Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2017, 03:53 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(29-03-2017 02:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Same buncha nonsensical crap,, VERY VERY POORLY WRITTEN. "F" for the paper.

I passed with honors. Also my graders are math majors. One also has a degree in philosophy. And what about my writing is poor? My English teacher, who has a Ph.D. in English, seemed to think it was fine.

Quote:"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.

No you misunderstand. This section was designed based on my proposal, in which I said I would give a brief explanation of the history of this philosophy. There was no argument present here. I was just giving the context of the popularization of materialism.

Quote:"can be viewed as a scientific dogma comparable to the dogma of Thomistic hylomorphism."
... totally false. Science has no "dogmas", and the comparison is false.

Science does have dogmas. But that isn't what I said. I said materialism was a scientific dogma, meaning a dogma based around science. It formed from the scientific revolution into a major ontological position.

Quote:"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.

Well you could hold that hylomorphism was always false, but what I was saying was that it became vulnerable within the intelligentsia's perspective. I wasn't saying it got less true over time.

Quote:"The mass secularization of the intelligentsia during this time was directly related to the shift toward naturalistic and materialistic views of reality."
... another attempt at a discrediting based on assumptions which are not supported or explained.

Again, you're misunderstanding. I also have to add that you're employing a straw man. I make no claims about the credibility of materialism here. I merely stated my position on its rise.

Quote:"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".

No I'm not preaching. I don't see why you think I am. And it's only a non-sequitur if you intentionally cut out the preceding sentence: "The mass secularization of the intelligentsia during this time was directly related to the shift toward naturalistic and materialistic views of reality."

It's completely fine to start a sentence with "and". The people who believe this myth about "and" being off-limits for starting a sentence are often victims of a poor English education. http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/...njunction/

Quote:"We need to understand what it is exactly that we are combatting. 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".

I'm combatting materialism...

Quote:"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
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 sound like.

Actually all materialists argue that the material is the only substance. Check my sources at the end of the paper if you want to do some extra research.

Quote:"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. 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.

Philosophers talk about substances all the time...

Quote:"However, the second definition rejects any alternative substances or properties. Under this definition, only the material substance exists."
... Wrong. You have no evidence for anything else. IF it exists, and IF it's important, lets see the evidence, or STFU. You have none.

What's wrong? I'm defining materialism. I made no claims about what exists. What are you talking about?

Quote:"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.

So you read the introduction where I state that I'm going to give my arguments and then you decide that my arguments are irrelevant because I'm just wrong? You have a closed mind my friend.

Quote:"The explanatory gap refers to the gap between our subjective experience and physical brain states."
... there is no explanatory gap. 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. We don't buy ignorant bullshit woo here.

There is an explanatory gap. How do you explain subjective experience in terms of material mechanism? It just reduces to Leibniz's mill. What about the quality of your experience of red is contained in the physical operators of the perception?

"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, 03:57 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(29-03-2017 03:06 PM)Jay Vogelsong Wrote:  
(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

I never defined consciousness as the self. The problem is that our subjective experience can't be explained in terms of mere mechanism. Mind is an emergent property of the brain, but mental states are not identical to brain states. That is to say that the feeling of happiness is not identical to a rise in specific neurotransmitters; instead, happiness is property of the physical phenomena that can only be understood in terms of qualitative awareness.

"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, 04:03 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(29-03-2017 02:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "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.

No. Consciousness is an emergent property of brains. Why would we find consciousness with no brain present? I don't think you understand my position at all. Please do your research before you start ranting again. And I love that you ask for references but fail to see the five pages of annotated bibliography at the end... stunning wit you are.

Quote:"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".

Actually, many neuroscientists do. Sam Harris is a great example.

Quote: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.

I've already been accepted into several good colleges. This paper was edited by people with degrees on the subject and degrees in English. Stop wasting your time with this ad hominem when you know the writing style is fine.

"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, 04:25 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2017 05:21 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(29-03-2017 04:03 PM)Naielis Wrote:  No. Consciousness is an emergent property of brains. Why would we find consciousness with no brain present?

Then there is no "hard problem" of anything, is there.

Quote:Actually, many neuroscientists do. Sam Harris is a great example. Math professors are not experts in Philosophy, English or Neuro-science. Argument from authority.

One is not many. One, with ideas outside the mainstream, is not support.
You are incompetent to discuss the subject, AT ALL. Your "well then how do you explain" is nothing but an argument from ignorance.
You also have NOT answered the question of how much of an unknown, or quality of an unknown you have to have, to claim there is a "problem".

You have answered virtually NONE of the things I raised.


Quote:I've already been accepted into several good colleges. This paper was edited by people with degrees on the subject and degrees in English.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Sure they have. Sure that have.
Oh really ? Kentucky scholars ? Facepalm who don't know how to spell
"combating" or that one does not start a sentence with a conjunction ? LMAO

Quote:Stop wasting your time with this ad hominem when you know the writing style is fine.

Both the CONTENT and the style are crap.

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
29-03-2017, 05:00 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(29-03-2017 04:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Then there is no "hard problem" of anything, is there.
Quote:You really don't understand the hard problem at all.

[quote]
One is not many. One, with ideas outside the mainstream, is not support.
You are incompetent to discuss the subject.

Actually one can by many. But I gave an example. I didn't say Sam Harris was 40 people.

[quote]
You have answered virtually NONE of the things I raised.


I've answered everything.

Quote:Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Sure they have. Sure that have.
Oh really ? Kentucky scholars ? Facepalm who don't know how to spell
"combating" or that one does not start a sentence with a conjunction ? LMAO

One was a Cornell scholar actually. And combatting can be spelled with two t's bud:http://www.dictionary.com/browse/combatting

Also did you see the link I gave you? It clearly explains that the rule about starting sentences with conjunctions is a myth. You are a victim of a bad education system. You're also unwilling to actually research any of this for yourself. Strange though that even when I give you links, you come back with the same misinformation.
Quote:[quote]
Both the CONTENT and the style are crap.

Lol

"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, 05:06 PM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2017 03:38 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(29-03-2017 03:53 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I passed with honors. Also my graders are math majors. One also has a degree in philosophy. And what about my writing is poor? My English teacher, who has a Ph.D. in English, seemed to think it was fine.

Guess they are as ignorant as you.

Quote:No you misunderstand. This section was designed based on my proposal, in which I said I would give a brief explanation of the history of this philosophy. There was no argument present here. I was just giving the context of the popularization of materialism.

Except you didn't all you did was list some false comparisons and false ideas. YOU introduced the idea. I misunderstood nothing.

Quote:Science does have dogmas. But that isn't what I said. I said materialism was a scientific dogma, meaning a dogma based around science. It formed from the scientific revolution into a major ontological position.

Total bullshit. The word "dogma" appears nowhere in any scientific paper, or in any step of the scientific method. But thanks for demonstrating your total complete Kentucky bias about, and ignorance of science.


Quote:Well you could hold that hylomorphism was always false, but what I was saying was that it became vulnerable within the intelligentsia's perspective. I wasn't saying it got less true over time.

No. Totally dishonest. What you DID DO, was COMPARE it to materialism. A FALSE analogy.

Quote:Again, you're misunderstanding. I also have to add that you're employing a straw man. I make no claims about the credibility of materialism here. I merely stated my position on its rise.

In biased FALSE terms.

Quote:No I'm not preaching. I don't see why you think I am. And it's only a non-sequitur if you intentionally cut out the preceding sentence: "The mass secularization of the intelligentsia during this time was directly related to the shift toward naturalistic and materialistic views of reality."

Of course you're preaching. You can't help yourself. You use BIASED language.
You also have presented that "the intelligentia" was "mass secularized". Religious institutions have always produced religious scholars. Just a claim, with no evidence. Poor writing.

Quote:It's completely fine to start a sentence with "and". The people who believe this myth about "and" being off-limits for starting a sentence are often victims of a poor English education. http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/...njunction/

Maybe in Hicksville it's ok.

Quote:I'm combatting materialism...

You have no clue what you're doing.
You can't even spell ''combating" correctly, nor can you say why you think you need to go on this crusade.

Quote:Actually all materialists argue that the material is the only substance. Check my sources at the end of the paper if you want to do some extra research.

Naturalists say no such thing. It's a straw-man you created. No materialist says there is only "one substance". Energy and matter are not the same. Dark Matter is unknown. Your assertion is completely FALSE and ignorant. What the forces or energy were from which the universe arose, are unknown

Quote:What's wrong? I'm defining materialism. I made no claims about what exists. What are you talking about?

Your definition is false and ignorant.


Quote:So you read the introduction where I state that I'm going to give my arguments and then you decide that my arguments are irrelevant because I'm just wrong? You have a closed mind my friend.

You're not my friend. You have demonstrated here, over and over what you do. You have no arguments worth reading.

Quote:There is an explanatory gap. How do you explain subjective experience in terms of material mechanism? It just reduces to Leibniz's mill. What about the quality of your experience of red is contained in the physical operators of the perception?

Exactly. Thanks for demonstrating YET AGAIN you have no clue how brains work. Any experience is a multi-factorial, multi-dimensional SET of brain "events", where multiple memories and sensory events are 'referenced'. You don't know what those words mean, or how that works. Neuro-science does. There IS NO gap. Your gap IS your ignorance of brain function. HOW MANY TIMES do you have to be told this ? You REALLY need to go take a class in Psychology or Neuro-physiology before you make a fool of yourself even further.
What ? They don't have any of those in Kentucky ?

You were TOLD what was wrong with your bullshit last time you were here. You didn't pay any attention. Then you left (thank goodness). Then you came back and posted the SAME crap.

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, 05:10 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2017 08:44 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(29-03-2017 05:00 PM)Naielis Wrote:  You really don't understand the hard problem at all.

There isn't one. I get that you are trying to make an argument from ignorance. You are unable to define when you invoke or name a "problem". Your METHOD is suspect and irrational. You are unable you say how to arrived at your position. It's irrational.

Quote:Actually one can by many. But I gave an example. I didn't say Sam Harris was 40 people.

But you did not demonstrate his opinion is THE MAINSTREAM opinion. Without that, it's the argument from authority fallacy.

Quote:I've answered everything.

You're even more of a dunce than we thought.

Quote:Lol

I would laugh nervously also if I wrote this garbage.

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
29-03-2017, 05:27 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(29-03-2017 05:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Guess they are as ignorant as you.

They have degrees from Ivy Leagues bud. Take it down a notch with the ad hom.

Quote:Total bullshit. The word "dogma" appears nowhere in any scientific paper, or in any step of the scientific method. But thanks for demonstrating your total complete Kentucky bias about, and ignorance of science.

HA you imbecile dogma refers to something that is taken to be unquestionably true. The idea that we can observe reality is a dogma of science. The Central Dogma of Biology is the foundation of biology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Class/MLACo...dogma.html

I grew up in the city going to a progressive private school. I've been an atheist most of my life. I'm not some redneck out in southern Kentucky. Jesus Christ you assume so much. What happened to that line in your bio where you say you assume nothing? Was that just for dramatic flare? Were you joking?


Quote:No. Totally dishonest. What you DID DO, was COMPARE it to materialism. A FALSE analogy.

Not dishonest at all. I compared them later. Do you even know which part of my paper you're talking about?



Quote:No I'm not preaching. I don't see why you think I am. And it's only a non-sequitur if you intentionally cut out the preceding sentence: "The mass secularization of the intelligentsia during this time was directly related to the shift toward naturalistic and materialistic views of reality."
Quote:Of course you're preaching. You can't help yourself. You use BIASED language.
You also have presented that "the intelligentia" was "mass secularized". Religious institutions have always produced religious scholars. Just a claim, with no evidence. Poor writing.

The language wasn't biased it was directed. It was designed specifically to match my view. I wasn't claiming any neutrality here. The paper was called The Weakness of Materialism. Did that not tip you off to my intentions?


Quote:Maybe in Hicksville it's ok.

Did you even click on the link I posted?



Quote:You have no clue what you're doing.
You can't even spell ''combating" correctly, nor can you say why you think you need to go on this crusade.

It's actually very saddening that you didn't bother to even google combatting to see that it's a word.


Quote:Naturalists say no such thing. It's a straw=man you created. No materialist says there is only "one substance". Energy and matter are not the same. Dark Matter is unknown. Your assertion is completely FALSE and ignorant.

Naturalists and materialists are not the same thing according standard definitions. They certainly aren't the same according to the definitions I gave in my paper.


Quote:Your definition is false and ignorant.

Not according to Stanford University.

Quote:Exactly. Thanks for demonstrating YET AGAIN you have no clue how brains work. Any experience is a multi-factorial, multi-dimensional SET of brain "events". There IS NO gap. Your gap IS you ignorance of brain function. HOW MANY TIMES do you have to be told this ? You REALLY need to go take a class in Psychology or Neuro-physiology before you make a fool of yourself even further.
What ? They don't have any of those in Kentucky ?

You are a great source of comedy for my teachers who got their Ph.D.s from Cornell and Harvard. Take a trip to northern Kentucky sometime. You might be surprised.

"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, 06:00 PM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2017 04:10 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(29-03-2017 03:57 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(29-03-2017 03:06 PM)Jay Vogelsong Wrote:  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

I never defined consciousness as the self. The problem is that our subjective experience can't be explained in terms of mere mechanism. Mind is an emergent property of the brain, but mental states are not identical to brain states. That is to say that the feeling of happiness is not identical to a rise in specific neurotransmitters; instead, happiness is property of the physical phenomena that can only be understood in terms of qualitative awareness.

According to Wikipedia: "The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences—how sensations acquire characteristics, such as colors and tastes."

So if the experiences are happening to a physical body rather than just to consciousness per se, they are filtered through the body in such a way as to acquire the extra characteristics. Brain states are not all that are involved in creating mental states. You also have to take the body into account.

In other words, those experiences are happening to us, so of course they have "subjective characteristics."

Smartass
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
29-03-2017, 09:00 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2017 09:26 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(29-03-2017 05:27 PM)Naielis Wrote:  HA you imbecile dogma refers to something that is taken to be unquestionably true.

No imbecile. In science that's know as a "fact". Science is a "method".
There are as many views about other topics, as there are people who practice the method. "Materialism" and woo have nothing to do with science. You've attempted to claim there is a connection where there is none.

Quote:I grew up in the city going to a progressive private school. I've been an atheist most of my life. I'm not some redneck out in southern Kentucky. Jesus Christ you assume so much. What happened to that line in your bio where you say you assume
nothing? Was that just for dramatic flare? Were you joking?

You certainly write like a redneck/woomonger. But where you went to school, or what you say you are now, (didn't you HERE once recently say you were an "agnostic theist" ?) or were, is irrelevant.
The only thing that matters is you posit a "problem" where there is none, AND you are unable to say how it is you determined that you would posit that what you see as "a missing explanation" is a "problem" that implies the missing information/explanation supports a non-materialist position, and why it necessitates "combat".
YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED the questions posed to you about your methodology. What are you afraid of ? We know. You have no methodology or rational categories. You pounced on a "problem" here as it fit your biases.


Quote:Not dishonest at all. I compared them later. Do you even know which part of my paper you're talking about?

Apparently you didn't read your own paper. You compared them at the beginning. Liar.

Quote:It was designed specifically to match my view.

Exactly. Biased, and ignorant. You have no evidence for dualism. You claim there is a "problem", (as you are so ignorant of science), yet you are incapable of discussing your methodology and categories, or how you determine there is a "problem" when you invoke it, or what it means.

Quote:Did you even click on the link I posted?

I did. It's not how educated people speak or write.

Quote:It's actually very saddening that you didn't bother to even google combatting to see that it's a word.

Spare me. What's even sadder is you think you are in a position (intellectually or any other way), to combat anything with your nonsensical woo, which and you cannot even justify.

Quote:Naturalists and materialists are not the same thing according standard definitions. They certainly aren't the same according to the definitions I gave in my paper.

No one cares what you said. You are STILL positing a "problem" where there is none. You don't get to define anything.

Quote:You are a great source of comedy for my teachers who got their Ph.D.s from Cornell and Harvard. Take a trip to northern Kentucky sometime. You might be surprised.

So you *claim*.
You are a great source of comedy for many more than a few here. Where your teachers got their degrees is totally irrelevant. You wrote a stupid idiotic very carelessly put-together paper with the same woo bullshit your wrote here before. Nothing is any different. You can't support your methods and categories and conclusions, or explain how you made them. Yet you claimed "epistemic certainty" ... but cannot even say how you got there, or justify the categories you write about.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: