Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2017, 09:58 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(28-02-2017 09:51 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(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.

Well it's certainly true that I love debate. But I don't really know how to argue against someone who rejects philosophy. It would be tantamount to rejecting mathematics.

"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, 10:17 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(28-02-2017 09:58 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(28-02-2017 09:51 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  ... 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.

Well it's certainly true that I love debate. But I don't really know how to argue against someone who rejects philosophy. It would be tantamount to rejecting mathematics.

I deny that. Philosophy (at least as the term is normally defined) is much more speculative and conjectural than mathematics. In both cases, you're using logic to build castles in the air, so to speak, but mathematics has shown itself to be much more useful in the real world (and much more constrained by that) than metaphysics. Metaphysics, by definition, deals with questions that have no definite answer, and cannot be tested in the real world. Much of mathematics, on the other hand, has been developed specifically for application to real-world problems.

Also, note that I am not rejecting either. I find both subjects extremely interesting. But mathematics is much more useful.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
28-02-2017, 01:29 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(28-02-2017 10:17 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(28-02-2017 09:58 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Well it's certainly true that I love debate. But I don't really know how to argue against someone who rejects philosophy. It would be tantamount to rejecting mathematics.

I deny that. Philosophy (at least as the term is normally defined) is much more speculative and conjectural than mathematics. In both cases, you're using logic to build castles in the air, so to speak, but mathematics has shown itself to be much more useful in the real world (and much more constrained by that) than metaphysics. Metaphysics, by definition, deals with questions that have no definite answer, and cannot be tested in the real world. Much of mathematics, on the other hand, has been developed specifically for application to real-world problems.

Also, note that I am not rejecting either. I find both subjects extremely interesting. But mathematics is much more useful.

One cannot define "real" without starting philosophy.

"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, 01:30 PM
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.

This is incoherent gibberish. You cannot even sufficiently define "immaterial", let alone "experience things in an immaterial sense".

Spouting nonsense phrases is not a problem for materialism.

(28-02-2017 09:16 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
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.

I literally just did that in the quote that you are ostensibly responding to.

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

(28-02-2017 09:16 AM)Naielis Wrote:  This is another embarrassing moment.

Yes. Very.

Just not in the way that you think.

(28-02-2017 09:16 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Does the scientist gain knowledge about what it is like to experience color?

No. The very premise of the argument is that they do not. The qualia "objection" asserts that they would, but the only justification for this is "it seems obvious" when, again, it is in direct contradiction to its own premise.

This is not complicated. And yes, it is a pathetically simple abuse of language.

No, the number of people who think that the argument holds water does not matter. Yes, it really is that simple.

(28-02-2017 09:16 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

If you want something that requires more than a short dismissal, post something that is more than stupid word games.

This is your problem, Naielis. You do not actually possess the grounding in logic and semantics necessary to make any sort of accurate evaluation of what arguments do or do not have any merit to them. All that matters to you is that famous names are attached to them, or that the argument is popular and well-known and keeps getting brought up, regardless of how thoroughly it has been smacked down.

But philosophy is no more immune to the influence of idiots than any other field - in fact, it is more so, because philosophy does not demand any actual, functional results in order to gauge success. It just demands popularity. And idiocy will always be popular so long as it gives someone a justification, however flimsy, to believe in things like the soul.

The arguments you bring up really are that pathetically flawed, and yes, it really is that pathetically simple and that pathetically obvious. But you are so completely incapable of actually evaluating their worth for yourself that you cannot even realize when a rebuttal is being offered, and accuse me of dodging the issue or failing to justify my statements while quoting the point where I do just that.

It is laughable.

(28-02-2017 09:16 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Oh really? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nIj5RpzIn8&t=1952s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg

Yes, really.

And now you're trying to cite William Dembski and Dennis Bonnette. With a straight face. You tried to cite Rupert Sheldrake earlier. These are some of the most infamously laughable idiots out there.

Stop embarrassing yourself and do some actual research.

(28-02-2017 09:16 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
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?

That is neither an ad hominem nor an appeal to authority. You still do not know what those fallacies actually are.

It is, however, not an argument. It isn't meant to be. It is an out-and-out mocking of your assertion, because, as stated, I can personally guarantee that you do not actually understand any of the arguments made, and that they have absolutely zero actual power to refute materialism.

Since you haven't actually made an argument, nothing more than that is necessary for dismissal.

(28-02-2017 09:45 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Well it doesn't get much credence anymore, but Academic skepticism is somewhat popular.

No.

(28-02-2017 09:45 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
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

Son, I am fully aware of the existence of philosophers who claim the existence of a mind-body problem. It simply doesn't matter, because none of them can frame the question coherently, either.

Descartes' arguments boil down to assertion. He states that he can conceive of mind and body being separate, and that thus, they must be. Yes, I know that your link tries to claim that there is more to it than this. No, this doesn't change anything. He is, however, correct in saying that the mind and the body are distinct; in the same way, a computer and the programs that it runs are distinct. One is a process performed by the other.

No, there is still no coherent statement of a mind-body "problem". There is only a simple observation that the mind and the body are not equivalent, which is true, and then a bunch of incoherent nonsense that spins off from there.

(28-02-2017 09:45 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Ok so you need to demonstrate that modern skepticism is coherent. That includes Academic skepticism.

No one cares about Academic skepticism, either. The fact that you think we do is rather telling. As does the fact that you apparently consider modern skepticism to be one single position, rather than a set of tools applied to potential ones.

(28-02-2017 09:45 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
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.

And it is incoherent.

(28-02-2017 09:45 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Well as I said, I'm terribly sorry then. But even now I haven't seen you engage the arguments.

Yes, you have, Naielis. You simply ignored or did not understand it.

This is a bit of a running theme in discussions with you.

"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
28-02-2017, 02:01 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
"Heavily contested issues within contemporary metaphysics"
..... have they moved on yet from how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?

"Contemporary metaphysics" .... or how to make absolutely nonsensical irrelevant bullshit sound important.

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, 02:14 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(28-02-2017 01:29 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(28-02-2017 10:17 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I deny that. Philosophy (at least as the term is normally defined) is much more speculative and conjectural than mathematics. In both cases, you're using logic to build castles in the air, so to speak, but mathematics has shown itself to be much more useful in the real world (and much more constrained by that) than metaphysics. Metaphysics, by definition, deals with questions that have no definite answer, and cannot be tested in the real world. Much of mathematics, on the other hand, has been developed specifically for application to real-world problems.

Also, note that I am not rejecting either. I find both subjects extremely interesting. But mathematics is much more useful.

One cannot define "real" without starting philosophy.

Sure we can -- we can oppose "real" to "imaginary" or "abstract" -- something that actually exists in the world rather than only in people's minds. That may be "philosophy", but only in a very rudimentary sense.

But who needs to define "real" at all? The vast majority of people in the world manage to live their lives without ever thinking about philosophy or the precise definition of "real". In the real world, these things simply don't matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
01-03-2017, 05:16 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Missed this.

(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?

None.

And he never will, because he can't. Because ontological positions are not prescriptive. They do not and cannot make any actual predictions about the way the universe behaves. Their only purpose is to assign a name to whatever the universe is made of. They are semantic.

Which is another reason that statements like "quantum mechanics is a challenge for materialism" are laughable, but for now, in the interest of keeping things simple, I choose to just deal with the fact that no actual problem can be coherently formulated.

"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
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
01-03-2017, 05:54 AM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2017 06:06 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
As I expected, thank you Smile

I don't get what his motivation is for all this. Religious dudes have to obfuscate and dodge and weave to try and pretend their point of view is rational. He's not religious, but he has the same contempt for science and the same tendency to retreat into the totally abstract.

Maybe it's a control freak type of thing? Like, he can't handle reality unless he's calling the shots and saying how it works. He seems to use the argument that, "If something seems a certain way to me, then it is that way".

Of course, if he produced any evidence, or even a single reason to take him seriously, it wouldn't matter what his motivation was. I'm just curious, as this is atypical in my experience. Maybe a superiority complex also. I've dealt with someone before who repeatedly said how much smarter they were than everyone else, and while they obviously had a glimmer of intelligence, their actual reasoning skills fell woefully short of the their self-image.

I'm still scratching my head over him stating that the results of science don't matter. Even when his whole life revolves around those results being "correct enough" to engineer everything. That's maybe indicative of some sort of serious delusion: denying that science works.

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
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
01-03-2017, 07:59 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(01-03-2017 05:54 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  As I expected, thank you Smile

I don't get what his motivation is for all this. Religious dudes have to obfuscate and dodge and weave to try and pretend their point of view is rational. He's not religious, but he has the same contempt for science and the same tendency to retreat into the totally abstract.

Maybe it's a control freak type of thing? Like, he can't handle reality unless he's calling the shots and saying how it works. He seems to use the argument that, "If something seems a certain way to me, then it is that way".

Of course, if he produced any evidence, or even a single reason to take him seriously, it wouldn't matter what his motivation was. I'm just curious, as this is atypical in my experience. Maybe a superiority complex also. I've dealt with someone before who repeatedly said how much smarter they were than everyone else, and while they obviously had a glimmer of intelligence, their actual reasoning skills fell woefully short of the their self-image.

I'm still scratching my head over him stating that the results of science don't matter. Even when his whole life revolves around those results being "correct enough" to engineer everything. That's maybe indicative of some sort of serious delusion: denying that science works.

Um... this is awkward. I've never denied that science works... soooooo what are you talking about?

"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
01-03-2017, 08:53 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
If "science works", then woo (dualism) is false.
Science and math never ever need to, nor can they ever, by definition, have a [woo] term used to create a model.

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: