Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-02-2017, 10:54 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 10:27 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  
(22-02-2017 10:24 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  You are again both missing the previous point and effectivly doubling down on the error.

Take the advice of an old codger and dig UPWARDS.

I've been giving him a lot of slack given that he's just 17 (apparently) and I did/said some really dumb stuff at that age. But my patience is wearing thin; I have exactly zero people on my ignore list - I figure I can learn something from pretty much anyone, even Trump supporters and theists - but he's itching to be the first.

You have got to be joking. Ok let me be extremely clear. You have no engaged ANY of my arguments. You haven't shown dualism to be wrong. You laughably claim dualism was discredited in the 1600s and then say I'm "hanging on to it". Read some Aristotle. Read some Kant. Read anything on philosophy or history before you embarrass yourself again. This is just pathetic dishonesty. I type a huge explanation of how models aren't adequate and you just ignore it. You dismiss it by saying I gave no explanation or evidence. I give multiple arguments for dualism and you don't do any research on them. You don't read any external sources or peer reviewed papers about the subject. You just assert it's been discredited. And then, as if you want to prove you lack any self-awareness, you want to ignore me? Are you completely delusional? Good god you insufferable jackass get a fucking clue as to what's going on around you and FUCK OFF.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 10:58 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 10:54 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Good god you insufferable jackass get a fucking clue as to what's going on around you and FUCK OFF.

Congrats, my friend, you've just earned my first ignore.

It's unfortunate, because I truly had high hopes for you. But life is too short to be tilting at dualist windmills and ignorance.

Have a nice life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 10:59 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 10:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Arguments are not evidence. Facepalm

You have been told OVER AND OVER that there are perfectly correct logical systems that do not obtain in reality. In fact it's YOU who are being totally dense and refusing to even consider what others have said.

You have presented NOT ONE SHRED of evidence for dualism, and in fact, with respect to brains and neural systems, what we know, in fact, based on cognition being 100% related to healthy function, that is actually evidence against it.

For once in your life, read something.

"When one compares philosophical accounts of evidence with the way the concept is often employed in non-philosophical contexts, however, a tension soon emerges. Consider first the kinds of things which non-philosophers are apt to count as evidence. For the forensics expert, evidence might consist of fingerprints on a gun, a bloodied knife, or a semen-stained dress: evidence is, paradigmatically, the kind of thing which one might place in a plastic bag and label ‘Exhibit A’. Thus, a criminal defense attorney might float the hypothesis that the evidence which seems to incriminate his client was planted by a corrupt law enforcement official or hope for it to be misplaced by a careless clerk. For an archaeologist, evidence is the sort of thing which one might dig up from the ground and carefully send back to one's laboratory for further analysis. Similarly, for the historian, evidence might consist of hitherto overlooked documents recently discovered in an archive or in an individual's personal library.[1] Reflection on examples such as these naturally suggests that evidence consists paradigmatically of physical objects, or perhaps, physical objects arranged in certain ways. For presumably, physical objects are the sort of thing which one might place in a plastic bag, dig up from the ground, send to a laboratory, or discover among the belongings of an individual of historical interest.

However natural such a picture might be, it is at least somewhat difficult to reconcile with historically prominent philosophical accounts of the nature of evidence. Russell, the greatest empiricist of the first half of the twentieth century, tended to think of evidence as sense data, mental items of one's present consciousness with which one is immediately acquainted. In this, he stood squarely within the tradition of classical empiricism. Quine, the greatest empiricist of the second half of the century, maintained throughout his career that evidence consisted of the stimulation of one's sensory receptors.[2] The logical positivists held that whatever evidence there is for a given scientific theory is afforded by observation statements or ‘protocol sentence’, linguistic entities with suitably-restricted contents; the precise nature of the restrictions became a vigorously contested matter within the tradition itself.[3] According to one recent and influential study, one's evidence consists of the totality of propositions that one knows (Williamson 2000). According to another, one's evidence consists exclusively of one's current mental states (Conee and Feldman 2004). Within contemporary confirmation theory, a prominent version of Bayesianism is naturally understood as identifying one's evidence with those beliefs of which one is psychologically certain. Of course, the suggestion that one might place sense data, sensory receptor stimulations, known propositions, or one's current mental states in a plastic bag (or dig them up from the ground, or send them to a laboratory, or …) is of dubious intelligibility. From the perspective of much ordinary thought and talk about evidence, much philosophical theorizing about evidence would seem to embody a particularly grotesque category mistake."

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 11:02 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
At work.

(22-02-2017 10:43 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(22-02-2017 10:34 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Naielis is indeed young and quite bright. I too remember being so young and full of... um.. stuff and vinegar. Smile

I am hoping the young buck does begin to 'Learn'.

The wonder of the internet is the amazing volume of interactions one can have with humanity at large...

Or 'Humanity in the wild' as it were. Smile

Can we please stop with the patronizing comments. It's become apparent that I've "learned" a great deal more about philosophy than anyone here.

Laugh out load

It's a wild, open free range internet. We can type towards one another how ever the mood takes us.

As for your asserted learning capabilities?

The proof of that will come from further interactions betwixt your young self and the others on the forum.

I'm pretty sure there are others who'd say your above statement/posturing is false. Or, perhaps, misplaced slightly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 11:04 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 09:33 AM)Naielis Wrote:  But there's your problem. External reality refers to what is external to one's own mind.

And?

(22-02-2017 09:33 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Defining the subject of all our perception as the external world doesn't solve the problem for the materialist.

Yes, it does.

(22-02-2017 09:33 AM)Naielis Wrote:  It merely changes the meaning of external world.

No, it doesn't.

(22-02-2017 09:33 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Now the external world doesn't refer to what is outside of our introspective reach, but instead refers to what we perceive.

That is what it always meant. That is the point.

As I have said, you do not have a very strong grasp of semantics.

(22-02-2017 09:33 AM)Naielis Wrote:  What we perceive is within our introspective reach. It is something we can introspect about. It is the subject of our introspective act.

Yes, we can think about things we perceive. Very astute of you to notice.

(22-02-2017 09:33 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The materialist has the challenge of justifying the presupposition of what I will call universal observability.

Since you have not actually defined this, and since materialism does not actually rest on any presuppositions, no justification is necessary.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 11:06 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 10:59 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(22-02-2017 10:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Arguments are not evidence. Facepalm

You have been told OVER AND OVER that there are perfectly correct logical systems that do not obtain in reality. In fact it's YOU who are being totally dense and refusing to even consider what others have said.

You have presented NOT ONE SHRED of evidence for dualism, and in fact, with respect to brains and neural systems, what we know, in fact, based on cognition being 100% related to healthy function, that is actually evidence against it.

For once in your life, read something.

"When one compares philosophical accounts of evidence with the way the concept is often employed in non-philosophical contexts, however, a tension soon emerges. Consider first the kinds of things which non-philosophers are apt to count as evidence. For the forensics expert, evidence might consist of fingerprints on a gun, a bloodied knife, or a semen-stained dress: evidence is, paradigmatically, the kind of thing which one might place in a plastic bag and label ‘Exhibit A’. Thus, a criminal defense attorney might float the hypothesis that the evidence which seems to incriminate his client was planted by a corrupt law enforcement official or hope for it to be misplaced by a careless clerk. For an archaeologist, evidence is the sort of thing which one might dig up from the ground and carefully send back to one's laboratory for further analysis. Similarly, for the historian, evidence might consist of hitherto overlooked documents recently discovered in an archive or in an individual's personal library.[1] Reflection on examples such as these naturally suggests that evidence consists paradigmatically of physical objects, or perhaps, physical objects arranged in certain ways. For presumably, physical objects are the sort of thing which one might place in a plastic bag, dig up from the ground, send to a laboratory, or discover among the belongings of an individual of historical interest.

However natural such a picture might be, it is at least somewhat difficult to reconcile with historically prominent philosophical accounts of the nature of evidence. Russell, the greatest empiricist of the first half of the twentieth century, tended to think of evidence as sense data, mental items of one's present consciousness with which one is immediately acquainted. In this, he stood squarely within the tradition of classical empiricism. Quine, the greatest empiricist of the second half of the century, maintained throughout his career that evidence consisted of the stimulation of one's sensory receptors.[2] The logical positivists held that whatever evidence there is for a given scientific theory is afforded by observation statements or ‘protocol sentence’, linguistic entities with suitably-restricted contents; the precise nature of the restrictions became a vigorously contested matter within the tradition itself.[3] According to one recent and influential study, one's evidence consists of the totality of propositions that one knows (Williamson 2000). According to another, one's evidence consists exclusively of one's current mental states (Conee and Feldman 2004). Within contemporary confirmation theory, a prominent version of Bayesianism is naturally understood as identifying one's evidence with those beliefs of which one is psychologically certain. Of course, the suggestion that one might place sense data, sensory receptor stimulations, known propositions, or one's current mental states in a plastic bag (or dig them up from the ground, or send them to a laboratory, or …) is of dubious intelligibility. From the perspective of much ordinary thought and talk about evidence, much philosophical theorizing about evidence would seem to embody a particularly grotesque category mistake."

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/

"For once in my life" ? Really ? And you bitch at ME about *aggressive*.

Am I supposed to be impressed. I'm not. I actually doubt that YOU read what you posted. It does not support you. At all.
I REJECT "philosophical" useless bullshit.
It's not "evidence" and it certainly is not evidence OF ANY SORT for dualism.
It's useless and a waste of time.

Posting a link WITHOUT supporting why YOU or anyone should accept it, is NOT useful way to convince anyone of anything.

Give us EVIDENCE for dualism NOW, or admit you have NONE.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 11:12 AM (This post was last modified: 22-02-2017 11:19 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 10:43 AM)Naielis Wrote:  It's become apparent that I've "learned" a great deal more about philosophy than anyone here.

Oh my. That's impressive. And at 17 no less. Must be one of them prodigies who started uni at 12 and a Rhodes scholar at 16. Which schools did you study at again? Did you major in PHIL and are now hoping for a job as a ponderous barista? Or did you realize nobody's gonna pay you to jerk off in front of them and went with the CS major and PHIL minor like a good realist? Have you had any world famous PHIL professors? Or are you one of them arrogant self-taught metaphysical masturbators who was never shown how to jerk off properly? Nobody's gonna pay you to jerk off in public unless you know how to do it properly.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
22-02-2017, 11:19 AM (This post was last modified: 22-02-2017 11:23 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 10:43 AM)Naielis Wrote:  It's become apparent that I've convinced myself that I have "learned" a great deal more about philosophy than anyone here cuz I can post links from Stanford 'an shit.

Fixed that for ya.
Now run along outside and play, then sit in the corner and talk to yourself about how great you are, and how very important philoso-babble is.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-02-2017, 11:19 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 11:06 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-02-2017 10:59 AM)Naielis Wrote:  For once in your life, read something.

"When one compares philosophical accounts of evidence with the way the concept is often employed in non-philosophical contexts, however, a tension soon emerges. Consider first the kinds of things which non-philosophers are apt to count as evidence. For the forensics expert, evidence might consist of fingerprints on a gun, a bloodied knife, or a semen-stained dress: evidence is, paradigmatically, the kind of thing which one might place in a plastic bag and label ‘Exhibit A’. Thus, a criminal defense attorney might float the hypothesis that the evidence which seems to incriminate his client was planted by a corrupt law enforcement official or hope for it to be misplaced by a careless clerk. For an archaeologist, evidence is the sort of thing which one might dig up from the ground and carefully send back to one's laboratory for further analysis. Similarly, for the historian, evidence might consist of hitherto overlooked documents recently discovered in an archive or in an individual's personal library.[1] Reflection on examples such as these naturally suggests that evidence consists paradigmatically of physical objects, or perhaps, physical objects arranged in certain ways. For presumably, physical objects are the sort of thing which one might place in a plastic bag, dig up from the ground, send to a laboratory, or discover among the belongings of an individual of historical interest.

However natural such a picture might be, it is at least somewhat difficult to reconcile with historically prominent philosophical accounts of the nature of evidence. Russell, the greatest empiricist of the first half of the twentieth century, tended to think of evidence as sense data, mental items of one's present consciousness with which one is immediately acquainted. In this, he stood squarely within the tradition of classical empiricism. Quine, the greatest empiricist of the second half of the century, maintained throughout his career that evidence consisted of the stimulation of one's sensory receptors.[2] The logical positivists held that whatever evidence there is for a given scientific theory is afforded by observation statements or ‘protocol sentence’, linguistic entities with suitably-restricted contents; the precise nature of the restrictions became a vigorously contested matter within the tradition itself.[3] According to one recent and influential study, one's evidence consists of the totality of propositions that one knows (Williamson 2000). According to another, one's evidence consists exclusively of one's current mental states (Conee and Feldman 2004). Within contemporary confirmation theory, a prominent version of Bayesianism is naturally understood as identifying one's evidence with those beliefs of which one is psychologically certain. Of course, the suggestion that one might place sense data, sensory receptor stimulations, known propositions, or one's current mental states in a plastic bag (or dig them up from the ground, or send them to a laboratory, or …) is of dubious intelligibility. From the perspective of much ordinary thought and talk about evidence, much philosophical theorizing about evidence would seem to embody a particularly grotesque category mistake."

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/

"For once in my life" ? Really ? And you bitch at ME about *aggressive*.

Am I supposed to be impressed. I'm not. I actually doubt that YOU read what you posted. It does not support you. At all.
I REJECT "philosophical" useless bullshit.
It's not "evidence" and it certainly is not evidence OF ANY SORT for dualism.
It's useless and a waste of time.

Posting a link WITHOUT supporting why YOU or anyone should accept it, is NOT useful way to convince anyone of anything.

Give us EVIDENCE for dualism NOW, or admit you have NONE.

You didn't read...

"According to one recent and influential study, one's evidence consists of the totality of propositions that one knows (Williamson 2000). According to another, one's evidence consists exclusively of one's current mental states (Conee and Feldman 2004). Within contemporary confirmation theory, a prominent version of Bayesianism is naturally understood as identifying one's evidence with those beliefs of which one is psychologically certain. Of course, the suggestion that one might place sense data, sensory receptor stimulations, known propositions, or one's current mental states in a plastic bag (or dig them up from the ground, or send them to a laboratory, or …) is of dubious intelligibility. From the perspective of much ordinary thought and talk about evidence, much philosophical theorizing about evidence would seem to embody a particularly grotesque category mistake."

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 11:22 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 11:19 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(22-02-2017 11:06 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "For once in my life" ? Really ? And you bitch at ME about *aggressive*.

Am I supposed to be impressed. I'm not. I actually doubt that YOU read what you posted. It does not support you. At all.
I REJECT "philosophical" useless bullshit.
It's not "evidence" and it certainly is not evidence OF ANY SORT for dualism.
It's useless and a waste of time.

Posting a link WITHOUT supporting why YOU or anyone should accept it, is NOT useful way to convince anyone of anything.

Give us EVIDENCE for dualism NOW, or admit you have NONE.

You didn't read...

"According to one recent and influential study, one's evidence consists of the totality of propositions that one knows (Williamson 2000). According to another, one's evidence consists exclusively of one's current mental states (Conee and Feldman 2004). Within contemporary confirmation theory, a prominent version of Bayesianism is naturally understood as identifying one's evidence with those beliefs of which one is psychologically certain. Of course, the suggestion that one might place sense data, sensory receptor stimulations, known propositions, or one's current mental states in a plastic bag (or dig them up from the ground, or send them to a laboratory, or …) is of dubious intelligibility. From the perspective of much ordinary thought and talk about evidence, much philosophical theorizing about evidence would seem to embody a particularly grotesque category mistake."

Wrong again child. I READ it, and I REJECT it. Just like I said.
You seem to think if people don't agree with you, there is something wrong with *them*. Man you really are such a baby.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: