Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2017, 06:11 AM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2017 06:54 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 06:00 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  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.

Reality has been proven to be non-intuitive. One can "study" it from here to kingdom come, and get nowhere. Scientific evidence was needed to confirm Uncertainty, Relativity, (and maybe the tensors of Dirac). No mental masturbation (none of the logical systems, which Nelly won't even name or discuss as to how he chose the one he uses), even ONCE proposed what Relativity and Uncertainty / Quantum Mechanics demonstrated about reality.

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-04-2017, 06:14 AM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2017 06:20 AM by Chas.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 11:15 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 09:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  I will pooh-pooh metaphysics as having anything relevant to say about reality.

On what basis?

On the basis that it does not rely on the evidence of reality.

I suggest you read the works of actual, working, contemporary philosophers for views that are informed by our reality as discovered by science.

You continue to rail against a position held by practically no scientists or contemporary philosophers. There simply aren't any reductive materialists of that extreme sort.
Property dualism leads nowhere, discovers nothing, illuminates nothing. To say that mental properties aren't properties of matter and energy is to create a distinction based on nothing more than ignorance. Just because mental activity seems different to you does not make it different.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
10-04-2017, 07:04 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(09-04-2017 06:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 05:10 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  With all due respect, you're wrong. Religious faith (a subset of belief) is the acceptance of a truth claim with no evidence to support it. Belief in general is not so limited. I believe Magnus Carlsen is the world's best chess player. I believe it's going to rain some time this week. I believe that it is wrong to execute convicted criminals. There is evidence for all of these, but none of them is a sure thing. Hence I present them as beliefs rather than facts.

You're not using the term in the same way surreptitious57 is. He IS talking about religious beliefs. Saying he's wrong because YOU chose to use the term more broadly is unfair. You have reasons, based on past experience, to hold as valid, the opinions you have regarding the probability of things, (Carlsen will continue to win chess matches, how often it rained in the past where you live). You also have arrived at moral convictions, based on various inputs, concerning them. Using the word "beliefs", as you use it, and presenting it as if it were in the same category as religious beliefs, (because the same word is used, which can have more than one meaning), is not really an accurate presentation.

Obviously we are using the term "belief" in different ways. However: (1) The way I used it is the more common interpretation of the word "belief" with no qualifiers. If a person specifically means religious belief, then they should add the qualifier. And, more to the point, (2) surreptitious57 was responding to a post in which Naielis clearly used the word in the more general sense, not the narrow sense of religious belief. Therefore, the general sense was the default in this case. I'm tempted to say that surreptitious57 was equivocating on the meaning of "belief". But more likely, he/she was simply confused.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2017, 07:09 AM
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.

Indeed, I often do this myself (although I am not 100% convinced of this position). But if we are playing the game of metaphysics (and I believe Naielis is playing that game and no other), it is a bit silly to require physical evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2017, 07:21 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
At work.

Hug Naielis! Thumbsup

So..... if I'm understanding it 'Simply'.... Naielis is using/saying that 'Metaphysics' is thinking.

So.... Naielis is engaged about thinking about thinking... and saying that physical/material things don't answer all the questions of thinking about thinking?

Or.... am I completely wrong?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2017, 07:26 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
A word about science and philosophy. Nowadays they are treated as being entirely independent of each other. However this is a false assumption as
science is actually a branch of philosophy. Admittedly the only one that produces verifiable and testable results but still one nevertheless. During the
Enlightenment and right up until the very beginning of the twentieth century science was actually known as natural philosophy. Now that term is no
longer used for philosophy is regarded as a discipline in its own right. Science though is still a branch of philosophy regardless of how it is perceived

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
10-04-2017, 09:59 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 07:26 AM)surreptitious57 Wrote:  A word about science and philosophy. Nowadays they are treated as being entirely independent of each other. However this is a false assumption as
science is actually a branch of philosophy.


That's how it developed, and maybe *some people* may "diagram" it that way.
Historical trivia.
In reality, in practical reality, it's not.
I guarantee no one talks about Philosophy in Chemistry class.

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
10-04-2017, 10:08 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 07:26 AM)surreptitious57 Wrote:  A word about science and philosophy. Nowadays they are treated as being entirely independent of each other. However this is a false assumption as
science is actually a branch of philosophy.

I have to disagree with this one. Various scientific disciplines may be spinoffs from what were originally understood as parts of philosophy, but that doesn't mean they still are. That's the genetic fallacy. Even logic is now a spinoff discipline.

I think philosophers tend to make this mistake. They think their own discipline is still somehow paramount. Today philosophy is a bag of thinking tools which can be applied to any number of machines, but that doesn't mean the tools are the machinery.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
10-04-2017, 10:19 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 10:08 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  I think philosophers tend to make this mistake. They think their own discipline is still somehow paramount.
I think Naielis is one of those.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
10-04-2017, 11:35 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 06:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-04-2017 11:15 PM)Naielis Wrote:  On what basis?

On the basis that it does not rely on the evidence of reality.

I suggest you read the works of actual, working, contemporary philosophers for views that are informed by our reality as discovered by science.

You continue to rail against a position held by practically no scientists or contemporary philosophers. There simply aren't any reductive materialists of that extreme sort.
Property dualism leads nowhere, discovers nothing, illuminates nothing. To say that mental properties aren't properties of matter and energy is to create a distinction based on nothing more than ignorance. Just because mental activity seems different to you does not make it different.

There are plenty of contemporary philosophers who are property dualists and many are reductive materialists. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mater...#ConEliMat
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physi...#TokTypPhy

But mental properties are properties of matter and energy. There is no other substance that exists. It's merely that you can separate properties into two categories: physical and mental. The distinction of the typed of properties is not bassed on ignorance or just a "seeming". It is based on a complete incompatibility with the two types of properties. Let's say an electron has a property of hardness. This property is clearly physical. And upon further analysis of this property, we find that it has no intentionality. It is not directed toward anything else. It doesn't refer to anything else. Now consider a mental property: thought. This property has intentionality. It is an emergent property of the brain, but it is not necessarily directed toward the brain. The thought can be directed toward other things. These kinds of incompatibilities are what define the distinction. As for property dualism's usefulness, I don't see how that's relevant. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is far more valuable than knowledge for a purpose. Curiosity is more valuable than pragmatic need-based exploration. But how do you know that property dualism can't yield something useful? How do you know that this understanding of minds won't lead to some knowledge later?

"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: