I will define the material world as the world of the most fundemental particles know at this moment. These particles are known to be odorless and colorless. However, humans experience both odor and color both as a response to out of the body stimulus and as a result of reactions occuring within the physical body of the human. Theoretically speaking particular perceptions of humans might be able to be correlated with a particular positioning of fundemental particals. So that some particular arrangement of fundemental particles could perfectly account for some perception. The fundemental particles themselves, although capable of causing some sort of perception, are not the actual perception. It seems that perception must exist in a non material world.
I don’t see why mutual intelligibility between symbols necessitates a non-material world.
How does this relate to what I posted?
isoamyl acetate = CH3COOC5H11 = banana smell = 
so, Xunzian, would you say that materialism and idealism are really describing the same thing, which for pragmatic reasons might better be described as “material” than “non…”? or am i just totally misreading you altogether?
as I see it , it is the material world that gives an example of how idealism no’s not what it thinks , talks and can’t
and never could or would
Materialism is a strange term and I wonder why scientists often refer to themselves as this. Physicalist also falls under this. Matter now includes energy, fields, massless particles winking in an out of the quantum foam, waves, etc. For some reason these outdated terms seem to swallow up any phenomenon, regardless of how not physical they are, or non-material. In fact much of what is material seems to be energy, at root, or hell, information. And if you look real close at it, it suddenly has properties, you fix it with a stare.
then fix the next person you meet with glasses , with a stare , a give this person 20/20 vision
Acquiring and mentally interpreting information from the senses is something that is taken for granted because it goes on automatically in our daily lives without deliberate thought. Now you want us to deliberately look at the process, especially the perceiver. He is the one that is perceiving, interpreting things by means of thinking and understanding things on that level. You could say the mind comprises these activities and I would say the things of the mind are definitely not physical. But this does not infer
that they are ‘spiritual’. That would be one possible outcome of the interpretation. Interpretive thought requires previously gained knowledge (another non material activity not involving fundamental particles) which supports whatever you identify experiences with. Knowledge, thought, interpretation and experiences are all non physical. I would say knowledge is the key feature, for without it, thought would be without structure, and without thought you would not be able to identify the experiences of your perceptions.
The “divide” between materialism and idealism, spiritualism, pluralism is a matter of how we phrase the “problem” and not an essential distinction. Once the idea of “material” or “matter” is understood alongside and through the Physics concept of energy, potential, force and structure, materialism becomes a tautology and all other ontological positions can be encompassed by it to the degree that they were ever sound to begin with.
“Beyond materialism” would consist of refining our understanding of what exactly material consists of (for example no one today would claim that there is only physical substance material and no energy), updating it from the Greek and 18th-19th Century atomic understandings to a more modern quantum and relativistic conceptualisation.
A monist position would demand that, assuming idealists (or materialists) were acting in good faith. So, yeah.
The singleness/uniqueness of the kind of monist that believes his experiences alone dictate reality, sees faith and hope, that others put into service, as indicators of their inability to get what they want. Not that there’s anything to get.
Although these fundemental forces cause perception they are not perception. Perception is the composite of these forces. It is greater than these fundemental forces because perception does not exist in fundemental forces.