Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2017, 07:52 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Quote:I only said I had epistemic certainty at my foundation. I know with certainty that I exist and that my reasoning is reliable.

Yet you never told us how you arrived there, and how it is you KNOW this. Every crackpot and religious nutcase since the dawn of time, has asserted the same.
Bare assertion. No support.

Quote:"But your last statement is self-contradictory."

Actually it's not. It's the mark of an intelligent person to recognize how much they don't know. Claiming "epistemic certainty" is the mark of an anal-retentive child.
"The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”
― Albert Einstein

Quote: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".

That guy doesn't get to tell anyone when they should stop posting.

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
05-04-2017, 08:21 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 07:18 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 07:15 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  So this thread is about Nutella misunderstanding stuff?

It's about someone who knows nothing about the subject he's trying to make claims about, argue from incredulity and ignorance for his non-existent "woo".

What nonexistent woo?

"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
05-04-2017, 08:53 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
What is woo is the idea that there actually exists a difference between
"one is qualitative and the other is merely mechanical process", and everything that flows from that bullshit. There is no evidence for it. You can't say what the difference is, or how you know what the difference is.

No one in Psychology (or those who study learning or brain processes and brain functions) EVER talks in those terms.

You didn't answer any of the questions. None.
Get busy.
You have pages of them.

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
05-04-2017, 11:19 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 08:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What is woo is the idea that there actually exists a difference between
"one is qualitative and the other is merely mechanical process", and everything that flows from that bullshit. There is no evidence for it. You can't say what the difference is, or how you know what the difference is.

No one in Psychology (or those who study learning or brain processes and brain functions) EVER talks in those terms.

You didn't answer any of the questions. None.
Get busy.
You have pages of them.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what it feels like to be happy while only speaking in terms of material mechanism. Good luck.

"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
05-04-2017, 11:29 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
At work.

(05-04-2017 11:19 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 08:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What is woo is the idea that there actually exists a difference between
"one is qualitative and the other is merely mechanical process", and everything that flows from that bullshit. There is no evidence for it. You can't say what the difference is, or how you know what the difference is.

No one in Psychology (or those who study learning or brain processes and brain functions) EVER talks in those terms.

You didn't answer any of the questions. None.
Get busy.
You have pages of them.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what it feels like to be happy while only speaking in terms of material mechanism. Good luck.

Hehe... We had a little discussion about that.

There's some 5 milligram bottles you should be able to take for happiness. Wink

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2017, 11:34 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 11:29 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

(05-04-2017 11:19 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm still waiting for you to tell me what it feels like to be happy while only speaking in terms of material mechanism. Good luck.

Hehe... We had a little discussion about that.

There's some 5 milligram bottles you should be able to take for happiness. Wink

Thumbsup

Drugs that make you happy are not identical to the feeling of happiness. I think everyone here can agree to that.

"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
05-04-2017, 11:44 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
At work.

Oh, really? Consider

So, how do the drugs which are taken (On the caveat that they are the same as those found within the biological system) differ... perhance?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2017, 11:44 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 11:34 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 11:29 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.


Hehe... We had a little discussion about that.

There's some 5 milligram bottles you should be able to take for happiness. Wink

Thumbsup

Drugs that make you happy are not identical to the feeling of happiness. I think everyone here can agree to that.


How so? Emotions are reactions to stimuli, which at base are complex chemical reactions in the brain. Whether you create serotonin through a reaction, or ingest it directly, you get the feeling because your brain is reacting to the chemical stimuli.


The same would also apply to adrenaline, which might provide an even better example. You can naturally trigger it, such as with exercise. It can also be triggered by fear, in life-or-death situations as part of the fight-or-light response. Many people enjoy the adrenaline high, and seek to trigger that response without needing to physically exert or otherwise endanger themselves. Some people get their highs through moving fast (such as racing), or amusement rides (roller coasters), while still others can get it from competitive gaming. Even the artificial approximations of these things (video games and VR amusements) can induce an adrenal response. Or you could introduce it into the body from outside. All can give you the same high. Outside of our superficial emotional attachments, I don't see how there is an objective difference to a brain reacting to adrenaline on a roller coaster versus a VR simulation of a roller coaster.


In other words, it is a distinction without a difference.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2017, 11:49 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 11:44 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 11:34 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Drugs that make you happy are not identical to the feeling of happiness. I think everyone here can agree to that.


How so? Emotions are reactions to stimuli, which at base are complex chemical reactions in the brain. Whether you create serotonin through a reaction, or ingest it directly, you get the feeling because your brain is reacting to the chemical stimuli.


The same would also apply to adrenaline, which might provide an even better example. You can naturally trigger it, such as with exercise. It can also be triggered by fear, in life-or-death situations as part of the fight-or-light response. Many people enjoy the adrenaline high, and seek to trigger that response without needing to physically exert or otherwise endanger themselves. Some people get their highs through moving fast (such as racing), or amusement rides (roller coasters), while still others can get it from competitive gaming. Even the artificial approximations of these things (video games and VR amusements) can induce an adrenal response. Or you could introduce it into the body from outside. All can give you the same high. Outside of our superficial emotional attachments, I don't see how there is an objective difference to a brain reacting to adrenaline on a roller coaster versus a VR simulation of a roller coaster.


In other words, it is a distinction without a difference.

But a drug or chemical alone is not enough to constitute an emotion. That's all I'm saying. The emotion is the emergent property of, not only a chemical reaction, but a brain to interpret it. So the chemical alone is not identical to the feeling. In my discussion with Peebo, he seemed to say that the chemical was identical to the feeling. I would think everyone here could see that this is false.

"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
05-04-2017, 11:53 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 11:44 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  In other words, it is a distinction without a difference.

The idea of a distinction without a difference has its roots in a weak form Leibniz's law of indiscernibles. That is to say that two things are identical iff they share all the same properties. A chemical reaction does not share the same properties as emotion and, therefore, the two cannot be identical.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: