Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2017, 04:31 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(21-02-2017 04:13 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 04:06 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  You are using "mathematics" and "set theory" in a different sense than I am. Are you aware that there are different versions of set theory, and that some of them allow internal contradictions? To me, mathematics and set theory are human constructions which attempt to model reality, with varying degrees of success. Logically perfect formal systems (which can be constructed) may or may not have any correspondence with reality. I don't confuse the two. Yes, the reality modeled by the statement "1+1=2" is necessarily true, but that reality is not mathematics -- it's just a brute fact. Mathematics is our way of describing and expressing that fact, among others.

Mathematics is an elaborate game (which I have played and enjoyed) that happens to be useful in modelling physical reality, but is not necessarily so. Which geometry is "necessarily" true in the real world -- Euclidean or one of the non-Euclidean systems (and which one)?

Brute facts are an interesting concept, but they lack any cogent explanation. Things must be grounded. The language that we call mathematics itself is merely a human construction. But there are also ontological properties of reality that math mirrors. These aren't brute facts. But they are necessary.

You claim that "things must be grounded". I disagree. Reality is what it is, and we have nothing to say about that. We do our best to describe it. That's all we can ever do, and that's good enough for me. I don't demand any metaphysical "grounding", and don't believe there is any such thing that is any more than another human construction -- another attempt to understand reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
21-02-2017, 04:33 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(21-02-2017 04:31 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 04:13 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Brute facts are an interesting concept, but they lack any cogent explanation. Things must be grounded. The language that we call mathematics itself is merely a human construction. But there are also ontological properties of reality that math mirrors. These aren't brute facts. But they are necessary.

You claim that "things must be grounded". I disagree. Reality is what it is, and we have nothing to say about that. We do our best to describe it. That's all we can ever do, and that's good enough for me. I don't demand any metaphysical "grounding", and don't believe there is any such thing that is any more than another human construction -- another attempt to understand reality.

Then you fail to meet the causal closure required for materialism to even get off the ground.

"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
21-02-2017, 04:41 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(21-02-2017 04:33 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 04:31 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  You claim that "things must be grounded". I disagree. Reality is what it is, and we have nothing to say about that. We do our best to describe it. That's all we can ever do, and that's good enough for me. I don't demand any metaphysical "grounding", and don't believe there is any such thing that is any more than another human construction -- another attempt to understand reality.

Then you fail to meet the causal closure required for materialism to even get off the ground.

Yabut, I don't give a fig about "causal closure" or any of your other jargon. Reality exists, I exist, and "materialism" allows me to continue functioning. It works, much as you dislike that concept. The rest is just theory. I don't need it (and neither do you).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
21-02-2017, 04:44 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(21-02-2017 04:41 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 04:33 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Then you fail to meet the causal closure required for materialism to even get off the ground.

Yabut, I don't give a fig about "causal closure" or any of your other jargon. Reality exists, I exist, and "materialism" allows me to continue functioning. It works, much as you dislike that concept. The rest is just theory. I don't need it (and neither do you).

Well of course reality exists. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether we can reasonably assert that all things can be explained as material. I'm leaning towards property dualism these days so I would argue that there must be immaterial properties that can't be explained by material properties or substance.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Naielis's post
21-02-2017, 05:26 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(21-02-2017 04:44 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 04:41 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Yabut, I don't give a fig about "causal closure" or any of your other jargon. Reality exists, I exist, and "materialism" allows me to continue functioning. It works, much as you dislike that concept. The rest is just theory. I don't need it (and neither do you).

Well of course reality exists. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether we can reasonably assert that all things can be explained as material. I'm leaning towards property dualism these days so I would argue that there must be immaterial properties that can't be explained by material properties or substance.

Argue away, then. But I won't be paying attention. To me, it's meaningless mental masturbation. Not that that's a bad thing, but I have other priorities.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
21-02-2017, 05:31 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Methodological naturalism, which most scientific types seem to adopt, neatly deals with all of this.

Science deals with what is testable. But it doesn't deny anything. There can be whatever else you like going on. It doesn't matter. Science doesn't comment on it. If it can't be detected, it doesn't matter. As soon as it becomes detectable in some way, science can handle it.

It's only philosophical naturalism that actually denies that there actually is anything else beyond the "natural world". It is still a reasonable position given that there is no useful definition of what "supernatural" even means. But I prefer the flexible and bulletproof MN position.

Accepting the limitations of our ability to study and understand a reality in which we're subjectively trapped is a skill in itself. Study it we have, and we have produced fine results.

Science under MN: Every advancement ever made.
Dualism: Nothing.

Demanding the impossible does not take away the very real results. Demanding meaning over substance will ultimately always fail. We can ask questions, but it doesn't mean there's always an answer to be had, even potentially.

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
21-02-2017, 05:58 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(21-02-2017 05:31 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  Methodological naturalism, which most scientific types seem to adopt, neatly deals with all of this.

Science deals with what is testable. But it doesn't deny anything. There can be whatever else you like going on. It doesn't matter. Science doesn't comment on it. If it can't be detected, it doesn't matter. As soon as it becomes detectable in some way, science can handle it.

It's only philosophical naturalism that actually denies that there actually is anything else beyond the "natural world". It is still a reasonable position given that there is no useful definition of what "supernatural" even means. But I prefer the flexible and bulletproof MN position.

Accepting the limitations of our ability to study and understand a reality in which we're subjectively trapped is a skill in itself. Study it we have, and we have produced fine results.

Science under MN: Every advancement ever made.
Dualism: Nothing.

Demanding the impossible does not take away the very real results. Demanding meaning over substance will ultimately always fail. We can ask questions, but it doesn't mean there's always an answer to be had, even potentially.

Well we're talking about metaphysical materialism not methodology.

"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
21-02-2017, 06:15 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(21-02-2017 04:10 PM)Naielis Wrote:  You need to research more on the history of philosophy because you really don't know what you're talking about. Dualism, while less popular, is still very prevalent among philosophers. It hasn't been disproved in the slightest.

You're wrong again.

Dualism hasn't been studied or really thought about - except for a few whackadoodles (Rupert Sheldrake for one) - for hundreds of years. The letters between Princess Elisabeth and Rene Descartes were the death knell for dualism, and that was in the mid 1600s (the letters were exchanged between 1643 and 1649). Source: The Correspondence between Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia and René Descartes

The argument is over. People may still discuss it, but only out of historical interest. After all, people still discuss Aristotle, but they don't take seriously his assertion that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. We know they don't; he has been disproven.

You may as well be arguing for the stork theory of reproduction, or earthquakes being the anger of a wrathful god.

Over/out
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
21-02-2017, 06:50 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(21-02-2017 01:31 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 12:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually it is. If the IDENTICAL brain states obtain, then yes it does, AND we can watch "similar" brain states in PET scans.
If it isn't identical, then you're talking about nothing.
It is nothing, as neither you nor anyone will ever get two brain states to be identical.

You know NOTHING about Neuro-science, (and neither does the author of your piece).

Nothing to see here.

If you're going to continue to employ ad hominem, I think it might be appropriate to respond with a fallacy myself. Here it goes. You do realize there are neuroscientists that are dualists right?

It's not ad hominem. It's my opinion of you, based on the evidence of what you write. Stating the obvious is not ad hominem.
If there are Neuro-scientists that are dualists, it is irrelevant. Dualism can never be the subject of science. There is no way to test it, AND there is no need to invoke it.

Nice try at deflection. Fail.

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
21-02-2017, 06:55 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(21-02-2017 01:32 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 12:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong.
Our systems don't "explain reality".
Our systems LEARN to approximate it to various degrees .....
"aspects of our models", ...... (see above) all which have errors, and no two are identical. Ever.

But it's impossible to talk about error without knowing something about actual reality. And our systems do explain reality. Mathematics explains reality.

Thanks for agreeing with me. "Knowing *something* about Reality" is learning to approximate it. Mathematics is not an "explanation". Apparently you don't know much math either. For example Calculus .. "as x APPROACHES ... bla bla bla".

I never said anything about not being able to talk about error.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: