Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-04-2017, 02:18 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(06-04-2017 01:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Come on man, don't even bother breaking up a post if you cannot do the hack job with more skill than a drunk lumberjack.

I don't understand. What was the huge issue with my response?

Quote:Of course feeling are not identical to chemicals, you cannot charts the element of Love on the periodic table.

Right and that's all I was saying. So why did you feel the need to dispute my statement? It seems I was right in suggesting you didn't understand what I was saying. I had a conversation with Peebo where he claimed certain chemicals were identical to feelings. I was responding to him so I assumed that's what we were talking about.

Quote:But that subjective label is just that, a label we slap on top of our reaction to chemical stimuli.

Really? So you think you can explain to me what it feels like to be happy by talking only about brain chemistry and function?

Quote:Our language predates our understanding of chemistry and neuroscience, so of course the common parlance we have to describe the emergent manifestation of complex chemical reactions in the brain are not identical to those reactions. Emotions are a layer of abstraction above what it actually happening in the brain, a useful abstraction for conveying that subjective experience to another who understands your language, but it fails to grasp what is fundamentally happening inside the brain. But emotions exist on a gradient, and their descriptions change with language, precisely because it is an abstraction (e.g. schadenfreude, a single German word for an emotional response that would otherwise take an entire sentence in English to describe).

I'm weary of your use of the term abstraction here. I would say our experience of emotions warrants a realist approach to emotion rather than a reductionist one.

Quote:So yeah, the pre-scientific language based abstraction is not identical to the reality it is floundering above trying to describe.

However I'm not sure at this point if you're trying to be purposely obtuse or not.

I'm not being obtuse at all. You seem to be conjecturing. You assume that our experience of emotions is irrelevant, instead favoring our understanding of neuroscience. But what reason do you have to claim that brain states are identical to mental states in the first place? You're jumping past justification.

"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
06-04-2017, 03:01 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Naielis,

originally i wanted to comment your comment of my original (long) post. Yet, after reading the past few pages i think it has become clear that you are quite confused and, most important:

You repeatedly claim that there is a distiction between things like the substance of adrenaline and the responses it creates in as brain, but you havent bothered so far to actually define the distinction. You are making claims and dont bother to provide criteria for distinction or falsifiability. Although Buckys style may me somwhat agressive (but hes totally entitled to it) he has nailed you down, and you cant/wont come up with something satisfying as an answer.

You can claim all day long for the next dozens of pages that ther is a difference, but until you provide define this and provide falsifiability, i am considering that as "the usual" philosophical masturbatory excercise. And you wouldnt be even coherent as a philosopher, because afaik distinctions without a differece wont fly in philosophy as well.

You also never have so far (afaik) adressed how and why we, as materialists, are able to visualize human thoughts with the help of NMR, which, if it is correct, would render your whole suggestion of dualism pointless and, in fact, wrong. Is there a reason you didnt adress this?

I am simply not interested enough in the topic to engage in endless back and forths with you (like Bucky) to point out again and again, that, in fact, all you have are your own assertions, of how there is a problem and you are the (only) one who has the solution to this problem, without even being able or willing to demonstrate what exactly the problem is. Ironically, you argue much like the christian religion "Here is the problem you never knew you actually had, and here is my solution to *your* problem", your train of thought is trapped within itself, by itself.

The passages where you start to claim that
Quote:Drugs that make you happy are not identical to the feeling of happiness. I think everyone here can agree to that.
were pretty much the giveaway to your faulty thinking. You claim there is a difference, but havent defined what the difference is, or how your claim can be falsified. On top of that you assume that probably everybody (else) agrees with you.

Or this
Quote: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.
Bare assertion, you dont even seem to see the necessity to explain why and how that is. Thats how far you are already entrenched in your faulty thinking, you dont seem to have the slightest doubts anymore (maybe because of your "epistemic certainty", which is also a fallacious way of rationalizing your own biases? idk) .The fact that, in both cases, you are pointing to "everybody else" just emphasizes how far you have moved down this rabbit hole. You cant conceive anymore that anyone could disagree with you, when in fact, probably most of all if not everybody does disagree with you (or is at least sceptical of your claims without explanation/definition). At this point you have become seriously deluded (or: seriously deluded yourself)!

This is why i prefer science to philosophy. In (proper, not faulty full of fallacies) philosophy you have the freedom to make up whatever you want, so you are able to open complete new paths of thinking. However you can become trapped within the very rabbit holes you created.
Science at least is as rigid to require to demonstrate what you have caimed, or have me demonstrate why i think my claim is true.

So until you can show why and how being happy by administering a drug, and being happy without administering that drug is supposed to be something completely different, and based on a dualistic reality, i am going to keep dismissing your assertions-without-evidence without further explanation from my side.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2017, 03:50 AM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2017 03:56 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(06-04-2017 02:18 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-04-2017 01:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Come on man, don't even bother breaking up a post if you cannot do the hack job with more skill than a drunk lumberjack.

I don't understand. What was the huge issue with my response?

Look at your post. You split up my post into 3 pieces, only properly formatted 2 of them, leaving an entire paragraph there after your second response followed by an open hanging quote bracket. I knew where your sentence ended and my own began, but a casual observer could very well get lost in your sloppy formatting.

The Preview button is there for a reason, use it. Provided you care not to look like a bellend.


(06-04-2017 02:18 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
Quote:Of course feeling are not identical to chemicals, you cannot charts the element of Love on the periodic table.
Right and that's all I was saying. So why did you feel the need to dispute my statement? It seems I was right in suggesting you didn't understand what I was saying. I had a conversation with Peebo where he claimed certain chemicals were identical to feelings. I was responding to him so I assumed that's what we were talking about.

Maybe because you're shit at it?


(06-04-2017 02:18 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
Quote:But that subjective label is just that, a label we slap on top of our reaction to chemical stimuli.
Really? So you think you can explain to me what it feels like to be happy by talking only about brain chemistry and function?

Your point? Your problem is with the limitations of language built upon subjective experience. Sure, we can describe the processes happening in the brain to the best of our ability and knowledge, and that is indeed different than describing the 'feeling', because feelings are an abstraction layer. There is correlation, but I fail to see the point are are fumbling around at. But that abstraction is just that, a label we slap onto subjective physiological responses to stimuli. Given enough education, two people could have an intelligent conversation about what a particular feeling 'feels like' without needing to resort to that abstraction (i.e. fear and anger correlate to adrenaline, which causes eye dilation and a faster pulse). Just as two aeronautical engineers can discus the physics of flight, without needing the flowery language that one might use to describe the majestic motions of a eagle. It just requires a lot more education and understanding, thus 'feelings' are a convenient label and shorthand; but it still fundamentally fails to describe the actual phenomenon.


(06-04-2017 02:18 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
Quote:Our language predates our understanding of chemistry and neuroscience, so of course the common parlance we have to describe the emergent manifestation of complex chemical reactions in the brain are not identical to those reactions. Emotions are a layer of abstraction above what it actually happening in the brain, a useful abstraction for conveying that subjective experience to another who understands your language, but it fails to grasp what is fundamentally happening inside the brain. But emotions exist on a gradient, and their descriptions change with language, precisely because it is an abstraction (e.g. schadenfreude, a single German word for an emotional response that would otherwise take an entire sentence in English to describe).
I'm weary of your use of the term abstraction here. I would say our experience of emotions warrants a realist approach to emotion rather than a reductionist one.

Emotions are not magical, deal with it.


(06-04-2017 02:18 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
Quote:So yeah, the pre-scientific language based abstraction is not identical to the reality it is floundering above trying to describe.

However I'm not sure at this point if you're trying to be purposely obtuse or not.
I'm not being obtuse at all. You seem to be conjecturing. You assume that our experience of emotions is irrelevant, instead favoring our understanding of neuroscience. But what reason do you have to claim that brain states are identical to mental states in the first place? You're jumping past justification.

Brains are complex things, and there appears to be a strong correlation between brain states and mental states, as indicated with fMRI studies. Combine that with the complete gutting of mind-body duality as shown by every modern field of science, and the ability to affect mental states by directly altering the state of the brain (i.e. anti-depressant medication, the god helmet, etc.), and I'm at a loss for where you are even trying to get to.

Emotions are not magical. The brain is not magical. The brain is a very complex biological engine that reacts to stimuli by way of complex chemical reactions. Our subjective experience of these changes or particular states we call emotions, and give them their own language dependent labels (such as anger or fear, different labels in different languages). Emotions appear to be little more than the labels we give to the subjective experience of brain states. Emotions are therefore a language based abstraction layer, used to share and describe the subjective experience of those brain states, without needing to fully comprehend what those states are, how they change, or what is actually happening on any other fundamental level.

In the same way that we describe the perception of the molecular motion of objects as 'hot' or 'cold', we use language to give labels to subjective experience of adrenaline and serotonin. With enough understanding and education, one can dig down below the abstraction limitations of pre-scientific language.


So again, for the slow. Emotions are not magical. The brain is not magical. Interesting and incredibly complex, sure, but not magical.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
06-04-2017, 03:53 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
I still think Nails presumes science claims nothing else is happening besides what we have labelled "the material". He's conflating methodological and philosophical naturalism. This continued dishonesty shows how weak his position is.

Science does not do this; it just restricts its scope to what can be measured. So maybe there is some magical entity which is "consciousness". Maybe not. Maybe the universe is being controlled by giant frogs from another dimension. Maybe time is really running backwards. Until we have a way to actually distinguish whether any of these things are true, they are useless speculations with no practical applications.

And as usual, pointing to what you consider to be a problem with a current model does not make your model true by default. It just means we need a new model, if your objections have merit. But since he's not offering any testable model, his is functionally the same but with magical extra bits painted in the background. And of course, he hasn't defined what it means for something to exist but not be material, in any way other than an abstract notion. This is because material means existent, and so there is no gap to fill. Equivocating dishonesty.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
06-04-2017, 05:42 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(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.

Learn about brain chemicals/processes/pathways and the effects they produce *in some brains* you fucking moron. You ADMITTED you know NOTHING about the subject, yet you persist in making a fool of yourself.

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
06-04-2017, 05:42 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(06-04-2017 03:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(06-04-2017 02:18 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I don't understand. What was the huge issue with my response?

Look at your post. You split up my post into 3 pieces, only properly formatted 2 of them, leaving an entire paragraph there after your second response followed by an open hanging quote bracket. I knew where your sentence ended and my own began, but a casual observer could very well get lost in your sloppy formatting.

The Preview button is there for a reason, use it. Provided you care not to look like a bellend.


(06-04-2017 02:18 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Right and that's all I was saying. So why did you feel the need to dispute my statement? It seems I was right in suggesting you didn't understand what I was saying. I had a conversation with Peebo where he claimed certain chemicals were identical to feelings. I was responding to him so I assumed that's what we were talking about.

Maybe because you're shit at it?


(06-04-2017 02:18 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Really? So you think you can explain to me what it feels like to be happy by talking only about brain chemistry and function?

Your point? Your problem is with the limitations of language built upon subjective experience. Sure, we can describe the processes happening in the brain to the best of our ability and knowledge, and that is indeed different than describing the 'feeling', because feelings are an abstraction layer. There is correlation, but I fail to see the point are are fumbling around at. But that abstraction is just that, a label we slap onto subjective physiological responses to stimuli. Given enough education, two people could have an intelligent conversation about what a particular feeling 'feels like' without needing to resort to that abstraction (i.e. fear and anger correlate to adrenaline, which causes eye dilation and a faster pulse). Just as two aeronautical engineers can discus the physics of flight, without needing the flowery language that one might use to describe the majestic motions of a eagle. It just requires a lot more education and understanding, thus 'feelings' are a convenient label and shorthand; but it still fundamentally fails to describe the actual phenomenon.


(06-04-2017 02:18 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm weary of your use of the term abstraction here. I would say our experience of emotions warrants a realist approach to emotion rather than a reductionist one.

Emotions are not magical, deal with it.


(06-04-2017 02:18 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm not being obtuse at all. You seem to be conjecturing. You assume that our experience of emotions is irrelevant, instead favoring our understanding of neuroscience. But what reason do you have to claim that brain states are identical to mental states in the first place? You're jumping past justification.

Brains are complex things, and there appears to be a strong correlation between brain states and mental states, as indicated with fMRI studies. Combine that with the complete gutting of mind-body duality as shown by every modern field of science, and the ability to affect mental states by directly altering the state of the brain (i.e. anti-depressant medication, the god helmet, etc.), and I'm at a loss for where you are even trying to get to.

Emotions are not magical. The brain is not magical. The brain is a very complex biological engine that reacts to stimuli by way of complex chemical reactions. Our subjective experience of these changes or particular states we call emotions, and give them their own language dependent labels (such as anger or fear, different labels in different languages). Emotions appear to be little more than the labels we give to the subjective experience of brain states. Emotions are therefore a language based abstraction layer, used to share and describe the subjective experience of those brain states, without needing to fully comprehend what those states are, how they change, or what is actually happening on any other fundamental level.

In the same way that we describe the perception of the molecular motion of objects as 'hot' or 'cold', we use language to give labels to subjective experience of adrenaline and serotonin. With enough understanding and education, one can dig down below the abstraction limitations of pre-scientific language.


So again, for the slow. Emotions are not magical. The brain is not magical. Interesting and incredibly complex, sure, but not magical.

Lol this will be fun to respond to...

"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
06-04-2017, 05:43 AM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2017 05:47 AM by Bucky Ball.)
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.

Of course they aren't you damn idiot. But they DO produce that feeling, which IS AN ENTIRELY CHEMICAL PROCESS.
It would REALLY help if you had the education of a 6th Grader.

You really are just a troll here, doing this nonsense for the attention, aren't you ?
Fuck you are stupid. Stuff your Philosophical woo up your ass, and get lost *again*. You add NOTHING here. You are UNQUALIFIED to discuss this subject, (or write papers about it).

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
06-04-2017, 05:48 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(06-04-2017 05:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

Learn about brain chemicals/processes/pathways and the effects they produce *in some brains* you fucking moron. You ADMITTED you know NOTHING about the subject, yet you persist in making a fool of yourself.

You didn't address my point... still waiting.

"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
06-04-2017, 05:50 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(06-04-2017 05:48 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(06-04-2017 05:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Learn about brain chemicals/processes/pathways and the effects they produce *in some brains* you fucking moron. You ADMITTED you know NOTHING about the subject, yet you persist in making a fool of yourself.

You didn't address my point... still waiting.

Yes I did. It flew over your PEA brain.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/att...micals.pdf
Too bad it's not all pictures, as that's all you will get, but it's a start. Maybe your mommy can read it to you.

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
06-04-2017, 05:51 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(06-04-2017 05:42 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Lol this will be fun to respond to...

Take your time. Maybe don't butcher the formatting while you're at it?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: