Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-02-2017, 11:44 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 10:24 PM)Astreja Wrote:  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.)

This is interesting. Your reduction appeals to an intense introspection. I'd be interested to read more on this tomorrow.

Quote: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.

I think it does a great deal to discount a materialist worldview. If she gained knowledge, then the experience of color is qualitatively different from the corresponding brain function. If they are not identical, then they are separate properties.

"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, 11:46 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 10:19 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Right but this doesn't mean radical Pyrrhonian skepticism can't lead to solipsism.

No one cares about radical Pyrrhonian skepticism.

(27-02-2017 10:19 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Your other responses were the same as usual. Can you please explain in detail how you think 1) materialism solves the mind-body problem

You have yet to demonstrate that a mind-body problem exists, because you have yet to coherently state a "mind-body problem".

(27-02-2017 10:19 PM)Naielis Wrote:  2) skepticism can't lead to solipsism

Solipsism is incoherent. No one cares about your obsession with name-dropping Pyrrhonism. It is not related to skepticism as the term is used today. If you wish to argue that one incoherent position can "lead" to another, then fine. I do not care, any more than I care to defend Pyrrhonism.

No coherent form of skepticism leads to solipsism.

A hint: modern skepticism is coherent.

(27-02-2017 10:19 PM)Naielis Wrote:  3) materialism responds to objections such as the knowledge arguments.

You have not coherently stated a "knowledge argument".

(27-02-2017 10:19 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Again, perhaps I missed your explanations.

Yes.

Repeatedly. In this thread. And in every other thread that you raise these same issues in, wherein they were also explained repeatedly, and ignored each 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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
27-02-2017, 11:53 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 09:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

Emergent properties and the existence of systems do not imply dualism or merit doubt in materialism.

(27-02-2017 09:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  We don't experience C-fiber stimulation. We experience pain. These feelings are called qualia.

"Qualia" are incoherent. You posit a difference where none exists, and cannot actually show any sort of divide between the two.

(27-02-2017 09:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  [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?[quote]

Learn, no. Experience, yes.

More abuse of language. Funny, that. It's almost as though this is a running theme among bunk like this, and anyone with an actual grounding in semantics would easily spot it.

(27-02-2017 09:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Materialism has truly failed to reconcile with recent developments in Information Theory and the experience of consciousness.

Laughably false.

(27-02-2017 09:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I think materialism Fails to provide a basis for quantum mechanics.

There is an equivalent to Gideon's Law in discussions like this.

If you ever, ever bring up quantum mechanics without having a doctorate in theoretical physics, you are guaranteed to be wrong in literally every respect.

"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
28-02-2017, 12:24 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2017 12:28 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Unbeliever: You have the stamina of a god Big Grin

20 pages of assertions without evidence, because this guy doesn't understand what evidence is, and refuses to learn.

Just out of interest: I've asked him multiple times for any actual practical result from his dualism worldview. Has he given any yet, besides just claiming to have a greater understanding? I have him on ignore as I can't listen to the broken record anymore.

It seems that he desires a certain special meaning from science, and because he doesn't get it, he perceives a problem. Yet this quest for meaning is his problem only, doesn't stop science getting constantly demonstrable and usable results, and is quite frankly asking the impossible. So he replaces science with his own abstract system, and just calls that system reality. There's no way to test whether any of the extra stuff in his system is actually part of reality or not, so it's just assertions.

Until he understands that arguments are not evidence, he'll be forever trapped in thought experiments. Exploring the purely theoretical can be interesting, but it requires a scientific approach to link it to reality. Right now, I don't think he's actually concerned with reality. He's just wants to be right about things, and to tell reality how it works. He doesn't know what consciousness is. He doesn't understand any of the fields of study he discusses. Not even philosophy.

And materialism being inadequate (if that was true) does not mean you can replace it with whatever shit you like, without evidence. It's exactly the same nonsense as proving religion is true by attacking evolution.

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
[+] 4 users Like Robvalue's post
28-02-2017, 06:51 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2017 08:58 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 09:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

Dualism for Nelly, is a gap-filler for his complete absence of actual science knowledge. If he doesn't "get how that happens", boom, ''dualism".
The reason we do not experience "fragments" has been fully answered by Neuro-psych. Some day maybe (I highly doubt it), he may actually get a science education.
It's no as if these questions have not been long ago settled by science.

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
28-02-2017, 09:16 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 11:53 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Emergent properties and the existence of systems do not imply dualism or merit doubt in materialism.

We do not experience things in the material. We experience things in an immaterial sense. That is a problem for materialism.

Quote:"Qualia" are incoherent. You posit a difference where none exists, and cannot actually show any sort of divide between the two.

Incoherent means it either makes no sense or it is logically fallacious. You need to show that the term meets one of these criteria.

Quote:Learn, no. Experience, yes.

More abuse of language. Funny, that. It's almost as though this is a running theme among bunk like this, and anyone with an actual grounding in semantics would easily spot it.

This is another embarrassing moment. This is a heavily contested issue in philosophy. The knowledge argument is not a word game. People who know far more about semantics than either of us populate either side of the argument. The question asked by the knowledge argument is whether the scientist learns something new. Yes of course they experience something new. The question is whether new experience entails new knowledge. Does the scientist gain knowledge about what it is like to experience color? Can you please try to engage these arguments. This is just pathetic. At every turn I give an argument with sources so you can do your own research. And you come back every time with short dismissals. Let me reiterate. These arguments are not language games from a 17 year old. These are heavily contested issues within contemporary metaphysics. Dismissing this as a language game is absurd.

Quote:
(27-02-2017 09:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Materialism has truly failed to reconcile with recent developments in Information Theory and the experience of consciousness.

Laughably false.

Oh really? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nIj5RpzIn8&t=1952s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg


Quote:There is an equivalent to Gideon's Law in discussions like this.

If you ever, ever bring up quantum mechanics without having a doctorate in theoretical physics, you are guaranteed to be wrong in literally every respect.

Really? Do you think you can get away with ad hominem again. And you try to add an appeal to authority? Honestly, what are you doing?

"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
28-02-2017, 09:29 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2017 11:01 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(28-02-2017 09:16 AM)Naielis Wrote:  We do not experience things in the material. We experience things in an immaterial sense. That is a problem for materialism.

Totally ignorant assertion.
Laughably false. We experience things because of sensory (physical, material), input. This child totally lacks the ability to think critically. What a fucking waste of time.
He doesn't get how brains work, he doesn't get how the sensory system works, he knows nothing about Neuro-science.

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
28-02-2017, 09:30 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(28-02-2017 12:24 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Unbeliever: You have the stamina of a god Big Grin

20 pages of assertions without evidence, because this guy doesn't understand what evidence is, and refuses to learn.

Just out of interest: I've asked him multiple times for any actual practical result from his dualism worldview. Has he given any yet, besides just claiming to have a greater understanding? I have him on ignore as I can't listen to the broken record anymore.

It seems that he desires a certain special meaning from science, and because he doesn't get it, he perceives a problem. Yet this quest for meaning is his problem only, doesn't stop science getting constantly demonstrable and usable results, and is quite frankly asking the impossible. So he replaces science with his own abstract system, and just calls that system reality. There's no way to test whether any of the extra stuff in his system is actually part of reality or not, so it's just assertions.

Until he understands that arguments are not evidence, he'll be forever trapped in thought experiments. Exploring the purely theoretical can be interesting, but it requires a scientific approach to link it to reality. Right now, I don't think he's actually concerned with reality. He's just wants to be right about things, and to tell reality how it works. He doesn't know what consciousness is. He doesn't understand any of the fields of study he discusses. Not even philosophy.

And materialism being inadequate (if that was true) does not mean you can replace it with whatever shit you like, without evidence. It's exactly the same nonsense as proving religion is true by attacking evolution.

You might not read this yourself Robvalue, but there are others here that would benefit from my response to this. Arguments are not empirical evidence. They are not scientific evidence. But they can serve as justification. You are jumping the gun. You're moving straight to evidence when you haven't even accounted for evidence to begin with. It is you who does not understand metaphysics. Metaphysics is not the same as most sciences. It does not make predictions and use empirical observation as its standard. Empiricism is just one ontological position. Your metaphysical position needs to account for empirical science, but that does not mean science is equal to metaphysics. How do you even get a concept of evidence if you haven't established what basic substances and properties there are? And I'm not replacing materialism with whatever I want. Read the arguments for Christ's sake. Do your research. I am showing that there is an ontological difference between experience and mental functions. I'm debunking Identity Theory. This is not a question of science. This is a metaphysical question. Stop treating it like a scientific 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
28-02-2017, 09:45 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(27-02-2017 11:46 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No one cares about radical Pyrrhonian skepticism.

Well it doesn't get much credence anymore, but Academic skepticism is somewhat popular. And Academic skepticism can still lead to solipsism.

Quote:You have yet to demonstrate that a mind-body problem exists, because you have yet to coherently state a "mind-body problem".

You need to pause for a second and study philosophy before you continue. This is one of the most important issues in modern metaphysics. http://www.iep.utm.edu/descmind/
http://www.philosophy-index.com/philosop...d-body.php
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil1...intro.html

Quote:Solipsism is incoherent. No one cares about your obsession with name-dropping Pyrrhonism. It is not related to skepticism as the term is used today. If you wish to argue that one incoherent position can "lead" to another, then fine. I do not care, any more than I care to defend Pyrrhonism.

No coherent form of skepticism leads to solipsism.

A hint: modern skepticism is coherent.

Ok so you need to demonstrate that modern skepticism is coherent. That includes Academic skepticism.

Quote:You have not coherently stated a "knowledge argument".

Yes I have. The scientist in the black in white room is a form of the knowledge argument. It's a very popular dualist argument and I'd say it's one of the most powerful.

Quote:
(27-02-2017 10:19 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Again, perhaps I missed your explanations.

Yes.

Repeatedly. In this thread. And in every other thread that you raise these same issues in, wherein they were also explained repeatedly, and ignored each time.

Well as I said, I'm terribly sorry then. But even now I haven't seen you engage the arguments.

"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
28-02-2017, 09:51 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(28-02-2017 09:16 AM)Naielis Wrote:  These are heavily contested issues within contemporary metaphysics.

... and will forever remain so, because metaphysics never actually resolves any questions. Have you ever noticed how philosophers constantly argue with each other? Every metaphysical idea that has ever been expressed (no matter how eminent the philosopher) has been contradicted or denied by some other equally eminent philosopher. I think, for the most part, philosophers are just people who enjoy arguing. The arguments can be interesting, but don't look to them for any solid answers, because they never produce any.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: