do you take?
If you think I'm wrong, then by all means, go ahead and tell me why. If you think something else, then defend your point of view.
I saw this thread:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=215270
and thought that it could be beneficial if we, the proving grounds members, also had a debate on the concept of existence.
The opening post is this:
What the OP is talking about is essentially the "Brain-in-a-Vat" theory; that the brain is simply being stimulated in a way that gives the illusion of our physical surroundings.
This is a idealist view of life, suggesting that everything we see is a mental concoction.
Personally, I don't think that this theory is true. Why? Two reasons.
1. Common sense suggests that it is likely not true without any evidence to suggest it.
2. I find the interactions between me and others to be far too believable.
This is not a scientific argument, simply a belief, as it is very difficult to disprove the "Brain-in-a-Vat" theory.
Now that I have covered the OP and what I don't believe, I will move on to other concepts of existence and what I do believe. I will try to simplify these theories down to easily understandable morsels of information.
Firstly there is MONISM, which holds that there is only one kind of "stuff" in the universe.
Materialism is the theory that everything around us is made of physical matter.
This theory has no room for "souls" or anything else that doesn't have a physical existence, and suggests that everything (eg. the mind, consciousness) can be explained by some form of physical substance.
Another Monist belief is Idealism, which is what was covered above; the notion that everything is mental, as opposed to physical.
Then there is DUALISM, which dictates that there are two kinds of "stuff" in the universe; often separated into physical and mental, or sometimes mind and body. Two popular dualist views are:
Substance dualism, which follows from what you were probably thinking about dualism. It holds that there are two kinds of substance; physical and non-physical. Things such as the mind or soul would fall into the non-physical category, while most other things would fall into the physical category.
The other main dualist theory is Property dualism, which I find to be gaining popularity. Simply put, it holds that there is only one kind of substance; physical substances. However, there are TWO kinds of properties that any physical matter may have; physical and non-physical properties. This theory suggests things such as "the mind is a non-physical property of the brain".
There are countless other classifications and sub-classifications of what the universe is to us and how exactly it exists, but it would take far too long for me to go into any more detail (I'm sure I'm already rambling).
In my opinion, the view that everything is physical, Materialism, works the best for me. It follows on from my knowledge of science, physics, and logic. There is no way that I could defend a view that suggests otherwise, simply because I wouldn't believe it. This doesn't raise any issues for me, as I am not religious and do not consider the "soul" to exist.
So what do you think? What side do you take?
If you think I'm wrong, then by all means, go ahead and tell me why. If you think something else, then defend your point of view.
