Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-04-2017, 09:51 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 04:39 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(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.

There is no evidence that you use it. Drinking Beverage

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
09-04-2017, 09:58 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 05:18 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(08-04-2017 11:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yeah there is.
He was trying to defend something with no evidence.

To be fair, Naielis is presenting metaphysical claims and arguments, so evidence is irrelevant. You can pooh-pooh metaphysics in general if you like, but it makes no sense to criticize a metaphysical argument for lacking evidence. That's sort of like criticizing a basketball player for not using a nine iron.


I will pooh-pooh metaphysics as having anything relevant to say about reality.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
09-04-2017, 11:15 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 09:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 05:18 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  To be fair, Naielis is presenting metaphysical claims and arguments, so evidence is irrelevant. You can pooh-pooh metaphysics in general if you like, but it makes no sense to criticize a metaphysical argument for lacking evidence. That's sort of like criticizing a basketball player for not using a nine iron.


I will pooh-pooh metaphysics as having anything relevant to say about reality.

On what basis?

"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, 11:16 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 09:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 04:39 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Woah there bud what did you just say? I reject the scientific method? HA.

There is no evidence that you use it. Drinking Beverage

I don't use the scientific method in my study of metaphysics, but that certainly doesn't mean I reject it. It simply doesn't apply.

"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
10-04-2017, 12:08 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 08:49 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 11:23 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Let me try to unravel this by rephrasing and make visible what your statment has hidden, by accident or ignorance, i dont know.

Metaphysics: The a priori method takes logical/rational arguments to prove if something is true or not.
Science: The a posteriori method draws conclusions from evidence, observation and knowledge.

I prefer the latter, because it not only tells us what is consistent with reality, but demonstrates what is actually real. It makes tests, looks for evidence, falsifies claims. The former is like sitting in a big ol´ armchair, which is all nice....

What you basically said is that metaphysics is philosophy, while science is....science. Duh.

Did we really need 50 pages for this insight?

The 50 pages is about materialism not metaphysics in general. And you can prefer science, but the two are not at odds. It's simply that metaphysics can tell you nothing about particulars whereas science can't even begin unless you have established metaphysical laws or some set ontology.

At what point did we need to invoke metaphysics to argue that a particle is needed (and not discovered yet) that carries the property of "mass" for all matter, then call it "higgs boson" before firing up CERN?

At what point did we need to invoke petaphysics to discover that time and space are bound to each other, that you can accelerate and slow down time?

At what point did we need to invoke metaphysics to discover that there are single points in space where mass density is so high that not even light can escape? In fact where mass density is infinite. Points in space that maybe, maybe not, are directly connected with other points in space.

At what point did we need to invoke petaphysics to figure out that possibly the total energy of the universe is zero?

Just because we dont fully understand how our brains work and how consciousness does come about yet, that does not mean we need to invoke metaphysics. We didnt for the past few thousand years, in order to figure out how the universe works, and we probably still dont need to. If you invoke metaphysics, you could at least provide an idea that is backed up with scientific data, which you havent, and not one, which rather is questioned by current scientific data, which you have.

Metaphysics cant only tell you nothing about particulars, it cant even tell you if any of what you are conjuring up, being a "maetaphysician", is real at all. Why are you trying to gloss over this neat little detail every time it is mentioned?

I have no problem with you prefering "thinking hard" to "investigating hard", but please dont pretend your thinking tells us more about the reality we live in than investigation of said reality. You can make up one thousand philosophical arguments and this wont replace one bit of data.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
10-04-2017, 12:23 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 12:08 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 08:49 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The 50 pages is about materialism not metaphysics in general. And you can prefer science, but the two are not at odds. It's simply that metaphysics can tell you nothing about particulars whereas science can't even begin unless you have established metaphysical laws or some set ontology.

At what point did we need to invoke metaphysics to argue that a particle is needed (and not discovered yet) that carries the property of "mass" for all matter, then call it "higgs boson" before firing up CERN?

At what point did we need to invoke petaphysics to discover that time and space are bound to each other, that you can accelerate and slow down time?

At what point did we need to invoke metaphysics to discover that there are single points in space where mass density is so high that not even light can escape? In fact where mass density is infinite. Points in space that maybe, maybe not, are directly connected with other points in space.

At what point did we need to invoke petaphysics to figure out that possibly the total energy of the universe is zero?

Just because we dont fully understand how our brains work and how consciousness does come about yet, that does not mean we need to invoke metaphysics. We didnt for the past few thousand years, in order to figure out how the universe works, and we probably still dont need to. If you invoke metaphysics, you could at least provide an idea that is backed up with scientific data, which you havent, and not one, which rather is questioned by current scientific data, which you have.

Metaphysics cant only tell you nothing about particulars, it cant even tell you if any of what you are conjuring up, being a "maetaphysician", is real at all. Why are you trying to gloss over this neat little detail every time it is mentioned?

I have no problem with you prefering "thinking hard" to "investigating hard", but please dont pretend your thinking tells us more about the reality we live in than investigation of said reality. You can make up one thousand philosophical arguments and this wont replace one bit of data.

You seem to be a bit confused. My argument against materialism is not an argument for the practice of metaphysics. It's an argument that presupposes metaphysics is a valid study. But to answer your questions, we needed metaphysics to establish an idea of space and time in general. Anytime you are dealing with universal laws or entities, you are practicing metaphysics. We used metaphysics to assume a uniformity of nature which allowed us to abstract from particulars to tell us something about other particulars. If you're making a claim about existence in general, you are practicing metaphysics. Many physicists slip into metaphysics when they delve into theory. I never said a priori reasoning of this style tells us more about reality than observation. I said it grounds the very practice of observation. It is more valuable than observation because it is more fundamental.

"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
10-04-2017, 04:26 AM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2017 04:47 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 12:23 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 12:08 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  At what point did we need to invoke metaphysics to argue that a particle is needed (and not discovered yet) that carries the property of "mass" for all matter, then call it "higgs boson" before firing up CERN?

At what point did we need to invoke petaphysics to discover that time and space are bound to each other, that you can accelerate and slow down time?

At what point did we need to invoke metaphysics to discover that there are single points in space where mass density is so high that not even light can escape? In fact where mass density is infinite. Points in space that maybe, maybe not, are directly connected with other points in space.

At what point did we need to invoke petaphysics to figure out that possibly the total energy of the universe is zero?

Just because we dont fully understand how our brains work and how consciousness does come about yet, that does not mean we need to invoke metaphysics. We didnt for the past few thousand years, in order to figure out how the universe works, and we probably still dont need to. If you invoke metaphysics, you could at least provide an idea that is backed up with scientific data, which you havent, and not one, which rather is questioned by current scientific data, which you have.

Metaphysics cant only tell you nothing about particulars, it cant even tell you if any of what you are conjuring up, being a "maetaphysician", is real at all. Why are you trying to gloss over this neat little detail every time it is mentioned?

I have no problem with you prefering "thinking hard" to "investigating hard", but please dont pretend your thinking tells us more about the reality we live in than investigation of said reality. You can make up one thousand philosophical arguments and this wont replace one bit of data.

You seem to be a bit confused. My argument against materialism is not an argument for the practice of metaphysics. It's an argument that presupposes metaphysics is a valid study. But to answer your questions, we needed metaphysics to establish an idea of space and time in general. Anytime you are dealing with universal laws or entities, you are practicing metaphysics. We used metaphysics to assume a uniformity of nature which allowed us to abstract from particulars to tell us something about other particulars. If you're making a claim about existence in general, you are practicing metaphysics. Many physicists slip into metaphysics when they delve into theory. I never said a priori reasoning of this style tells us more about reality than observation. I said it grounds the very practice of observation. It is more valuable than observation because it is more fundamental.

You heard it here first folks, talking out your ass is more important that observations, because it is more fundamental. Laugh out load

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
10-04-2017, 04:45 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
If metaphysics is defined as a methodology for understanding how the universe functions then science would by implication be metaphysical. Although I am much
more interested in the usefulness of science as a means of understanding the universe. Rather than whether or not it is metaphysical. Metaphysics is grounded in
abstraction where as science is grounded in evidence. In this respect I hold science in higher esteem than metaphysics with regard to understanding the universe
Science is only interested in the behaviour of observable phenomena. Beyond that it has nothing at all to say about such phenomena and that is why it cannot be
ontological. For ontology pertains to the nature of existence. Which is beyond the remit of science. And in that respect science most definitely is not metaphysical

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
10-04-2017, 05:38 AM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2017 06:25 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Quote:It's an argument that presupposes metaphysics is a valid study.

Presuppositionalism ? Hahahahahaha

(09-04-2017 11:15 PM)Naielis Wrote:  On what basis?

... asks the guy who never justified or demonstrated its validity.

Quote:It is more valuable than observation because it is more fundamental.

Unsupported assertion. Says the idiot who was not even was willing to discuss or answer any questions about HIS personal system system of determining reality, all the time claiming to possess "epistemic certainty".
LOL

Quote:we needed metaphysics to establish an idea of space and time in general
"We", "we needed" (?), as if Twirp had something to do with it.
Another unsupported assertion.
Funny. I don't remember metaphysics being invoked in Relativity, or any other scientific theory. Facepalm
There is no "space AND time". What there is, is "space-time", and metaphysics had absolutely NOTHING to do in establishing it.

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
10-04-2017, 06:00 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Say we have two competing metaphysical explanations for why something works the way it does.

How exactly do we decide which one is (more) correct? Reality as we experience it looks exactly the same, whether:

(1) Explanation 1 is true
(2) Explanation 2 is true
(3) There's another explanation
(4) There is no answer other than "it just does"

So we can "study" these two explanations as much as we want, but we're never going to come to a meaningful conclusion about which of them, if any, are (probably) true. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter, and it's beyond the scope of our ability to investigate.

As I always say, philosophy is not something to bolt onto the end of science to extend its reach. If we end up drawing meaningful conclusions about something, we'll get there eventually with science. Certainty is just something which hamstrings you, outside of your own constructed abstract systems. What Nails doesn't realise is that he enters, and never leaves, such a system. He can't separate the real from the abstract in his head.

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
[+] 5 users Like Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: