Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2017, 11:42 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(21-02-2017 11:37 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  It appears that we have "reality", we have rules that govern how reality works, and we have things that exist within that reality. Those things that exist we call material.

What exactly is the objection? Is this all some sort of dualism, trying to make out that qualities of existent things "exist" as well? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. What does it matter? They don't appear to do anything if they do.

What does it even mean to say that something "exists"? I think it's impossible to define in a non-circular way. So I just use it in relative terms. Abstract ideas exist as much as other abstract ideas, in whatever way that is. Materials exist as much as other materials, in whatever way that is. Rules of reality exist as much as other rules. And so on. Something inside my dream exists as much as something else inside my dream.

Maybe they all ultimately exist in the same way. Maybe none of them exist at all.

Applying logic to reality, and making logical statements about reality, is already a model. I think that's an important point to realize.

No it isn't a model. And that is going to be the main point I make in the video response.

"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
21-02-2017, 11:46 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
At work.

(21-02-2017 11:38 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 11:34 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Here is my argument against the existence of the (dwarf) planet Pluto:

ARGUMENT

Ergo: Pluto doesnt exist. Cool









Probe? Flyby? Ill leave that to those stupid, overpaid and overestimated science niggas.

Your argument could contain a posteriori evidence. But it doesn't need to. You know can know that 1+1=2 without grabbing two things to demonstrate it.

Actually no, Naielis. We only know 1+1=2 precisely because we've been taugh (Often through a long process designated 'education') as to what those symbols mean/refer to.

Ask someone who'se definitions/nomenclature don't contain knowledge of such or their references/education is different (Ancient Romans or Babylonian for example) and they would have no idea what 1+1=2 meant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 11:47 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Okay, I'll be interested to hear you justify that. I think you're totally wrong, and when you understand why, you'll be able to let go of a lot of dogma that is weighing you down.

You realize you only ever experience your brain's interpretation of reality, right? You never experience reality directly.

We define that 1+1 = 2. It's our abstract system, just like in my video. There is no "1" and "2" in reality. I can define 1+1 = 3 if I want. You're again confusing models and reality.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 11:54 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(21-02-2017 11:46 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Actually no, Naielis. We only know 1+1=2 precisely because we've been taugh (Often through a long process designated 'education') as to what those symbols mean/refer to.

Ask someone who'se definitions/nomenclature don't contain knowledge of such or their references/education is different (Ancient Romans or Babylonian for example) and they would have no idea what 1+1=2 meant.

I didn't say we all learned 1+1=2 the same way. I said it is possible to understand that 1+1=2 without a posteriori. It can be known completely a priori.

"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
21-02-2017, 11:58 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(21-02-2017 11:47 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Okay, I'll be interested to hear you justify that. I think you're totally wrong, and when you understand why, you'll be able to let go of a lot of dogma that is weighing you down.

You realize you only ever experience your brain's interpretation of reality, right? You never experience reality directly.

We define that 1+1 = 2. It's our abstract system, just like in my video. There is no "1" and "2" in reality. I can define 1+1 = 3 if I want. You're again confusing models and reality.

You're confusing words and meaning of words. There are actual quantities in reality. We call a singular thing 1 thing. We can understand every other quantity in terms of performing an operation on 1. We aren't talking about the symbol 1. We're talking about the quantity the symbol describes. If you argue quantities don't exist outside of our abstract system, then mathematics is meaningless in reality.

"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
21-02-2017, 12:07 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
"Quantities" is our own model, again. Reality is just reality. We interpret it. Or rather, we interpret our brain's interpretation of it.

A "quantity" is an abstract concept, by which we try to model and understand reality. Quantities don't literally exist. The things that exist, exist. We can use whatever ideas we find useful to try and model those things.

You keep making definitive statements about reality, and that is your mistake.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 12:07 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
At work.

(21-02-2017 11:54 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 11:46 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Actually no, Naielis. We only know 1+1=2 precisely because we've been taugh (Often through a long process designated 'education') as to what those symbols mean/refer to.

Ask someone who'se definitions/nomenclature don't contain knowledge of such or their references/education is different (Ancient Romans or Babylonian for example) and they would have no idea what 1+1=2 meant.

I didn't say we all learned 1+1=2 the same way. I said it is possible to understand that 1+1=2 without a posteriori. It can be known completely a priori.

Consider

Really? How?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 12:09 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(21-02-2017 11:47 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  You realize you only ever experience your brain's interpretation of reality, right? You never experience reality directly.

Not only do I understand this, I discuss this with Unbeliever all the time. The skeptic's question is how you know your perception is representing reality accurately. How do you even know your perception is representing external reality at all. It could be a figment of your imagination. But there are tons of ways out of this skeptical hypothesis.

"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
21-02-2017, 12:11 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(21-02-2017 12:07 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

(21-02-2017 11:54 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I didn't say we all learned 1+1=2 the same way. I said it is possible to understand that 1+1=2 without a posteriori. It can be known completely a priori.

Consider

Really? How?

If you can't understand that 1+1=2 separate from a posteriori justification, you can't do math as an abstraction. We have an ability to separate the abstraction from its observed application.

"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
21-02-2017, 12:11 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
You don't know, and there is no way out of it. We can only accept that we can model, or we can make assumptions.

If you understand this, why do you continually make definitive statements about reality?

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: