Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2017, 11:38 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 10:19 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(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.

It doesn't seem to matter if I am biased toward my discipline as long as I have a reason to believe that it is paramount.

"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, 11:49 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 06:11 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

You seem to keep missing the point and I have to repeat myself. Metaphysics is not supposed to give you heaps of information on particulars like empirical reasoning can. It is supposed to give you a foundation or a basic understanding of existence in general. And upon this general understanding, you can mount empirical methods. Your entire point seems to be that metaphysics is bad because it doesn't tell me anything about particulars and yet you fail to realize that an understanding of particulars is irrelevant if you have no understanding of the general rules of existence. For example, let's say you observe an event and record data. Everything you've just done requires that you establish preconditions. You must be able to observe reality accurately. You must be able to reason accurately. You must have a reason to suspect that your observation of a particular has any bearing on the general. You have to have an understanding of what types of things you are observing to begin with. You have to explain why experimentation and evidence are reliable methods for determining truth. You have to have robust concepts of truth and knowledge. These are just some of the things you have to establish before you begin to make claims about reality from an experiment. And all of these things require either metaphysics or epistemology. The irony in this is that the debate here is a metaphysical and epistemological one. It's a classic empiricist vs rationalist debate.

"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, 11:51 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 09:59 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

They do if you take quantum mechanics.

"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, 11:53 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 11:51 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 09:59 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

They do if you take quantum mechanics.

I did, and they didn't.

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, 12:00 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 10:08 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(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.

Science makes claims about existence based on an empirical method. It derives from first principles. In a foundationalist epistemology, that means science fits itself into the structure. It is a part of your 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
10-04-2017, 12:24 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 11:49 AM)Naielis Wrote:  You seem to keep missing the point and I have to repeat myself.

How can you stand it ? Tongue

Quote:Metaphysics is not supposed to give you heaps of information on particulars like empirical reasoning can. It is supposed to give you a foundation or a basic understanding of existence in general.

I don't see how that would have helped in any of the scientific advances in the last 200 years. How about some specific examples, which would have gone off the rails without metaphysics to keep them on track, and how their investigations were CHANGED back on track by metaphysics ?

Quote:And upon this general understanding, you can mount empirical methods.

Describe 3, and how that was done.

Quote:Your entire point seems to be that metaphysics is bad because it doesn't tell me anything about particulars and yet you fail to realize that an understanding of particulars is irrelevant if you have no understanding of the general rules of existence.

Never said "it was bad", just irrelevant and useless. All the sciences are rooted these days firmly in their own disciplines and processes, and they NEVER reference metaphysics.

Quote:For example, let's say you observe an event and record data. Everything you've just done requires that you establish preconditions. You must be able to observe reality accurately.

Which were given by science, are well established, not metaphysics, and which metaphysics will never change at this point.

Quote:You must be able to reason accurately.

The specific steps of the scientific method were not developed by philosophers.
As you have been requested before, you have never defined what that means, or how you came to that conclusion. There are logics that are perfectly valid and correct, but do not obtain in reality.

Quote:You have to have an understanding of what types of things you are observing to begin with. You have to explain why experimentation and evidence are reliable methods for determining truth. You have to have robust concepts of truth and knowledge. These are just some of the things you have to establish before you begin to make claims about reality from an experiment. And all of these things require either metaphysics or epistemology. The irony in this is that the debate here is a metaphysical and epistemological one. It's a classic empiricist vs rationalist debate.

Thanks for the sermon.
I seem to have had no problem getting quite a way with out any so far. Big Grin

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, 12:25 PM
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.

The point of departure between our points of view is where you claim reality "looks the same". Two metaphysical positions can change your view of reality drastically. Idealism vs physicalism is a great example. Then you continue to argue that [i]a priori[i] investigation of explanations is beyond our scope. But why do you believe this? What reason do you have? If it is an empirical reason, then we're back to the same questions of how you even arrived at empirical analysis without [i]a priori[i] reasoning to ground your position. Finally, what makes you so sure science will find the answer to the problem in the future? Are you appealing to inductive reasoning? Then you must have a general rule explaining when induction can be used. There is no way to escape rationalism.

"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, 12:45 PM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2017 12:53 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 11:35 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

Nope. An arbitrary and irrelevant distinction, (based on the fact you don't know how brains work). Mental properties is woo.

Quote:Let's say an electron has a property of hardness.

They don't.

Quote:This property is clearly physical. And upon further analysis of this property, we find that it has no intentionality.

Employing the word "property" (and the introduction of the nonsense of "intentionality") in this case is inelegant, useless, misleading, irrelevant and unnecessary.

Quote: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.

No. That's where you go off the rails. Thoughts, (no need to even use the word "property" here as it is DISTRACTING and leads to false conclusions) EMERGE. They have NO "intentionality". What emerges in your conscious brain is SENSORY input referenced to memories, stored chemically in PHYSICAL LOCATIONS, mediated by chemical reactions, integrated IN YOUR (physical) BRAIN, in specific physical locations, (as a thought), which has taken (albight a very small one) a length of time to assemble, and integrate. The "sensation" of that thought is really about something that occurred a few fractions of a second before.
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/...ecture.pdf

Quote:The thought can be directed toward other things. These kinds of incompatibilities are what define the distinction. .... 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?

There IS no distinction. It's a false one. We know how brains work, and introducing FALSE distinctions is of no use. There are no incompatibilities.

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, 12:47 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 12:00 PM)Naielis Wrote:  It is a part of your philosophy.

More mind reading.
Not if one has never even considered it in that context.

You are quite the thought Nazi.
You feel perfectly comfortable telling other people what and how they think.
It's quite obnoxious. You might consider knocking that off.

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, 12:52 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
At work.

My post got missed.... Sadcryface

*Wanders off to watch 'Thor, Ragnaroc' trailer again...*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: