Help - looking for a specific word

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:23:38 GMT, John McComb wrote:

 > Brian wrote:
  >> An article posted here a several weeks ago described a philosophy
  >> such that the world is based on an single individual perception.
  >> In a nutshell, it was something similar to: "You exist because
  >> I imagine you exist." Egocentric I guess.

Solipsism.


  >> Anyone know the exact word?
 >
 > I think you're looking for 'immaterialism'. Look up
 > Bishop George Berkeley.


No, Berkeley's theory was quite different. He dismissed 'matter' but said
people (and objects etc) were all real and separate. Rather like ideas or
characters in God's mind. Whether made of 'matter' depended on definition
of 'matter'.

His Dialogs are quite readable, a good place to start, probably on the web
as they're in public domain.


Mary<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Help - looking for a specific word 

mooreffoc wrote:
 > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:23:38 GMT, John McComb wrote:
 >
 >
  >>Brian wrote:
  >>
   >>>An article posted here a several weeks ago described a philosophy
   >>>such that the world is based on an single individual perception.
   >>>In a nutshell, it was something similar to: "You exist because
   >>>I imagine you exist." Egocentric I guess.
 >
 >
 > Solipsism.
 >
 >
 >
   >>>Anyone know the exact word?
  >>
  >>I think you're looking for 'immaterialism'. Look up
  >>Bishop George Berkeley.
 >
 >
 >
 > No, Berkeley's theory was quite different. He dismissed 'matter' but said
 > people (and objects etc) were all real and separate. Rather like ideas or
 > characters in God's mind. Whether made of 'matter' depended on definition
 > of 'matter'.
 >
 > His Dialogs are quite readable, a good place to start, probably on the web
 > as they're in public domain.

Oh. I thought that's what he was asking about. Anyway, it's
Brian who's interested, not me. All I need to do is look up
'solipsism' in my dictionary and I see that it's even crazier
than 'immaterialism'. I don't care about either.

Yours in Christ

John<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Help - looking for a specific word 

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 04:34:28 GMT, John McComb wrote:

 > mooreffoc wrote:
  >> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:23:38 GMT, John McComb wrote:
  >>
  >>
   >>>Brian wrote:
   >>>
   >>>>An article posted here a several weeks ago described a philosophy
   >>>>such that the orld is based on an single individual perception.w
   >>>>In a nutshell, it was something similar to: "You exist because
   >>>>I imagine you exist." Egocentric I guess.
  >>
  >>
  >> Solipsism.
  >>
  >>
  >>
   >>>>Anyone know the exact word?
   >>>
   >>>I think you're looking for 'immaterialism'. Look up
   >>>Bishop George Berkeley.
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> No, Berkeley's theory was quite different. He dismissed 'matter' but said
  >> people (and objects etc) were all real and separate. Rather like ideas or
  >> characters in God's mind. Whether made of 'matter' depended on definition
  >> of 'matter'.
  >>
  >> His Dialogs are quite readable, a good place to start, probably on the web
  >> as they're in public domain.
 >
 > Oh. I thought that's what he was asking about.


What he described is Solipsism. Berkeley is often accused of that, but
falsely. A Solipsist thinks everything is in his own mind; Berkeley (like
Lewis, Sayers, and others) thought everything is in God's mind.



 > Anyway, it's
 > Brian who's interested, not me. All I need to do is look up
 > 'solipsism' in my dictionary and I see that it's even crazier
 > than 'immaterialism'.

Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Im`ma`te´ri`al`ism
n.
1.
The doctrine that immaterial substances or spiritual being exist, or are
possible.

2.
(Philos.) The doctrine that external bodies may be reduced to mind and
ideas in a mind; any doctrine opposed to materialism or phenomenalism, esp.
a system that maintains the immateriality of the soul; idealism; esp.,
Bishop Berkeley's theory of idealism.

This dictionary entry certainly does sound crazy. It shows the word as
meaning several contradictory things, even in the same sentence.


Here's Thomas Jefferson talking like J.S.T.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_jadms.html" target="_blank">http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_jadms.html</a>


Mary<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Help - looking for a specific word 

 > mooreffoc "<m"@mooreffoc.com >wrote:



 >Here's Thomas Jefferson talking like J.S.T.
 >http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_jadms.html
 >
 >
 >Mary

With the twist though that matter is "given" the power of thought by the
Creator, which would work ok for me too, I just don't see how it could work.



Daryl
And when He knew for certain, only drowning men could see Him.
He said all men shall be sailors then, until the sea shall free them.
(Leonard Cohen)
(remove nopax for e-mail)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Help - looking for a specific word 

On 17 Aug 2004 13:31:46 GMT, darylgene RemoveThis @aol.comnopax (Daryl) wrote:

  >> mooreffoc "<m"@mooreffoc.com >wrote:
 >
 >
 >
  >>Here's Thomas Jefferson talking like J.S.T.
  >>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_jadms.html
  >>
  >>
  >>Mary
 >
 >With the twist though that matter is "given" the power of thought by the
 >Creator, which would work ok for me too, I just don't see how it could work.
 >
But you are in the same dilemma with your proposed solution. You have
also been unable to explain how an immaterial being could physically
change what happens in our brains. Which indicates that you don't
really 'see' (understand) how that works either.
James
--------------------------------------------------------
When language goes on holidy, it often does not have far
to travel. Bede Rundle<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Help - looking for a specific word 

 > J.S.T. spamfree.RemoveThis@spamfree.com writes:


 >darylgene@aol.comnopax (Daryl) wrote:

  >>With the twist though that matter is "given" the power of thought by the
  >>Creator, which would work ok for me too, I just don't see how it could work.

 >But you are in the same dilemma with your proposed solution. You have
 >also been unable to explain how an immaterial being could physically
 >change what happens in our brains. Which indicates that you don't
 >really 'see' (understand) how that works either.

I have the same dilemma with my thoughts, but I know something changes, and by
inference.....


Daryl
And when He knew for certain, only drowning men could see Him.
He said all men shall be sailors then, until the sea shall free them.
(Leonard Cohen)
(remove nopax for e-mail)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Help - looking for a specific word 

On 17 Aug 2004 15:28:02 GMT, darylgene DeleteThis @aol.comnopax (Daryl) wrote:

  >> J.S.T. spamfree DeleteThis @spamfree.com writes:
 >
 >
  >>darylgene@aol.comnopax (Daryl) wrote:
 >
   >>>With the twist though that matter is "given" the power of thought by the
   >>>Creator, which would work ok for me too, I just don't see how it could work.
 >
  >>But you are in the same dilemma with your proposed solution. You have
  >>also been unable to explain how an immaterial being could physically
  >>change what happens in our brains. Which indicates that you don't
  >>really 'see' (understand) how that works either.
 >
 >I have the same dilemma with my thoughts, but I know something changes, and by
 >inference.....
 >
Inference is not an explanation. I have no problem at all with your
believing that your mind is somehow supernaturally produce. But until
you can show how an immaterial being living in a timeless and
spaceless world is able to cause physical effects in this world, I am
not going to accept it as an explanation.
James
------------------------------------------------------------
"My chief reason for choosing Christianity was because the
mysteries were incomprehensible. What's the point of revelation
if we could figure it out ourselves? If it were wholly
comprehensible, then it would just be another philosophy."
M. Adler<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Help - looking for a specific word 

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 05:03:39 UTC, mooreffoc <"<m"@mooreffoc.com>> wrote:

 > A Solipsist thinks everything is in his own mind; Berkeley (like
 > Lewis, Sayers, and others) thought everything is in God's mind.
 >

The world exists because it is in the mind of God. However, His attention
slips now and then; that's why we have the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


--
Dan Drake
dd.DeleteThis@dandrake.com
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dandrake.com" target="_blank">http://www.dandrake.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Help - looking for a specific word 

John McComb wrote:

 > Brian wrote:
 >
  >> An article posted here a several weeks ago described a philosophy
  >> such that the world is based on an single individual perception.
  >> In a nutshell, it was something similar to: "You exist because
  >> I imagine you exist." Egocentric I guess.
  >>
  >> Anyone know the exact word?
 >
 >
 > I think you're looking for 'immaterialism'. Look up
 > Bishop George Berkeley.
 >
 > Yours in Christ
 >
 > John
 >
Solipsim.

Peter<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Help - looking for a specific word 

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:05:00 GMT, Dan Drake wrote:

 > On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 05:03:39 UTC, mooreffoc <"<m"@mooreffoc.com>> wrote:
 >
  >> A Solipsist thinks everything is in his own mind; Berkeley (like
  >> Lewis, Sayers, and others) thought everything is in God's mind.
  >>
 >
 > The world exists because it is in the mind of God. However, His attention
 > slips now and then; that's why we have the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


Made the avocado pits too big, too.


Mary<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Help - looking for a specific word 

 >J.S.T. spamfree.DeleteThis@spamfree.com

 >Inference is not an explanation. I have no problem at all with your
 >believing that your mind is somehow supernaturally produce.

 >But until
 >you can show how an immaterial being living in a timeless and
 >spaceless world is able to cause physical effects in this world, I am
 >not going to accept it as an explanation.

Perhaps as an option, not an explanation? You can assign it whatever
probability you like, adding or subtracting probability as you acquire more
information.


Daryl
And when He knew for certain, only drowning men could see Him.
He said all men shall be sailors then, until the sea shall free them.
(Leonard Cohen)
(remove nopax for e-mail)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Help - looking for a specific word 

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:42:24 -0700, J.S.T. <spamfree.TakeThisOut@spamfree.com>
wrote:

 >(Daryl) wrote:
 >
   >>> J.S.T. spamfree.TakeThisOut@spamfree.com writes:
  >>
   >>>darylgene@aol.comnopax (Daryl) wrote:
  >>
   >>>But you are in the same dilemma with your proposed solution. You have
   >>>also been unable to explain how an immaterial being could physically
   >>>change what happens in our brains. Which indicates that you don't
   >>>really 'see' (understand) how that works either.
  >>
  >>I have the same dilemma with my thoughts, but I know something changes, and by
  >>inference.....
  >>
 >Inference is not an explanation. I have no problem at all with your
 >believing that your mind is somehow supernaturally produce. But until
 >you can show how an immaterial being living in a timeless and
 >spaceless world is able to cause physical effects in this world, I am
 >not going to accept it as an explanation.
 >James
 >------------------------------------------------------------

You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!

 >"My chief reason for choosing Christianity was because the
 >mysteries were incomprehensible. What's the point of revelation
 >if we could figure it out ourselves? If it were wholly
 >comprehensible, then it would just be another philosophy."
 >M. Adler

Poor Mortimer, He would have been just as satisfied choosing black
holes.
Ciao,
Dwight Rejoice always.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Help - looking for a specific word 

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:32:40 GMT, DoTomkinsOutDratdSpam DeleteThis @yahoo.com
wrote:

  >>Inference is not an explanation. I have no problem at all with your
  >>believing that your mind is somehow supernaturally produce. But until
  >>you can show how an immaterial being living in a timeless and
  >>spaceless world is able to cause physical effects in this world, I am
  >>not going to accept it as an explanation.
  >>James
  >>------------------------------------------------------------
 >
 > You turn things upside down,
 >as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
 >
I enjoyed your down to earth analogy. Of course, it would not have
been possible without that beautiful thing we refer to as 'matter.'

  >>"My chief reason for choosing Christianity was because the
  >>mysteries were incomprehensible. What's the point of revelation
  >>if we could figure it out ourselves? If it were wholly
  >>comprehensible, then it would just be another philosophy."
  >>M. Adler
 >
 >Poor Mortimer, He would have been just as satisfied choosing black
 >holes.

Maybe even happier.
James
---------------------------------------------------
"We cannot even begin to sketch a process in which matter
comes from mind, but we have some idea what stages might
be involved in the developement of psychological attributes
in a material universe." Bede Rundle<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Help - looking for a specific word