Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-04-2017, 09:12 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 04:52 AM)Naielis Wrote:  This is false. You have beliefs about the viability of god. These beliefs find themselves at the center of many atheists' worldviews.

Thank you Pope Nelly.
It's very comforting to know you read minds now.
With your "epistemic certainty" 'an shit, we all certainly take your infallible Papal pronouncements VERY seriously.

Not. What a fucking joke. Obnoxious infant/troll.

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
09-04-2017, 09:43 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 06:29 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  It all comes down to assigning a probability, really. Language is malleable.

I believe we still have milk in the fridge. (70% sure)
I know my car is parked outside. (97% sure)
I'm certain I have a wife. (99.99% sure)

Of course, it's always possible I'm wrong about everything. I'm happy to accept that, but there's no need to acknowledge it in every informal sentence.

And even if my experiences of reality aren't what I think they are, my statements are still meaningful within whatever framework this happens to be. I have been successful at guaging probabilities, and so I have a decent amount of confidence that I will continue to do so fairly well. If I actually "don't exist" (whatever that may mean), or I'm dribbling connected to a machine somewhere and imagining all this, I've lost nothing by trying to make sense of reality as I find it.

PS @ Nails: You haven't produced a single result. So you can study all you want, but all you do is make assertions. If you can't demonstrate what you think you know is true, and by definition it appears to be impossible, it's all worthless speculation. You're off studying your own imaginary land in your head. You're just assuming reality conforms precisely to your own brand of special logic and assumptions. It doesn't have to do shit. We need to check with it; hence science.

Probabilistic assessment was addressed in my paper. If you have a probability assigned at each level of belief, then once you get to scientific statements, you're probability is close to zero. You also have no way of assigning probabilities to certain claims. And what do you mean I haven't produced a result? I've discovered things about reality from philosophy.

"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, 09:44 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 09:12 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 04:52 AM)Naielis Wrote:  This is false. You have beliefs about the viability of god. These beliefs find themselves at the center of many atheists' worldviews.

Thank you Pope Nelly.
It's very comforting to know you read minds now.
With your "epistemic certainty" 'an shit, we all certainly take your infallible Papal pronouncements VERY seriously.

Not. What a fucking joke. Obnoxious infant/troll.

Epistemic certainty is only at my foundation. It concerns only my ability to reason, introspection, and my own existence.

"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, 09:46 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 08:21 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Yes, exactly. Thanks, I didn't know that had a name!

It gets really tough when you're not allowed to say "magic" huh Tongue

I'd still love to hear what any of this has to do with atheism.

Why would I want to say "magic". Magic is nonsensical and is "woo". Dualism is not. And materialism is often associated with the unbelieving worldview for historical reasons.

"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, 09:48 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 06:23 AM)surreptitious57 Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 04:52 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Really you have no beliefs

No I do not. Because belief is predicated upon faith and faith positions require no evidence. So everything I think is true must have some evidence to
support it otherwise there is no reason for me to think it true even if it actually is. I hold no position about physical reality on the basis of belief alone
I avoid using the word believe altogether even in an informal sense preferring think instead. And so for example : I think it will rain today rather than
I believe it will rain today. This might seem rather pedantic [ I admit that it is ] but for me the word is superfluous so I have no reason to use it at all

No belief has nothing to do with faith. Belief means you accept something as true. The term has no bearing on justification. You mention evidence again. And I have to ask again what is evidence? Do you have a robust understanding of evidence as a concept?

"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, 09:52 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 06:50 AM)surreptitious57 Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 04:52 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Empirical analysis could possibly tell you something about nonphysical things

A non physical thing would have no physical property or dimension. It would be incapable of interacting with anything. It would occupy
no point in spacetime at either the classical or quantum level. And no physical equipment regardless of accuracy or sensitivity would be
able to detect it for it would not actually exist. And so therefore empirical analysis has absolutely nothing to say about the non physical

Because it isn't physical that implies it can't interact with anything? Epiphenomenal nonsense.

"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, 09:56 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 07:24 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  "Non-physical things" is an oxymoron. Physical means existent, just as material means existent.

That doesn't mean science can currently, or ever will, be able to detect all physical things. But trying to hide things in a semantic gap really is pointless.

As usual, it's a conflation of the abstract with the physical. Our interpretation of reality in the form of concepts does not make them suddenly exist independently. If they do, that's a claim that needs to be supported. And they don't seem to have any effect from whatever weird plane of existence they are potentially on, so it doesn't matter anyway. It's all story telling.

You don't get to redefine the word existent. It means that something has being. It doesn't mean it's material. And no one said the immaterial exists independently of the material. Property dualism does not make such claims.

"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, 10:01 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 06:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 04:55 AM)Naielis Wrote:  No. Science is the best way to study observable physical reality. Reality and existence as a whole can best be studied by the a priori method of metaphysics.

So you claim, Your Philoso-Babble Holiness.
You, making pontifical pronouncements, with not a shred of support or even definition is utterly worthless .... just like almost all the bullshit you write here.
What YOU determine is best for you, Your Fucking Arrogant Holiness, may not be best for others.
Jesus H Fucking Christ you act like an infant. It hasn't helped you here, now, has it ?
Idiot. Could you please be smarter. We'll define our own terms, whether you think you'll "let us define our own terms" or not, Herr Nelly.

"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion". [Enquiry concerning the Human Understanding, 132] Hume


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-m...nMetTraAna
http://documents.routledge-interactive.s...nsense.pdf
http://nptel.ac.in/courses/109106051/Mod...r%2022.pdf

"It is in this connection that Kant states, famously, in the Analytic, that “…the proud name of ontology, which presumes to offer synthetic a priori cognitions of things in general… must give way to the more modest title of a transcendental analytic” (cf. A247/B304). Filling this out, Kant suggests that to take ourselves to have unmediated intellectual access to objects (to have “non-sensible” knowledge) correlates with the assumption that there are non-sensible objects that we can know. To assume this, however, is to conflate “phenomena” (or appearances) with “noumena” (or things in themselves). The failure to draw the distinction between appearances and things in themselves is the hallmark of all those pernicious systems of thought that stand under the title of “transcendental realism.” Kant's transcendental idealism is the remedy for these."
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-...nMetTraAna

There's a problem with Kantian responses to general ontology. Kant's claims don't allow for any knowledge at all. Experience of objects cannot happen without a subject already having general concepts established about objects. The laws of logic must be accepted to even comprehend objects. So experience is merely an application of inherently known principles used to create new [/i]a posteriori[i] principles.

"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, 10:22 AM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2017 10:27 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 09:44 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 09:12 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Thank you Pope Nelly.
It's very comforting to know you read minds now.
With your "epistemic certainty" 'an shit, we all certainly take your infallible Papal pronouncements VERY seriously.

Not. What a fucking joke. Obnoxious infant/troll.

Epistemic certainty is only at my foundation. It concerns only my ability to reason, introspection, and my own existence.

So you claim, even AFTER changing your position on something you were BEFORE certain about, AND your total inability to demonstrate how you arrived at that position.
A wee bit of self-refutation in there ... LOL.

No one here takes you seriously.

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
09-04-2017, 10:25 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 10:01 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 06:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So you claim, Your Philoso-Babble Holiness.
You, making pontifical pronouncements, with not a shred of support or even definition is utterly worthless .... just like almost all the bullshit you write here.
What YOU determine is best for you, Your Fucking Arrogant Holiness, may not be best for others.
Jesus H Fucking Christ you act like an infant. It hasn't helped you here, now, has it ?
Idiot. Could you please be smarter. We'll define our own terms, whether you think you'll "let us define our own terms" or not, Herr Nelly.

"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion". [Enquiry concerning the Human Understanding, 132] Hume


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-m...nMetTraAna
http://documents.routledge-interactive.s...nsense.pdf
http://nptel.ac.in/courses/109106051/Mod...r%2022.pdf

"It is in this connection that Kant states, famously, in the Analytic, that “…the proud name of ontology, which presumes to offer synthetic a priori cognitions of things in general… must give way to the more modest title of a transcendental analytic” (cf. A247/B304). Filling this out, Kant suggests that to take ourselves to have unmediated intellectual access to objects (to have “non-sensible” knowledge) correlates with the assumption that there are non-sensible objects that we can know. To assume this, however, is to conflate “phenomena” (or appearances) with “noumena” (or things in themselves). The failure to draw the distinction between appearances and things in themselves is the hallmark of all those pernicious systems of thought that stand under the title of “transcendental realism.” Kant's transcendental idealism is the remedy for these."
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-...nMetTraAna

There's a problem with Kantian responses to general ontology. Kant's claims don't allow for any knowledge at all. Experience of objects cannot happen without a subject already having general concepts established about objects. The laws of logic must be accepted to even comprehend objects. So experience is merely an application of inherently known principles used to create new [/i]a posteriori[i] principles.

So you again assert/pontificate.
Too bad you didn't even bother to tell us which system of logic you use.
There are many.

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: