Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-02-2017, 03:56 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 02:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Scientific ignoramus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Oh my that's embarrassing. Chaos theory is a mathematical explanation of small changes in closed systems. It has nothing to do with why the universe and reality are uniform and operate based on laws. Good god you really need to crack open a book.

"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, 03:57 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2017 04:10 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 03:46 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(27-02-2017 03:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

No. I already told you I wasn't going to waste any more time on your ignorant state. I can't give you a scientific education ... but thanks for demonstrating you have NO CLUE about how humans learn, and how brains work. But, by all means, continue to make a complete fool of yourself here. (My low opinion of you are not "ad homs". YOU have earned them, in every way, you arrogant little ignorant twirp .. now THAT may be an ad hom). Facepalm

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, 03:59 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 03:56 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(27-02-2017 02:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Scientific ignoramus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Oh my that's embarrassing. Chaos theory is a mathematical explanation of small changes in closed systems. It has nothing to do with why the universe and reality are uniform and operate based on laws. Good god you really need to crack open a book.

Exactly. Embarrassing for you.
You don't even get how it relates to what you claimed.
God you are stupid.

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, 04:00 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 03:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

Bump ..... STILL WAITING for evidence.

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, 04:11 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 03:43 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm aware that you've said this multiple times. I've never heard you justify it.

Yes, you have.

Solipsism is incoherent. Nothing can lead to it save a rejection of semantics, because it is incoherent.

Read before responding.

(27-02-2017 03:43 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Reductionism has to do with materialism. The materialist must reduce all properties to the material substance.

All ontologies must reduce all properties to their given substances. This is not a materialism-specific issue, and forms no coherent objection against the justification of materialism that I just gave.

(27-02-2017 03:43 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
Quote:You do not understand materialism, and this is also not at all related to the actual points I raised.

I understand materialism quite well. Could you provide evidence for your ad homs if you're going to keep using them?

That is not an ad hominem. You do not understand what that fallacy states any more than you understand materialism.

(27-02-2017 03:43 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Because all I've gotten from you so far is that I don't understand materialism and skepticism. No explanation of either claim.

You consistently claim that things that are no issue for materialism are issues for materialism. This demonstrates that you do not understand materialism.

(27-02-2017 03:43 PM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

No more so than not having an "immaterial classification of properties" keeps you from arriving at computer programs.

Again, you don't actually seem to have a coherent objection here, because you haven't properly defined your terms and don't understand the position that you are trying to argue against.

You really need to step away and work those things out before trying to continue this conversation.

"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, 04:21 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 04:11 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes, you have.

Solipsism is incoherent. Nothing can lead to it save a rejection of semantics, because it is incoherent.

Read before responding.

You see you keep doing this. You repeat assertions. Explain or justify them.

Quote:All ontologies must reduce all properties to their given substances. This is not a materialism-specific issue, and forms no coherent objection against the justification of materialism that I just gave.

Some ontologies need not reduce because of the plurality of substances or properties they provide.

Quote:That is not an ad hominem. You do not understand what that fallacy states any more than you understand materialism.

So ask for evidence for your ad homs and instead you ad hom to show that you don't have to? Well allow me to retort. Ad hominem is the use of insult in place of an argument. You provide no argument as to why I don't understand materialism or ad hominem. You merely insult by saying I don't.

Quote:You consistently claim that things that are no issue for materialism are issues for materialism. This demonstrates that you do not understand materialism.

Ah now we're getting somewhere. So what issues have I given that you would consider to not be problems for materialism. And how does materialism avoid these issues?

Quote:No more so than not having an "immaterial classification of properties" keeps you from arriving at computer programs.

Computer programs are not conscious.

Quote:Again, you don't actually seem to have a coherent objection here, because you haven't properly defined your terms and don't understand the position that you are trying to argue against.

You really need to step away and work those things out before trying to continue this conversation.

I understand it quite well. I'm writing an essay on the subject now actually. It will be finalized in a few weeks if you want to read it.

"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, 04:30 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
So no evidence then, for anything to do with "materialism".
That's what I thought.

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, 04:36 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2017 04:41 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 04:21 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(27-02-2017 04:11 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Solipsism is incoherent. Nothing can lead to it save a rejection of semantics, because it is incoherent.

You see you keep doing this. You repeat assertions. Explain or justify them.

That is not an assertion. That is a simple statement of something that has been explained to you, repeatedly and at length, across multiple threads, and an expansion upon what the implications of that are.

Pay attention.

(27-02-2017 04:21 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Some ontologies need not reduce because of the plurality of substances or properties they provide.

No. All valid ontologies must reduce all properties to the substrates that they provide. If they do not, they are at best inapplicable, and likely incoherent.

(27-02-2017 04:21 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
Quote:That is not an ad hominem. You do not understand what that fallacy states any more than you understand materialism.

So ask for evidence for your ad homs and instead you ad hom to show that you don't have to?

That is still not an ad hominem.

(27-02-2017 04:21 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Well allow me to retort. Ad hominem is the use of insult in place of an argument.

Which is not what is happening here, and is still not what "ad hominem" means.

"You are stupid" is not the ad hominem fallacy. It is not an argument or meant as a rebuttal to one.

"You are wrong and you are stupid" is not the ad hominem fallacy. The insult has no connection to the rebuttal.

"You are wrong because you are stupid" is ad hominem. The insult is the argument.

I have not committed the ad hominem fallacy. My pointing out that you do not understand the positions you are attempting to argue against is not an insult, is not unsupported, and is not meant as a rebuttal in and of itself. It is added to the actual arguments in an attempt to get it through your skull that you do not actually possess the knowledge necessary to engage in this sort of discussion, so that you will sit down and pay attention for once. But you invariably ignore the actual argument, focus in on the phrase "you do not understand" because it bruises your ego, ignore the straightforward and simple explanation of what you do not understand, and then try to label it as ad hominem in order to demand a retraction.

Demonstration: the very next thing you quote is the argument that you claim was not given.

(27-02-2017 04:21 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
Quote:You consistently claim that things that are no issue for materialism are issues for materialism. This demonstrates that you do not understand materialism.

Ah now we're getting somewhere. So what issues have I given that you would consider to not be problems for materialism.

Reductionism. The issue of minds. The "immaterial aspect" of sound waves. And so on.

(27-02-2017 04:21 PM)Naielis Wrote:  And how does materialism avoid these issues?

I have explained all of these previously.

Read before responding.

(27-02-2017 04:21 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
Quote:No more so than not having an "immaterial classification of properties" keeps you from arriving at computer programs.

Computer programs are not conscious.

And?

(27-02-2017 04:21 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I understand it quite well. I'm writing an essay on the subject now actually.

Writing an essay on a topic does not necessitate, or even imply, understanding of said topic.

"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
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
27-02-2017, 04:58 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
First of all, Naielis, some well-meaning advice: Please don't waste your money studying philosophy in university. I have a vision of you being removed from the classroom by campus security because you keep interrupting the teacher and disrupting the class.

Secondly, I would like to comment on this:

(27-02-2017 11:18 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Materialism is as true as it is possible for any ontological position to be - that is, it is a coherent description of our universe.

The key word here is "coherent." Things can be coherent without being idealized, perfect or absolute; in fact, I would argue that the human mind, and humans' lives, simply do not need such certainty in order to attain a satisfying worldview.

I find materialism satisfying because it is in harmony with personal experiences and sensory data. There may be more out there than the physical universe, but at present I feel no particular need to look under every philosophical rock in the hope of finding such.

In fact, whenever we move from the realm of the material into "what-if" territory, at best we can produce a new theory about reality. That theory may or may not be testable. If it cannot be tested, it must remain theoretical; if it can be tested, and produces valid information, it extends our knowledge of the world.

Thus, I don't think it's too far-fetched to assert that a philosophy that tries to divorce itself entirely from materialism would be difficult to validate -- and would also be of questionable use, except as an intellectual exercise.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Astreja's post
27-02-2017, 09:16 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 04:58 PM)Astreja Wrote:  First of all, Naielis, some well-meaning advice: Please don't waste your money studying philosophy in university. I have a vision of you being removed from the classroom by campus security because you keep interrupting the teacher and disrupting the class.

My minor is going to be philosophy. My major is math. And why would the teacher remove me? I'm a reserved person. I don't talk much.

Quote:Secondly, I would like to comment on this:
The key word here is "coherent." Things can be coherent without being idealized, perfect or absolute; in fact, I would argue that the human mind, and humans' lives, simply do not need such certainty in order to attain a satisfying worldview.

I find materialism satisfying because it is in harmony with personal experiences and sensory data. There may be more out there than the physical universe, but at present I feel no particular need to look under every philosophical rock in the hope of finding such.

Well I think the problem is that there are things that we all know with certainty. For example, we know that we exist with complete epistemic certainty. There is no coherent worldview that states that we don't exist. For to even state something, one must exist. Now as for your argument from experience, I would say dualism is certainly more evident from experience. We experience a unity of being not a series of fragments. We don't experience C-fiber stimulation. We experience pain. These feelings are called qualia. And most dualist philosophers have used these qualia in their arguments. I think the strongest argument for dualism involves these qualia, showing that they are irreducible to the material. Here is how Stanford frames it.

"Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal chords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’.… What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not? It seems just obvious that she will learn something about the world and our visual experience of it. But then is it inescapable that her previous knowledge was incomplete. But she had all the physical information. Ergo there is more to have than that, and Physicalism is false."
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/#2

Quote:In fact, whenever we move from the realm of the material into "what-if" territory, at best we can produce a new theory about reality. That theory may or may not be testable. If it cannot be tested, it must remain theoretical; if it can be tested, and produces valid information, it extends our knowledge of the world.

Thus, I don't think it's too far-fetched to assert that a philosophy that tries to divorce itself entirely from materialism would be difficult to validate -- and would also be of questionable use, except as an intellectual exercise.

Well I disagree not only because of the many philosophers leaning towards dualism these days, but because of the arguments for dualism. Materialism has truly failed to reconcile with recent developments in Information Theory and the experience of consciousness. It fails to solve the mind-body problem. And my position on epistemic certainty isn't really the main issue I have with materialism. I think materialism Fails to provide a basis for quantum mechanics. Many materialist interpretations of QM arrive at conclusions that contradict the Laws of Logic. But the very practice of science is based on the truth of the Laws of Logic.

"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: