Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-04-2017, 10:31 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(05-04-2017 11:53 PM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

You FAILED to identify the elements that are different, (which you can't, as you are completely incompetent to even begin to discuss this subject).

Your statement also (again) betrays your utter and complete ignorance. The chemical reaction CAUSES what is experienced as an emotion, it is NOT *the* emotion, itself.

Please keep responding, and continue to demonstrate you haven't a clue what you're on about here.

And again, that's not what I said was a distinction without a difference. It was "seeing color" and "what it is like seeing color" that are the same thing, (and you also can not state what are the differences between those two identical ideas.)

BTW, you can shove Leibnitz up your pompous ass.
And I mean that in the most respectful way possible.
Rolleyes

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
07-04-2017, 11:09 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
[Image: 55c25919e4b09205e4f552d6.1000x1000.jpg]

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2017, 12:05 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(07-04-2017 10:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-04-2017 11:53 PM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

You FAILED to identify the elements that are different, (which you can't, as you are completely incompetent to even begin to discuss this subject).

Your statement also (again) betrays your utter and complete ignorance. The chemical reaction CAUSES what is experienced as an emotion, it is NOT *the* emotion, itself.

You're idiocy is humorous. It appears, after all this time, you still don't understand my position at all. I agree that chemicals cause emotions. You can see this earlier. The question I'm asking you is if you think emotion is a material substance rather than the emergent property of a material substance. I would say, as a property dualist, that it's an emergent property. It can't be fully reduced (which I think is clearer than ever now after all of your failed attempts at reduction). The materialist claims that emotion is either a material substance or a physical property. Are you a materialist in this respect?

"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
07-04-2017, 12:20 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(07-04-2017 12:05 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 10:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You FAILED to identify the elements that are different, (which you can't, as you are completely incompetent to even begin to discuss this subject).

Your statement also (again) betrays your utter and complete ignorance. The chemical reaction CAUSES what is experienced as an emotion, it is NOT *the* emotion, itself.

You're idiocy is humorous. It appears, after all this time, you still don't understand my position at all. I agree that chemicals cause emotions. You can see this earlier. The question I'm asking you is if you think emotion is a material substance rather than the emergent property of a material substance. I would say, as a property dualist, that it's an emergent property. It can't be fully reduced (which I think is clearer than ever now after all of your failed attempts at reduction). The materialist claims that emotion is either a material substance or a physical property. Are you a materialist in this respect?

You seem to be stuck on only one form of materialism.

Pro tip: There is not just one form of materialism. Emergent properties are included as epiphenomena that are wholly dependent on the material.

The properties of table salt emerge from the combination of sodium, an explosively reactive metal, and chlorine, a deadly gas. From whence comes the saltiness?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
07-04-2017, 12:27 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(07-04-2017 12:05 PM)Naielis Wrote:  It can't be fully reduced (which I think is clearer than ever now after all of your failed attempts at reduction). The materialist claims that emotion is either a material substance or a physical property. Are you a materialist in this respect?

Wrong. Totally false.
I NEVER ONCE attempted a "reduction", you damn liar. I TOLD YOU reduction WAS NOT POSSIBLE. Anyone who can read, can see that repeatedly here, AND that you made that stupid lie up.

The "materialist" claims no such thing. YOU have no reference for that idiotic MISUNDERSTANDING. You don't get to redefine for yourself, as you find it's convenient to your idiotic crusade, how others define anything.

No one says emotion is "a material substance", OR "a physical property".

You're SO ignorant of this topic, you have exposed yourself as doing NOTHING other than tilting at windmills.
Tilt away.
Facepalm

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
07-04-2017, 12:30 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(07-04-2017 12:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 12:05 PM)Naielis Wrote:  You're idiocy is humorous. It appears, after all this time, you still don't understand my position at all. I agree that chemicals cause emotions. You can see this earlier. The question I'm asking you is if you think emotion is a material substance rather than the emergent property of a material substance. I would say, as a property dualist, that it's an emergent property. It can't be fully reduced (which I think is clearer than ever now after all of your failed attempts at reduction). The materialist claims that emotion is either a material substance or a physical property. Are you a materialist in this respect?

You seem to be stuck on only one form of materialism.

Pro tip: There is not just one form of materialism. Emergent properties are included as epiphenomena that are wholly dependent on the material.

The properties of table salt emerge from the combination of sodium, an explosively reactive metal, and chlorine, a deadly gas. From whence comes the saltiness?

Oh I agree. There are multiple forms of materialism, or as it's more commonly referred to, physicalism. I think property dualism and predicate dualism could both fit into the physicalist spectrum. What I'm combatting is reductive materialism. In the beginning of my paper, I go to great lengths to define this materialism that I'm combatting because the term encompasses a large array of views. But I'm not necessarily opposed to physicalism. I think at least supervenience physicalism is true.

"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
07-04-2017, 12:33 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(07-04-2017 12:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 12:05 PM)Naielis Wrote:  It can't be fully reduced (which I think is clearer than ever now after all of your failed attempts at reduction). The materialist claims that emotion is either a material substance or a physical property. Are you a materialist in this respect?

Wrong. Totally false.
I NEVER ONCE attempted a "reduction", you damn liar. I TOLD YOU reduction WAS NOT POSSIBLE. Anyone who can read, can see that repeatedly here, AND that you made that stupid lie up.

The "materialist" claims no such thing. YOU have no reference for that idiotic MISUNDERSTANDING. You don't get to redefine for yourself, as you find it's convenient to your idiotic crusade, how others define anything.

No one says emotion is "a material substance", OR "a physical property".

You're SO ignorant of this topic, you have exposed yourself as doing NOTHING other than tilting at windmills.
Tilt away.
Facepalm

When did you say the reduction was not possible? You're saying you don't think you can fully reduce mental phenomena to neural phenomena? If that's what you're saying, then we have no disagreement. And many materialists do claim that they can fully reduce mental to physical. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physi...dNonRedPhy

"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
07-04-2017, 12:39 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1165654

"nor will it ever be done" .... among many other places in this thread, AFTER YOU told me I had not made the reduction.

You are REALLY a dishonest idiot.

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
07-04-2017, 12:48 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(07-04-2017 12:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1165654

"nor will it ever be done" .... among many other places in this thread, AFTER YOU told me I had not made the reduction.

You are REALLY a dishonest idiot.

I'm not dishonest at all. I just didn't see that post. But you see to contradict yourself in that post. You go on to say "Physical processes explain all there is, and all that we know." My entire point is that consciousness is not fully explained by the physical. If you aren't a reductionist, then you would agree with that statement. So what do you mean when you say all things are explained by the physical?

"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
07-04-2017, 12:51 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(07-04-2017 12:30 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 12:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  You seem to be stuck on only one form of materialism.

Pro tip: There is not just one form of materialism. Emergent properties are included as epiphenomena that are wholly dependent on the material.

The properties of table salt emerge from the combination of sodium, an explosively reactive metal, and chlorine, a deadly gas. From whence comes the saltiness?

Oh I agree. There are multiple forms of materialism, or as it's more commonly referred to, physicalism. I think property dualism and predicate dualism could both fit into the physicalist spectrum. What I'm combatting is reductive materialism. In the beginning of my paper, I go to great lengths to define this materialism that I'm combatting because the term encompasses a large array of views. But I'm not necessarily opposed to physicalism. I think at least supervenience physicalism is true.

If you are combating purely reductive materialism, then you are tilting at windmills. Or straw men.

There just aren't any extreme reductionists in the real world.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: