Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-02-2017, 01:07 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 11:31 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Well I don't think all coherent ontological positions are equal.

I didn't say that they were. In order to be valid, an ontological position must be a coherent description of the universe. There are many which fail to do this. Thomism is among these, though "Thomism" is a fairly broad school to try to reduce down to ontology. Aquinas was stupid in many, many different branches of philosophy.

(27-02-2017 11:31 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The main issue we're having is language. I don't think it's my problem though.

It is.

(27-02-2017 11:31 AM)Naielis Wrote:  What I want to know is what you mean when you say words have no inherent meaning.

Exactly that.

Words are just a collection of sounds. They only have meaning in your head. A language is just a set of agreed-upon reference points that enables communication. There is nothing magical about words.

(27-02-2017 11:31 AM)Naielis Wrote:  What I would also like to know is why you think you can define the external world as everything we perceive.

Well, to be pedantic about it, I don't; we are perfectly (and rather tautologically) capable of perceiving our own thoughts, which are internal.

But this is beside the point, which is that this is what the word "external" is meant to describe. Again, there is no magical property of the word "external" that gives it some sort of independence. It is meant to describe a certain set of behaviors and characteristics. The universe meets the definition. It is, therefore, external.

Yes, it really is that trivial. And this is why no one takes solipsism or its variants seriously.

(27-02-2017 11:31 AM)Naielis Wrote:  What reason do you have to be an empiricist?

This has literally nothing to do with empiricism. It is simply, plainly, and exclusively a matter of semantics.

"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, 01:13 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 11:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

That is not at all the issue, and itself largely comes down to semantics anyway.

Whether labels refer to actual entities or our abstract conceptions of them doesn't matter. They are still labels. They still have no inherent meaning outside of our own heads.

The idea of rigid descriptors is still utterly incoherent nonsense.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
27-02-2017, 01:14 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
At work.

(27-02-2017 11:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

In a nut shell? No, they don't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2017, 02:48 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 01:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(27-02-2017 11:31 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Well I don't think all coherent ontological positions are equal.

I didn't say that they were. In order to be valid, an ontological position must be a coherent description of the universe. There are many which fail to do this. Thomism is among these, though "Thomism" is a fairly broad school to try to reduce down to ontology. Aquinas was stupid in many, many different branches of philosophy.

(27-02-2017 11:31 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The main issue we're having is language. I don't think it's my problem though.

It is.

(27-02-2017 11:31 AM)Naielis Wrote:  What I want to know is what you mean when you say words have no inherent meaning.

Exactly that.

Words are just a collection of sounds. They only have meaning in your head. A language is just a set of agreed-upon reference points that enables communication. There is nothing magical about words.

(27-02-2017 11:31 AM)Naielis Wrote:  What I would also like to know is why you think you can define the external world as everything we perceive.

Well, to be pedantic about it, I don't; we are perfectly (and rather tautologically) capable of perceiving our own thoughts, which are internal.

But this is beside the point, which is that this is what the word "external" is meant to describe. Again, there is no magical property of the word "external" that gives it some sort of independence. It is meant to describe a certain set of behaviors and characteristics. The universe meets the definition. It is, therefore, external.

Yes, it really is that trivial. And this is why no one takes solipsism or its variants seriously.

(27-02-2017 11:31 AM)Naielis Wrote:  What reason do you have to be an empiricist?

This has literally nothing to do with empiricism. It is simply, plainly, and exclusively a matter of semantics.

Well not many people take solipsism too seriously, but there are many who take academic skepticism seriously. Pyrrhonian skepticism has had somewhat of a revival, but academic skepticism is still more popular. Solipsism is merely a belief in only one's own mind. Skepticism can lead to solipsism, but the two are no identical. But you appeal to reductionism. This is unsurprising considering it's necessary for the materialist, but there are issues. If you don't have forms that are higher than the subatomic level, then you have a problem with theories of unity. Why is it that the parts of one form work towards the goal of the one being instead of behaving in chaos? Why is there order in the universe that you would expect from forms? Also why is our experience unified and not fragmented? Your form of materialism has to create a theory of unity. But this is impossible for the materialist monist. If all substances are material, then unity can't exist in actuality.

"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, 02:55 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2017 03:31 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Scientific ignoramus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

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, 03:19 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 02:48 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Skepticism can lead to solipsism

No. Solipsism is incoherent. Nothing leads to it other than a rejection of semantics.

This has been explained to you enough times already. Stop repeating the same already-refuted nonsense. Pay attention to the explanations given.

(27-02-2017 02:48 PM)Naielis Wrote:  But you appeal to reductionism.

Reductionism has literally nothing to do with anything that I just said. This is, purely and simply, a matter of semantics.

Stop trying to rope in other philosophies when the person talking to you has not brought them up. This is both a straw man and an indication of your own lack of understanding, and it has happened twice in the last two posts. You are too wrapped up in your own idea of what the people you are talking to will say, based on your unwarranted preconceptions and misunderstandings, to hear what is actually being said.

It is getting very tedious.

(27-02-2017 02:48 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Your form of materialism has to create a theory of unity. But this is impossible for the materialist monist.

Emergent behaviors and the existence of systems are not issues for materialism.

You do not understand materialism, and this is also not at all related to the actual points I raised.

Read before responding. It will save everyone involved a lot of time.

"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, 03:34 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 10:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

In fact they have everything to do with rigid designators, and the fact you don't get the connection is nothing but a measure of your total and complete ignorance of science and how humans LEARN what they know, and how that knowledge is held in the brain and referenced by memory.

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, 03:43 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 03:19 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No. Solipsism is incoherent. Nothing leads to it other than a rejection of semantics.

This has been explained to you enough times already. Stop repeating the same already-refuted nonsense. Pay attention to the explanations given.

I'm aware that you've said this multiple times. I've never heard you justify it. Skepticism can lead to solipsism. Research Pyrrhonists.

Quote:Reductionism has literally nothing to do with anything that I just said. This is, purely and simply, a matter of semantics.

Reductionism has to do with materialism. The materialist must reduce all properties to the material substance.

Quote:Stop trying to rope in other philosophies when the person talking to you has not brought them up. This is both a straw man and an indication of your own lack of understanding, and it has happened twice in the last two posts. You are too wrapped up in your own idea of what the people you are talking to will say, based on your unwarranted preconceptions and misunderstandings, to hear what is actually being said.

It is getting very tedious.

I mention things that are relevant.

Quote:Emergent behaviors and the existence of systems are not issues for materialism.

You do not understand materialism, and this is also not at all related to the actual points I raised.

Read before responding. It will save everyone involved a lot of time.

I understand materialism quite well. Could you provide evidence for your ad homs if you're going to keep using them? Because all I've gotten from you so far is that I don't understand materialism and skepticism. No explanation of either claim. Also, emergentism in philosophy of mind only accounts for material properties. If you don't have an immaterial classification of properties, you can't arrive at consciousness.

"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, 03:46 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 03:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-02-2017 10:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

In fact they have everything to do with rigid designators, and the fact you don't get the connection is nothing but a measure of your total and complete ignorance of science and how humans LEARN what they know, and how that knowledge is held in the brain and referenced by memory.

I didn't ask for you to repeat yourself. I said justify the claim. Instead you do the the same annoying ad hom with the same annoying style. Justify your claims. Do you understand that you haven't actually made any points yet? You've asserted quite a bit. Haven't seen much justification for anything you've said here.

"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, 03:49 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 03:43 PM)Naielis Wrote:  If you don't have an immaterial classification of properties, you can't arrive at consciousness.

Totally false, and totally ignorant.
You have NEVER ONCE provided any evidence for the "immaterial", and you never will. Neuro-scientists are well on the way to explaining consciousness, (which of course, being a scientific ignoramus, you know NOTHING about). There is not a shred of evidence for anything "immaterial", and you have none. Damaged physical brains don't work, and are not conscious, and you have no evidence they are. A 5th Grader could see that. Any 1st year nursing student knows that. Maybe you could sign up for some remedial science classes somewhere.

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: