Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-02-2017, 09:24 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 04:36 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  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.

Ok let's say I've missed all of your explanations. In that case, I'm very sorry. Could you please explain again why you think one can't arrive at solipsism from skepticism.

Quote: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.

Right I wasn't disagreeing. I was just saying there might not be a process of reduction if all properties are given their own substance. Then you need not reduce anything. You've explained all properties as their own substances. But you are right that this would be incoherent.

Quote: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.

Well we're working under different definitions of ad hominem. I define ad hominem in the standard sense. It refers to an insult or a personal attack in place of an argument to your opponent's point. You seem to be defining it as a very specific insult where the person argues that some is wrong because of [insert insult]. I would disagree with this definition. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

"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, 09:27 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 09:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

Totally false ignorant bunk. We know what causes pain, biochemically. You don't as you know no science. At all. We know how to block pain with DRUGS, (MATERIAL CHEMICALS), and other ways. Human brains INTEGRATE sensory perceptions. Pain and sensory perceptions are TOTALLY 100 % reducible to known material sensory inputs/outputs, and they can be MEASURED in various ways.

It's all just an argument from ignorance.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
27-02-2017, 09:35 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-02-2017 09:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

Totally false ignorant bunk. We know what causes pain, biochemically. You don't as you know no science. At all. We know how to block pain with DRUGS, (MATERIAL CHEMICALS), and other ways. Human brains INTEGRATE sensory perceptions. Pain and sensory perceptions are TOTALLY 100 % reducible to known material sensory inputs/outputs, and they can be MEASURED in various ways.

It's all just an argument from ignorance.

You misunderstood what I said. I'm going to stop reading your comments now.

"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, 09:36 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2017 10:16 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 09:35 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(27-02-2017 09:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Totally false ignorant bunk. We know what causes pain, biochemically. You don't as you know no science. At all. We know how to block pain with DRUGS, (MATERIAL CHEMICALS), and other ways. Human brains INTEGRATE sensory perceptions. Pain and sensory perceptions are TOTALLY 100 % reducible to known material sensory inputs/outputs, and they can be MEASURED in various ways.

It's all just an argument from ignorance.

You misunderstood what I said. I'm going to stop reading your comments now.

I did not.

That's what you said before.
You have not one shred of evidence for dualism.

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, 09:44 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2017 10:16 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
When you eat, do you "experience" *digestion* ?
LMAO.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/anaesthesia/Student...troduction
http://www.med.nyu.edu/thesenlab/files/Q...JNeuro.pdf
http://jn.physiology.org/content/82/4/1934.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...7304003964
http://academic.oup.com/brain/article/12...mygdala-in
http://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/1...n-Insights

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, 10:14 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 09:24 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Ok let's say I've missed all of your explanations. In that case, I'm very sorry. Could you please explain again why you think one can't arrive at solipsism from skepticism.

Because solipsism is incoherent. Incoherent positions do not have criteria by which they can be considered to be true.

This is not complicated.

(27-02-2017 09:24 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Well we're working under different definitions of ad hominem.

I note the continued lack of actual response to any of the points raised in favor of simply trying to defend your ego.

"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
27-02-2017, 10:19 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 10:14 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(27-02-2017 09:24 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Ok let's say I've missed all of your explanations. In that case, I'm very sorry. Could you please explain again why you think one can't arrive at solipsism from skepticism.

Because solipsism is incoherent. Incoherent positions do not have criteria by which they can be considered to be true.

This is not complicated.

Right but this doesn't mean radical Pyrrhonian skepticism can't lead to solipsism. This form of skepticism is especially incoherent.

Quote:I note the continued lack of actual response to any of the points raised in favor of simply trying to defend your ego.

Your other responses were the same as usual. Can you please explain in detail how you think 1) materialism solves the mind-body problem, 2) skepticism can't lead to solipsism, 3) materialism responds to objections such as the knowledge arguments. These are just some of the things I've mentioned that I have yet to see an adequate response to. Again, perhaps I missed your explanations. In that case I am truly sorry. But could you please explain again.

"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, 10:24 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 09:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

Fair enough. I would consider a worldview that asserts "I do not exist" to be rather incoherent.

Quote: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.

Through meditation I've actually been able to divide pain sensations into something akin to fragments, by targeting awareness to zoom in on smaller and smaller areas. That which I call "pain" seems to be a perceptual phenomenon, an aggregate of many signals coming in all at once; when I can mentally separate them, the overall perception of something hurting may drop out entirely. (I've yet to try this with intense, acute pain, mostly because at such times it's hard to concentrate.)

Quote:"...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."

I don't think that necessarily disproves physicalism. Her knowledge was originally in the context of one particular subset of physical data, black-and-white vision. When she gets out of the room she receives a larger subset of possible inputs, that which includes colours, and her knowledge base can expand to accommodate the new data.

The question here is, what is meant by "there is more to have than that"? Is there something available beyond physical possibilities? There may be, but the example doesn't automatically support a non-physical extension of knowledge. (And to be fair, it does not preclude such, either.)

Quote: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 we may see reconciliation eventually, as both neuroscience and quantum mechanics develop. Both are relatively new sciences, at the stage where we're getting as many questions as answers from them, and those questions need to be resolved before we can determine how well they fit into a materialist worldview.

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
27-02-2017, 10:28 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
At work.

I must admit as to why, perchance, QM is being mentioned in the whole "Mind/Body" issue?

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2017, 11:16 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 10:28 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  I must admit as to why, perchance, QM is being mentioned in the whole "Mind/Body" issue?

Well, I suppose it could be relevant if one were to examine the subatomic properties of the "Body" side of the issue. Big Grin

QM is a soft target -- it's so perplexing and counter-intuitive that it's currently the most convenient way to ascribe mystery to things that we just haven't had time to understand yet.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Astreja's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: