Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-04-2017, 01:59 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(07-04-2017 01:53 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 01:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I read the entire piece of crap. You tried to REDEFINE terms generally used in other ways. You are a VERY poor writer, and most important, the way YOU use the words "property dualism" which you have provided NO evidence for, has absolutely NOTHING to do with how the word "materialism" is normally used.

I'm not a very poor writer at all. I didn't redefine anything. I simply explained the definition of the terms as I would be using them in the paper. Materialism, as I defined it, is not uncommon. The way I defined it is how it is defined by many materialists. And I've provided at least three arguments for property dualism. Again, metaphysical positions don't require empirical evidence.

You are a horrible writer.
Claiming properties (different from consciousness) emerge from brains is hardly a metaphysical position.

You are a dishonest troll. Post this shit on Woo Central.

My "happiness exists nowhere".
That takes the Ignorance Cake for the decade. LMOA.

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, 02:04 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(07-04-2017 01:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 01:53 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm not a very poor writer at all. I didn't redefine anything. I simply explained the definition of the terms as I would be using them in the paper. Materialism, as I defined it, is not uncommon. The way I defined it is how it is defined by many materialists. And I've provided at least three arguments for property dualism. Again, metaphysical positions don't require empirical evidence.

You are a horrible writer.

I'm an excellent writer. You should consult my English teacher. I think you two would have an interesting conversation.

Quote:Claiming properties (different from consciousness) emerge from brains is hardly a metaphysical position.

But my metaphysical position includes consciousness as an emergent property... so why did you exclude it?

Quote:You are a dishonest troll. Post this shit on Woo Central.

Oh dear god just admit you lost. It's over. No need to start flinging around the word "troll".

Quote:My "happiness exists nowhere".
That takes the Ignorance Cake for the decade. LMOA.

No it doesn't. Immaterial emergent properties do not exist in positions...

"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, 02:05 PM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2017 06:54 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(07-04-2017 01:57 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 01:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So you redefine words for yourself, and say you need to "combat" something". Big fucking deal.
All you've done is add (ignorantly) another layer of emergence, (from the entirely physical).
That IS the same as materialism, (for everyone except you).

Actually no it's not. This is not how materialism is generally used. Materialism doesn't accept the existence of actual mental properties. Some forms of physicalism could. But materialism, as it is usually defined, does not.

Prove it. Show me the polls of Neuro-scientists that think mental properties, apart from consciousness, exist, (whatever the fuck they are), agree with you.

And as usual, you MISSED the point.
If *whatever* emerges from physical" THAT is materialism.
Adding another layer of emergence is irrelevant.

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, 02:12 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(07-04-2017 02:04 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm an excellent writer. You should consult my English teacher. I think you two would have an interesting conversation.

What would you EXPECT them to say ? Facepalm

Quote:But my metaphysical position includes consciousness as an emergent property... so why did you exclude it?

Because it's NOT a metaphysical position. It's the commonly accepted SCIENTIFIC position.

Quote:Oh dear god just admit you lost. It's over. No need to start flinging around the word "troll".

Nope. Troll, YOU repeatedly told me I had FAILED to "do the reduction" which NOW you claim is not even possible.

Quote:No it doesn't. Immaterial emergent properties do not exist in positions...

Yet you just admitted that DRUGS prescribed by Psychiatrists can change "brain states"

Yeah. I'm done here. You're just back to the same old woo bullshit positions. You know nothing about Neuro-chemistry, yet feel qualified to opine on where happiness exists or does not exist.

What a monumental waste of time.

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, 08:18 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(07-04-2017 01:44 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 01:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So then, ... remind us why you wrote a paper about "materialism" again, and why you "battle" it.

Because the specific kind of materialism I argued against is wrong.

And pretty much non-existent.

Quote:Reductionism in philosophy of mind need to die.

It was never alive.

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
07-04-2017, 09:08 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(07-04-2017 08:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  It was never alive.

But it *sounds* so much more erudite, complicated and "all smarty-pants" (snort)
if what goes on in brains can be claimed as the province of name-dropping "philosophers and metaphysicians" instead of physiologists, chemists, and the neurosciences. It's called "snob appeal".

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, 10:52 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
So, how is Naielis' work on his Nobel Prize winning thesis going?

Oh, no progress?

Color me surprised.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2017, 11:43 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(07-04-2017 02:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 01:57 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Actually no it's not. This is not how materialism is generally used. Materialism doesn't accept the existence of actual mental properties. Some forms of physicalism could. But materialism, as it is usually defined, does not.

Prove it. Show me the polls of Neuro-scientists that think mental properties, apart from consciousness, exist, (whatever the fuck they are), agree with you.

And as usual, you MISSED the point.
If *whatever* emerges from physical" THAT is materialism.
Adding another layer of emergence is irrelevant.

Reductive materialism doesn't allow for emergentism.

"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, 11:44 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(07-04-2017 10:52 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So, how is Naielis' work on his Nobel Prize winning thesis going?

Oh, no progress?

Color me surprised.

Irrelevant ad hominem.

"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, 11:53 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(07-04-2017 08:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-04-2017 01:44 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Because the specific kind of materialism I argued against is wrong.

And pretty much non-existent.

Quote:Reductionism in philosophy of mind need to die.

It was never alive.

That's simply isn't true at all. Reductionism is alive and has been since the beginning of the second half of the 20th century. This is because many scientists hold to Identity Theory.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/know-arg/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

"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: