Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2017, 12:51 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(06-03-2017 12:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's not even a problem AT ALL. When you see red, it's more than just the visual perception of red, (obviously you read NONE of the links I provided, and then you bitch we don't watch your crap). Besides just "seeing" red, all sorts of other things happen, chemicals are released, and memories are referenced. Stop being such a simpleton. All together they are seeing red. There is NOTHING missing there. You are just too simple-minded and uneducated to get it.

I read your links. They say nothing about the reduction of experience. They only solve the easy problem of how light is interpreted:

"Not all of these cones are alike. About 64 percent of them respond most strongly to red light, while about a third are set off the most by green light. Another 2 percent respond strongest to blue light.

When light from the banana hits the cones, it stimulates them to varying degrees. The resulting signal is zapped along the optic nerve to the visual cortex of the brain, which processes the information and returns with a color: yellow.

Humans, with our three cone types, are better at discerning color than most mammals, but plenty of animals beat us out in the color vision department. Many birds and fish have four types of cones, enabling them to see ultraviolet light, or light with wavelengths shorter than what the human eye can perceive."

This doesn't touch on what it is like to see yellow. We know how the brain interprets light waves. But how does this account for the experience of the color yellow? Why does yellow look the way it does to us?

"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
06-03-2017, 12:56 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(06-03-2017 12:37 PM)Naielis Wrote:  ... the most pitiful non sequitur of my life

Not a non sequitur.

(06-03-2017 12:37 PM)Naielis Wrote:  No coherent objections... except for Leibniz's Mill

Argument from incredulity.

(06-03-2017 12:37 PM)Naielis Wrote:  knowledge arguments

Incoherent.

(06-03-2017 12:37 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Kripke's argument

Incoherent.

(06-03-2017 12:37 PM)Naielis Wrote:  the possibility of zombies argument

Incoherent.

(06-03-2017 12:37 PM)Naielis Wrote:  the failure of Identity Theory to adequately reduce subjective experience.

Circular. You are attempting to show that there is a difference between brain states and consciousness.

(06-03-2017 12:37 PM)Naielis Wrote:  But if we just ignore or dismiss all of those as incoherent, you're completely right.

Precisely.

Because they are incoherent. As I have explained to you many times already.

(06-03-2017 12:37 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Leibniz doesn't mention anything about not being able to think of a reduction. Leibniz's Mill shows that, if you zoom in on the physical brain, you won't find experiences. You find brain matter.

...And then says that, because he can't think of a way in which this could be true, that this means that consciousness is not there. This is, bluntly, stupid.

And I must note, again, your attempts to ignore the actual rebuttals offered. I wonder how long it will be before you start pretending that I never drew the computer parallel as an explanation of why Leibniz's mill is a stupid argument, and go back to saying that I never actually explain anything.

Just like always.

"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
06-03-2017, 01:00 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(06-03-2017 12:51 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 12:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's not even a problem AT ALL. When you see red, it's more than just the visual perception of red, (obviously you read NONE of the links I provided, and then you bitch we don't watch your crap). Besides just "seeing" red, all sorts of other things happen, chemicals are released, and memories are referenced. Stop being such a simpleton. All together they are seeing red. There is NOTHING missing there. You are just too simple-minded and uneducated to get it.

I read your links. They say nothing about the reduction of experience. They only solve the easy problem of how light is interpreted:

"Not all of these cones are alike. About 64 percent of them respond most strongly to red light, while about a third are set off the most by green light. Another 2 percent respond strongest to blue light.

When light from the banana hits the cones, it stimulates them to varying degrees. The resulting signal is zapped along the optic nerve to the visual cortex of the brain, which processes the information and returns with a color: yellow.

Humans, with our three cone types, are better at discerning color than most mammals, but plenty of animals beat us out in the color vision department. Many birds and fish have four types of cones, enabling them to see ultraviolet light, or light with wavelengths shorter than what the human eye can perceive."

This doesn't touch on what it is like to see yellow. We know how the brain interprets light waves. But how does this account for the experience of the color yellow? Why does yellow look the way it does to us?

You really are a dolt. Yellow looks yellow because of the energy of the photons that enter the eye. TAKE A FUCKING SCIENCE CLASS. ALONG with the perception of the photons are other things also that get triggered in the brain. YOU CAN WATCH IT HAPPEN on a PET scan.

God damn, this one is an idiot.

You CAN'T "reduce" an experience, you fool. An "experience" is MULTIPLE things in the brain going on at the same time. It's NOT just one thing. Stop being a simpleton.

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
08-03-2017, 02:51 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
I've concluded that continuing this conversation would be a pointless exercise. No one here is willing to accept that they are incorrect despite me showing numerous arguments made made by neuroscientists and philosophers alike. These arguments get dismissed not refuted. The instant I realized I was wrong about the cosmological arguments I openly admitted error. This is because I have integrity and some sense of humility. But I receive only arrogance and obfuscation. I get ad hom after ad hom. I get pointless distractions about brain function when the true question is about the qualia. Not once does anyone here engage my arguments. And when I point this out, I'm given even more dismissals. I have a general tendency to continue debate. I don't let issues go very easily. But I've been shown that I cannot get anywhere with this forum's dogmatic adherence to aphilosophical naturalism. I'm sure this will be held against me, but I thought it relevant to mention: I was convinced to stop this conversation because of a Bible quote. I'm not one to value scripture. In fact, the ridiculousness of the scriptures is one main reason I don't accept and probably never will accept the Christian doctrine. But this verse adequately asserts the correct course in this circumstance.

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6

I hope you all get past your impediment and realize that your dogma is no better than that of religion. Until then, you will remain as "pigs" and "dogs".

"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
08-03-2017, 03:05 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(08-03-2017 02:51 PM)Naielis Wrote:  No one here is willing to accept that they are incorrect despite me showing numerous arguments made made by neuroscientists and philosophers alike.

Because those arguments are wrong, Naielis.

If you actually took the time to learn enough about logic and semantics to actually engage in the type of discussion you are trying to have, you would realize this. But you have decided that you already know everything because you are capable of doing some entry-level name dropping, and are incapable of accepting that the arguments you present might be anything other than infallible simply because they have recognizable names attached to them.

You're quite right about this discussion being pointless, though.

It's just not for the reason that you think.

"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
09-03-2017, 06:47 PM (This post was last modified: 10-03-2017 06:37 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(08-03-2017 02:51 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I get pointless distractions about brain function when the true question is about the qualia.

Wrong idiot. You MADE a meaningless ignorant argument based on the woo of "qualia", and in fact the answer IS brain fuction, (which you know nothing about, and which you cannot argue). You have no evidence for qualia that are not explained by brain function.


Quote:Not once does anyone here engage my arguments.

You *have* no arguments. Only meaningless philoso-babble.

Quote:But I've been shown that I cannot get anywhere with this forum's dogmatic adherence to aphilosophical naturalism.

Naturlaism is neither phisosophical or aphilosophical. You have no evidence for anything else, including your "qualia" woo.
Your implication that something is true because it's "philosophical" is bullshit. Nice try. Fail again.

Quote:"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6

Poor baby. But thanks for admitting you were torn to pieces. Thumbsup

Quote:I hope you all get past your impediment and realize that your dogma is no better than that of religion. Until then, you will remain as "pigs" and "dogs".

Says the "humble" whiner who claims (humbly) to have *integrity*, who bitches about ad homs. Facepalm
You will remain a woo-meister, until you can provide ANY evidence for your woo/duality bullshit. No one will hold their breath.

How very mature and "philosophical" of you. "Agree with my unsubstantiated woo, or you're pigs and dogs". LMAO
Are you "epistemically certain" of that ?
What are you ? A 2 yo ?

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
29-03-2017, 10:02 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
If any of you are interested, I finished my senior project on this subject. Here's the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YV38...ygit-w/pub

I'd like to apologize for any emotionally charged comments I might have made previously. Anyway, I am back and I can answer any questions anyone might have about my thesis.

"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
29-03-2017, 10:06 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Hello! Big Grin

I, for one, am happy to say "Welcome back" ! Thumbsup

I now have an almost uncontrollable ugre to also go/say "Oo! Oo! Oo! Mr Kotter!" in as close to a Bronx accent as I can manage. Big Grin

Here's to hoping you have a good time all round! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2017, 02:31 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2017 04:07 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Same buncha nonsensical crap,, VERY VERY POORLY WRITTEN. "F" for the paper. So, you insult us, and yet have no where else to post this nonsense ?
This is embarrassing for a "senior project". I wrote better stuff in 6th Grade. Obviously no one edited it, or corrected it, or made any suggestions. You didn't even bother to use a spell checker, and than you have the gall to *claim* you're in some sort of "advanced studies". LMAO.

"Ontological materialism, popularized only in the past few centuries,"
... an attempt to discredit by "length of time of" old shit, assumes things "old" are "better". No substantiation of claim or of reasoning. Humans have learned a lot in the last few centuries. The two words "ontological materialism" are even nonsense, and no definition even attempted. Who even talks that way ? Naturalism is all there is any evidence for. You have nothing else. A "problem" is not evidence for. All a "problem" might be (if indeed there was a problem ... and there is none), would be that further study is warranted. It does not justify invoking woo, (dualism). Since you *do* invoke woo, you MUST answer the question, "At what point does your lack of any other explanation permit you to invoke woo". You ARE REQUIRED to justify your thought process and methodology. How do you quantify or qualitatively categorize (your) "problem(S)" that permit you to jump to woo ? What are OTHER SIMILAR situations/problems, where you lack what you consider an explanation, that permit or justify similar jumps ? I know this will be a simple exercise for you, as you claim to possess "epistemic certainty". Obviously, if that claim was true, then you should be perfectly able to recount for us the rational process by which you arrived at that end-point, and what each step was, in the process of arriving there.

"can be viewed as a scientific dogma comparable to the dogma of Thomistic hylomorphism."
... totally false. Science has no "dogmas", and the comparison is totally false. It is not even remotely like Aquinas' concept of hylomorphism. Because you are an intellectual snob, (something very common in children your age), you think tossing around things like this, and name-dropping Aquinas makes you sound "all smart and philosophical". It might, but you did not even bother to connect the two completely different (opposite in fact) concepts.

"The Thomistic view, held for centuries by theologians, became vulnerable during the scientific revolution"
... Nope. It was ALWAYS bullshit, and there were those who always thought so.

"The mass secularization of the intelligentsia during this time was directly related to the shift toward naturalistic and materialistic views of reality." Really ? Prove it. No references ?
... another attempt at a discrediting naturalism based on assumptions which are not supported or explained, and by use of inherently biased language. Obviously, you're writing for a very specific audience, which you are trying to please. How pathetic.

"In any discussion of philosophy, it’s imperative to define terms for the whole of the conversation. And this understanding of materialism will aid in creating a viable definition for the term."
... preaching again are we, (?) also a non-sequitur. One NEVER starts a sentence with the word "and". You don't get to redefine a concept for yourself, and then present it as the truth or a majority view. It's called "creating a strawman".

"We need to understand what it is exactly that we are combating. The term has been used to refer to many things, including an obsession with items."
... no one is *combatting* anything, AND you have not even explained why you introduced the idea of "combat", why it's necessary or even desirable, or what that means in this context.

"But even within a metaphysical context, the term is somewhat difficult to pin down. It could refer to a belief that all substances or properties can be reduced to or explained by one substance: the material. This is the most lenient form. In its least lenient form, it refers to a belief that the only substance that actually exists is the material."
... totally false. You don'[t even know what it is you're even trying to discuss. No one says "materialism" is *one substance*. Facepalm Another sentence started with a conjunction. You *think* you *sound all intelligent*. You don't .... AT ALL. You sound like a pompous jerk. I know you think that's what philosophers are supposed to sound like.

"In the first definition, the existence of other substances or properties is not denied. Instead, these substances are said to be metaphysically grounded in or explained by only the material substance."
... meaningless drivel. Who says that ? Where do they say that ? References ? No one ever talks about "other substances" or makes claims about them. No one makes the claim you lie about. Naturalism says you have no evidence for anything other that what is natural. Energy is not "material". You never even defined material. Brains work because of physical cells, evolved PHYSICAL systems AND ENERGY. When they STOP working, consciousness CEASES, and Neuro-science can watch that happen in various ways, scientifically. http://www.mayoclinic.org/brain/sls-20077047 You have no evidence for anything else, and if you say "something is missing" and "does not explain it all to my satisfaction", all that is is this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
IF what you are saying is true, there would be at LEAST ONE known example of consciousness at work, in the absence of a healthy brain. There isn't. NOT ONE. You have nothing. You have no evidence. You're making up shit, because you think it makes you look smart.

"However, the second definition rejects any alternative substances or properties. Under this definition, only the material substance exists."
... Wrong. It does no such thing. No one says that. You have no evidence for anything else. IF it exists, and IF it's important, lets see the evidence, or STFU. You have none.

"All existence is material. What I will do for the first half of this paper is combat materialism under both of these definitions. It fails to adequately close the explanatory gap or solve the hard problem of consciousness."
... no you're not, and I for one am not gonna waste my time with any more of this utter bullshit. You FAILED to provide any evidence for this crap before, or explain this nonsense of a "hard problem" of consciousness, and re-stating bullshit, is still bullshit.

"The explanatory gap refers to the gap between our subjective experience and physical brain states."
... there is no explanatory gap. The "gap" is in your knowledge. You are just TOTALLY IGNORANT of Neuro-science, and NO neuro-scientist accepts this bullshit is a "hard problem".

Go post your woo on a woo site. That['s all it is, (in a very badly written, unedited, poor excuse for a paper). With this sort of writing, you're not even gonna get in to a decent college, much less be allow to take Philosophy. We don't buy ignorant bullshit woo here.

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
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-03-2017, 03:06 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(29-03-2017 02:31 PM)Naielis Wrote:  "It [materialism] fails to adequately close the explanatory gap or solve the hard problem of consciousness."

The "hard problem of consciousness" can be solved easily enough by a few changed definitions. Consciousness is not the self, but a process of the self. The self is the body.

There, done.

Smartass
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: