Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-02-2017, 01:33 PM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2017 02:55 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
The exists no such thing as a "rigid designator", and there exists no way to demonstrate either the validity of the concept or it's importance, or to test for it's existence. The very use of the term belies a complete ignorance of Neuro-science, Physics, Biology and Chemistry, (and Quantum mechanics), among other things, Psychology and Neuro-psychology.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rigid-designators/

Every human brain is different.
Every human brain LEARNS what it comes to hold in it's memory in different ways, and the memories formed are DIFFERENT, at least in small ways, never identical with the content in another brain, ever, and when a concept is "referenced" it may be similar, but it cannot be "rigid". They may be similar, but they are never identical. The "holding of a similar concept" cannot be labeled as a "rigid designator", except by a scientific imbecile. There is no possible way to test for cerebral identity. Even if there were, and even if it were to exist for a nano-second, they would immediately diverge, and no longer be identical. The concept is meaningless, and invalid. Many languages lack concepts that other languages have. Some have concepts no other language has. Some have similar but not identical concepts.

http://books.google.com/books?id=shc9DAA...rs&f=false

Edit: The concept of a "rigid designator" is a rip-off / restate of Greek Idealism. Renaming bullshit by another name, makes bullshit no more true than bullshit was bullshit when bullshit was shit, in the first place.

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
27-02-2017, 06:56 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(24-02-2017 01:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The very use of the term belies a complete ignorance of Neuro-science, Physics, Biology and Chemistry, (and Quantum mechanics), among other things, Psychology and Neuro-psychology.

I'm really starting to think you aren't that intelligent. Please explain to me how the use a term meant to express necessity in meaning of other terms somehow implies an ignorance of science. Honestly, do you read what you say? At this point it just seems like you're just throwing out random fields that have nothing to do with subject. But, by all means, please link neuroscience and rigid designators lol. Good luck.

"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
27-02-2017, 07:35 AM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2017 07:42 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 06:56 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(24-02-2017 01:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The very use of the term belies a complete ignorance of Neuro-science, Physics, Biology and Chemistry, (and Quantum mechanics), among other things, Psychology and Neuro-psychology.

I'm really starting to think you aren't that intelligent. Please explain to me how the use a term meant to express necessity in meaning of other terms somehow implies an ignorance of science. Honestly, do you read what you say? At this point it just seems like you're just throwing out random fields that have nothing to do with subject. But, by all means, please link neuroscience and rigid designators lol. Good luck.

There is no such thing as "necessity in meaning".
AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD, every human brain learns, and what they know is different.

It's really very very simply.
You are a stupid fool, and you don't WANT to be told your crap is crap.

Put me back on ignore. Discussing anything with you is a total waste of time. Did ANYONE else here fail to understand me ? No. You are the ONLY one.

Fuck off.

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
27-02-2017, 08:06 AM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2017 08:15 AM by Naielis.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 07:35 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-02-2017 06:56 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm really starting to think you aren't that intelligent. Please explain to me how the use a term meant to express necessity in meaning of other terms somehow implies an ignorance of science. Honestly, do you read what you say? At this point it just seems like you're just throwing out random fields that have nothing to do with subject. But, by all means, please link neuroscience and rigid designators lol. Good luck.

There is no such thing as "necessity in meaning".
AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD, every human brain learns, and what they know is different.

It's really very very simply.
You are a stupid fool, and you don't WANT to be told your crap is crap.

Put me back on ignore. Discussing anything with you is a total waste of time. Did ANYONE else here fail to understand me ? No. You are the ONLY one.

Fuck off.

So, as usual, you make claims about random fields that have nothing to do with anything we're talking about. And as usual, when challenged, you fail to explain the connection between these fields and the subject. But now you think you're the one who's wasting their time? I never unignored you. I've just been reading your posts here. I think it might be time to stop considering you have yet to add anything of substance to the conversation.

"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
27-02-2017, 09:01 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 08:06 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(27-02-2017 07:35 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no such thing as "necessity in meaning".
AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD, every human brain learns, and what they know is different.

It's really very very simply.
You are a stupid fool, and you don't WANT to be told your crap is crap.

Put me back on ignore. Discussing anything with you is a total waste of time. Did ANYONE else here fail to understand me ? No. You are the ONLY one.

Fuck off.

So, as usual, you make claims about random fields that have nothing to do with anything we're talking about. And as usual, when challenged, you fail to explain the connection between these fields and the subject. But now you think you're the one who's wasting their time? I never unignored you. I've just been reading your posts here. I think it might be time to stop considering you have yet to add anything of substance to the conversation.

Ignore MEANS you don't read posts, you fucking idiot.
I never EVER said anything about "random fields".

Anyone who knows ANYTHING about Neuro-science gets what I said. You don't, as you know NOTHING about science. At all.

You have not added ONE thing of ANY substance to any thread on TTA since your unfortunate arrogant arrival.

Please just go back to telling everyone how much you know about philosobabble. That seems to be your only strength.

Fuck off.

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
27-02-2017, 10:46 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 09:01 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-02-2017 08:06 AM)Naielis Wrote:  So, as usual, you make claims about random fields that have nothing to do with anything we're talking about. And as usual, when challenged, you fail to explain the connection between these fields and the subject. But now you think you're the one who's wasting their time? I never unignored you. I've just been reading your posts here. I think it might be time to stop considering you have yet to add anything of substance to the conversation.

Ignore MEANS you don't read posts, you fucking idiot.
I never EVER said anything about "random fields".

Anyone who knows ANYTHING about Neuro-science gets what I said. You don't, as you know NOTHING about science. At all.

You have not added ONE thing of ANY substance to any thread on TTA since your unfortunate arrogant arrival.

Please just go back to telling everyone how much you know about philosobabble. That seems to be your only strength.

Fuck off.

I'm well aware of what the ignore button does. You did randomly mention fields that have nothing to do with the topic. I talk about rigid designators and you mention physics, neuroscience, psychology, etc. What on earth are you talking about? Rigid designators have nothing to do with any of those fields. I have provided substance. I've provided arguments that make clear points. Even if you don't agree, you simply can't deny that they had substance. But the only thing I've ever seen from you is statements like this: "What you're saying demonstrates that you know NOTHING about x. Brains LEARN things". You're all talk. Give me one argument that shows materialism is true. Give one argument that shows rigid designators are a flawed concept. Give me something. I'm tired of responding to ad homs.

"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
27-02-2017, 11:18 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 10:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Give me one argument that shows materialism is true.

Semantics.

Materialism is as true as it is possible for any ontological position to be - that is, it is a coherent description of our universe.

(27-02-2017 10:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Give one argument that shows rigid designators are a flawed concept.

Semantics.

There is no "inherent" meaning in any term, any more than there is in another. That is not how language works.

(27-02-2017 10:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Give me something.

Semantics.

People have been pointing out your issues with language since these discussions started, Naielis. At some point, you may want to start listening.

"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
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
27-02-2017, 11:31 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 11:18 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(27-02-2017 10:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Give me one argument that shows materialism is true.

Semantics.

Materialism is as true as it is possible for any ontological position to be - that is, it is a coherent description of our universe.

(27-02-2017 10:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Give one argument that shows rigid designators are a flawed concept.

Semantics.

There is no "inherent" meaning in any term, any more than there is in another. That is not how language works.

(27-02-2017 10:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Give me something.

Semantics.

People have been pointing out your issues with language since these discussions started, Naielis. At some point, you may want to start listening.

Well I don't think all coherent ontological positions are equal. One could form a Thomistic worldview that is coherent, but you and I both would agree is clearly false. The main issue we're having is language. I don't think it's my problem though. What I want to know is what you mean when you say words have no inherent meaning. If words have no inherent meaning, then are words designed to refer to something within reality? Or are they designed to refer to something within an abstraction? What I would also like to know is why you think you can define the external world as everything we perceive. What reason do you have to be an empiricist? Can you defend empiricism?

"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
27-02-2017, 11:42 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 11:31 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Well I don't think all coherent ontological positions are equal. One could form a Thomistic worldview that is coherent, but you and I both would agree is clearly false. The main issue we're having is language. I don't think it's my problem though. What I want to know is what you mean when you say words have no inherent meaning. If words have no inherent meaning, then are words designed to refer to something within reality? Or are they designed to refer to something within an abstraction? What I would also like to know is why you think you can define the external world as everything we perceive. What reason do you have to be an empiricist? Can you defend empiricism?

I would hazard a guess as to Unbeliever point being exactly that.

Words in and of themselves have no meaning.

The meaning we ascribe to words (Written or spoken) is determined by consensus.

This is why we have 'Jargon' and 'Slang'. Also why languages both change over time and why languages become 'Lost'.

Is all the users of a certain type of language 'Die out' for one reason or another then the values assigned to their words also passes.

*Note: Unless serious efforts are taken to keep said language alive such as Latin still being used as opposed to something like Cuniform 2 (Am completely stabbing in the dark about Cuniform 2 Blush )
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2017, 11:46 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 11:42 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(27-02-2017 11:31 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Well I don't think all coherent ontological positions are equal. One could form a Thomistic worldview that is coherent, but you and I both would agree is clearly false. The main issue we're having is language. I don't think it's my problem though. What I want to know is what you mean when you say words have no inherent meaning. If words have no inherent meaning, then are words designed to refer to something within reality? Or are they designed to refer to something within an abstraction? What I would also like to know is why you think you can define the external world as everything we perceive. What reason do you have to be an empiricist? Can you defend empiricism?

I would hazard a guess as to Unbeliever point being exactly that.

Words in and of themselves have no meaning.

The meaning we ascribe to words (Written or spoken) is determined by consensus.

This is why we have 'Jargon' and 'Slang'. Also why languages both change over time and why languages become 'Lost'.

Is all the users of a certain type of language 'Die out' for one reason or another then the values assigned to their words also passes.

*Note: Unless serious efforts are taken to keep said language alive such as Latin still being used as opposed to something like Cuniform 2 (Am completely stabbing in the dark about Cuniform 2 Blush )

Well of course humans give words meaning by using definitions. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether they have meaning that refers only to concepts from abstraction instead of actually referring to real entities.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: