What are you? EvC poll

Agnostic and believe only in energy and matter, guess that makes me Monist too.Wish I was'nt but there you go.

Hi all, new here, so this looked like a good place to post.
Have to say, Monoist.
As far as I can see, reality is contiguous, and separation is only a perception. I'd lean more towards Taoist thinking than Buddhist, though I probably misunderstand both.
As far as I can tell "parallel" dimensions would still be part of the same reality regardless of wether we can percieve them or not.
I don't think "outside" the universe is a valid concept, and even if it is, there's no way to ever tell, since the universe is (or seems to be) a closed thermodynamic system, nothing goes in or out.
I think "mind" is an emergent property of matter, and is dependent on it's matter for existence.
I think philosophy is fun and profitable, if not in a finacial way.
Hope the post wasn't too long

Monist =12
Phi
Scharfinator
Brennakimi
Omnivorus
EZscience
rickJB
Buzz
Chronos
Malachi
Larni
Shh
and Brad who defected to monist side
Dualist =2
Phatboy
Truthlover
Undecided=1 Robinrohan
And post to long to decern: =1 RobEdited by 1.61803, : updated information

Dualist here.I had a pretty major experience with God through faith in Christ back in 1982. It astounded me. I promised myself I'd never forget it.I live like dualism is true every day. It works; really well.According to our Scriptures there are things-which-are-seen/things-which-are-unseen; things-eternal/things-temporal; spiritual/natural; and according to our tradition things divine and things created.Actually, I'm really a, uh, um, tri-ist? Divine, spiritual, material.Edited by truthlover, : typo made me look illiterate

Ok, thats groovy we have another dualist.

I'm a monist.I read some of Rob's essay and I'm pretty sure he is a dualist. He is certainly dead set against monism that much was clear.lfen

Obviously I am a dualist, unless of course the spiritual is part of reality, which would make me a monist.Why do I think that?
I guess it's all subjective, but some of the reasons are the visions given to me about the future, that came to pass.
Things like times travel, and quantum particles that change just by observing them. Until we are able to explain these things then the possibility remains of another dimension.I reject your reality and substitute my own

What about monist me?http://EvC Forum: What are you? EvC poll -->EvC Forum: What are you? EvC poll

I'm a material monist.Techincally monist and dualist are not the only options, there's:Neutral Monism: which holds mind and body are same material but that it is neither material nor not.Spiritual Monism: that holds that the material world is illusionary and only mind is realI've also seen a position claiming that mind, body and spirit are only different kind of stuffs but I don't know what it is called.

I wish to apologize for any confusion. The definition of 'dualism' is more complicated than many realize. In that light, I suppose my post was not on topic, though it is...dualismn : the doctrine that reality consists of two basic opposing elements, often taken to be mind and matter (or mind and body), or good and evil (Dictionary.com-WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University)My post is relating to 'monism' in the 'pantheist-monistic sense'. I am still learning about the terminology myself, so perhaps the post is confusing, because I am still learning what it is I am saying. I assumed that the audience here understood these things even better than I.

you can add me to the dualist list since your keeping track.

I would be a monist by your definition

If you believe in only energy and matter, then how do you explain the origin of information? Information is a massless quantity. It is not reducible to matter or energy. So how can any materialist or naturalist philosophy explain it's origin? (Question from Steven Myers - Discovery Institute)

Information is an abstraction. Don't pay too much attention to the nonsense about information that comes from the DI.

Would you say that your comment (information is an abstraction), is 'informative' in any meaningful sense??? Personally, I find it meaningful, because it was not intended to be, nor was it 'abstract'; though it is [information]. The question really is... is your statement true?It is false, because it contradicts itself. By your own admission, your comment is nothing more than an abstraction...If everything is only perception, then that conclusion is also only a perception and is not true.You would do better to explain why Steven Meyer is wrong, then to simply state that he is unreliable. This you cannot do, because Mr. Meyers is correct. If he is not, please explain...Rob