Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2017, 08:08 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2017 08:15 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(08-04-2017 07:54 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The emergent property of consciousness doesn't exist outside your head because it doesn't have a position at all.

Dishonest semantic equivocation.
Yes it does. It emerges in and ONLY in brains. VERY specific parts of brains.
THAT is a "position".
You've tripped yourself up in your idiotic "philosobabble". Scientists don't talk about your stupid "properties". It's a useless, meaningless term.
The "state" of happiness (and other mental states) emerge from chemical processes in brains. There is no need to insert an intermediate (useless) concept called "property". Dump it.

Quote:It is merely localized to the brain because it is a property of the brain.

Hahahaha. "Merely' .... as opposed to what ? LMAO.
Something "localized" to the brain has it's position IN your brain.

You are SO pathetic. You really should stop 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
08-04-2017, 08:31 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2017 08:34 PM by Chas.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(08-04-2017 07:32 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(08-04-2017 07:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  No position? They are properties of a physical thing, therefore that is their location.

Really so the liquidity of water exists inside the water? No. It is localized to the water, but has no position of it's own.

A distinction without a difference. The water is wet. There is no wet without it.
Its position is that of the water.

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
08-04-2017, 08:34 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/emoti...tiers.html

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
08-04-2017, 10:13 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2017 10:21 PM by Robvalue.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Groupthink huh.

Scientific knowledge tends to converge between different people because it's a method which removes personal bias as much as possible. The whole idea is to end up with an answer we all agree on, regarding facts about our shared reality, using evidence. Woo "knowledge" tends to diverge in every possible direction, because it's unfalsifiable speculation. Anyone can do that, without showing their workings, and no agreement can ever be made.

For example, if everyone agrees that there is a chair in a room, that isn't group-think. It's a good indication of a fact that isn't a matter of opinion. Everyone can put forward plentiful evidence. Not only can we agree there is a chair, but we can agree on very specific qualities that it has, and demonstrate our methods. If one person says there isn't a chair, but they can't back up their case or challenge all the evidence put forward for why there is a chair, then they are probably wrong.

Then we could have a discussion about what kind of undectable creature is sitting on the chair. There will be no agreement, no evidence and no point. Nothing will be learned.

You don't find out about reality by just making statements about it. Arguments are never evidence. I've tried really hard to get you to answer fundamental questions about your position but I've given up a long time ago. You're not yet capable of critically evaluating your own thought processes and methods. You're just assuming you're already perfect. How likely is that? How likely is it you've already stumbled across knowledge unavailable to the whole scientific community? Yet you don't even argue that it all has no effect. It would still be interesting, if it could actually be demonstrated to be true, rather than just stated as fact. But it can't, because it's necessarily unfalsifiable, like all woo. Things would appear exactly the same if it wasn't true.

You claim to have a way of finding truth, but you either can't or won't share your method.

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
[+] 4 users Like Robvalue's post
08-04-2017, 10:40 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2017 10:47 PM by Robvalue.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
I just remembered, I have a video describing what is happening here.

You reject the scientific method, ignoring all the reasons why it is so good; and you claim to have a better method without demonstrating how it's any use at all.




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
08-04-2017, 11:42 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(08-04-2017 03:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Your belief structures are centered around science and atheism only

First of all I do not do belief so have no belief structures as such. Secondly atheism is nothing more than the non acceptance of a specific truth claim with
reference to the existence of metaphysical beings. This is not much to base a world view on because it says absolutely nothing about the world otherwise
Thirdly science and more specifically the scientific method is the best means to investigate observable phenomena. For that is as rigorous as possible and
could not actually be more so. Since it incorporates evidence and repeatability and intersubjectivity and potential falsification and peer review as standard
requirements. Its only weakness is it is overseen by scientists who are human and therefore fallible. But any bias is eliminated over time. Fourthly science
cannot investigate any thing non physical for there is no evidence that it exists. If there was it would be physical. Without evidence I cannot accept some
thing actually exists. I can however accept in principle the possibility of something physical existing that has yet to be discovered but that is not the same
The fact of the matter is that science is simply the best means of investigating observable phenomena there is. For other methodologies to be considered
instead they would have to be more rigorous and effective than it is. As no such methodologies exist science therefore must be the one to be relied upon

A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes surreptitious57's post
09-04-2017, 02:06 AM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2017 02:12 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Atheism huh? Dropped the ball there. This whole subject has nothing to do with it. Well, not for us anyway.

You can't have a belief system based on atheism any more than you can have one based on not believing there's a purple donkey in a cave somewhere that has control of your knees.

Science is the best, and only, way that has been shown to reliably study reality. If people have better ways, it's up to them to show what they are, and why they are better. This never happens. But they're welcome to try. Anyone who makes comments against science probably doesn't even understand what science is. It's clear Nails has no idea. Once again, he's conflating methodological and philosophical naturalism. He's too lazy to go look those up I guess and too dishonest to try and stop doing this. I already explained the difference a bunch of times.

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
09-04-2017, 02:26 AM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2017 02:34 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
You know what, I'm proud to say my beliefs are based on reason and evidence: science.

What the hell else would I base my beliefs on? Whatever made up garbage any random person has to say? Reason and evidence is how I differentiate between those claims which have merit and those which don't. If someone has a better way of doing this, I'm all ears. Retreating into abstract versions of reality where you can dictate the rules, and never coming out again, sure isn't going to help anyone.

This doesn't mean I necessarily have to believe everything any particular scientist says. Science is just a method. It doesn't mean it's automatically used correctly by every scientist. It's not some cult where it's all or nothing.

[Edited the above sentence.]

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
09-04-2017, 04:39 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(08-04-2017 10:40 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  I just remembered, I have a video describing what is happening here.

You reject the scientific method, ignoring all the reasons why it is so good; and you claim to have a better method without demonstrating how it's any use at all.

Woah there bud what did you just say? I reject the scientific method? HA.

"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
09-04-2017, 04:41 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 02:26 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  You know what, I'm proud to say my beliefs are based on reason and evidence: science.

What the hell else would I base my beliefs on? Whatever made up garbage any random person has to say? Reason and evidence is how I differentiate between those claims which have merit and those which don't. If someone has a better way of doing this, I'm all ears. Retreating into abstract versions of reality where you can dictate the rules, and never coming out again, sure isn't going to help anyone.

This doesn't mean I necessarily have to believe everything any particular scientist says. Science is just a method. It doesn't mean it's automatically used correctly by every scientist. It's not some cult where it's all or nothing.

[Edited the above sentence.]

And are you proud that you accept science without addressing the philosophical problems underlying it? Have you ever attempted to solve the problem of induction? Have you established uniformity of nature? Have you fully defined and explored evidence as a concept? You understand science at no more than a surface level.

"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: