Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2017, 01:33 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 12:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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 ?

Again, you're missing the point. It is not supposed to help in scientific advances. It is simply meant to ground methods like science.

Quote:Describe 3, and how that was done.

I'm not necessarily saying this process occurs in someone's mind. I'm saying this is how you properly ground empirical methods. I'm not sure I can come up with three on the spot, but I can do two.
1. Baconian method grounded by understanding of application of induction
2. Observational study grounded by understanding of mathematics and probability

Quote: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.

Chemistry is rooted as its own discipline and one need not make any reference to physics to study chemistry, but chemistry is still a branch of physics.

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

Science is inadequate for this task. It cannot ground the principles that serve as its preconditions. That would lead to a vicious circle.

Quote: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.


Actually, they were. The Baconian method was developed by Francis Bacon... a philosopher. Yes there are logics that have no bearing on reality, but the question is how you determine which ones do and which don't? That very question assumes the law of noncontradiction to even be coherent. So from the very beginning we start from specific laws of logic. Axiomatic beliefs that represent the basic function of our minds and our reasoning process are what we should accept.

"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, 01:42 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 12:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. An arbitrary and irrelevant distinction, (based on the fact you don't know how brains work). Mental properties is woo.

So why disregard my explanation of the incompatibility? It seems you're evading the issue.

Quote:They don't.

Electrons do have that property. Electrons have color and hardness. They're either white or black and soft or hard. You need to study more QM.

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

How?

Quote: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

So a thought has no content or information?

Quote: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.

You didn't really show how the distinction is false.

"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, 01:43 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 01:33 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Again, you're missing the point. It is not supposed to help in scientific advances. It is simply meant to ground methods like science.

Science is already well grounded. Your sales job ain't workin'.

Quote:I'm not necessarily saying this process occurs in someone's mind. I'm saying this is how you properly ground empirical methods. I'm not sure I can come up with three on the spot, but I can do two.
1. Baconian method grounded by understanding of application of induction
2. Observational study grounded by understanding of mathematics and probability

Not good enough. I want to know who wrote what paper that specifically changed the way things were done in science, and when, exactly, (and how it was different from what they were doing before), and why it is relevant today.

Quote:Science is inadequate for this task. It cannot ground the principles that serve as its preconditions. That would lead to a vicious circle.

They seem to be doing just fine without it, and it's NEVER referenced in scientific papers.

Quote:Actually, they were. The Baconian method was developed by Francis Bacon... a philosopher. Yes there are logics that have no bearing on reality, but the question is how you determine which ones do and which don't?

Yes indeed ... which is what I asked YOU. If there are many logics, how is it you have determined which system to even start with ?

You are a Presuppositionalist to the core. I question everything, (unlike you).

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, 01:46 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 01:42 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 12:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. An arbitrary and irrelevant distinction, (based on the fact you don't know how brains work). Mental properties is woo.

So why disregard my explanation of the incompatibility? It seems you're evading the issue.

Quote:They don't.

Electrons do have that property. Electrons have color and hardness. They're either white or black and soft or hard. You need to study more QM.

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

How?

Quote: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

So a thought has no content or information?

Quote: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.

You didn't really show how the distinction is false.

Yes I do. Brains are brains, and they are only physical systems/processes and parts. I gave you an entire page of links proving it, and despite asserting it, you have not proven or demonstrated it, or explained why it "has " to be true.

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, 01:47 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 12:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

You clearly took that out of context. "Your" refers to the general foundationalist. It's the same as saying "What do you do in a car". This statement can have the same meaning as "What does one do in a car". I wasn't saying it was a part of your philosophy. I said just before that "In a foundationalist epistemology".

"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, 01:48 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 11:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 11:51 AM)Naielis Wrote:  They do if you take quantum mechanics.

I did, and they didn't.

You took a QM class where you weren't taught that electrons have a property of hardness?

"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, 01:55 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 01:48 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 11:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I did, and they didn't.

You took a QM class where you weren't taught that electrons have a property of hardness?

You took a QM class where they actually SAID that ? Weeping
Someone needs to rescue you.

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, 02:00 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 01:33 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 12:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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 ?

Again, you're missing the point. It is not supposed to help in scientific advances. It is simply meant to ground methods like science.

Quote:Describe 3, and how that was done.

I'm not necessarily saying this process occurs in someone's mind. I'm saying this is how you properly ground empirical methods. I'm not sure I can come up with three on the spot, but I can do two.
1. Baconian method grounded by understanding of application of induction
2. Observational study grounded by understanding of mathematics and probability

Quote: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.

Chemistry is rooted as its own discipline and one need not make any reference to physics to study chemistry, but chemistry is still a branch of physics.

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

Science is inadequate for this task. It cannot ground the principles that serve as its preconditions. That would lead to a vicious circle.

Quote: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.


Actually, they were. The Baconian method was developed by Francis Bacon... a philosopher. Yes there are logics that have no bearing on reality, but the question is how you determine which ones do and which don't? That very question assumes the law of noncontradiction to even be coherent. So from the very beginning we start from specific laws of logic. Axiomatic beliefs that represent the basic function of our minds and our reasoning process are what we should accept.

Francis bacon wasn't only a philosopher. You're misrepresenting him.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
10-04-2017, 02:33 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 12:52 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

My post got missed.... Sadcryface

*Wanders off to watch 'Thor, Ragnaroc' trailer again...*

Hug

But oh my! I watched the trailer, had no clue it was out, Led Zep and Thor...

*swoons*


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2017, 02:36 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 01:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 01:48 PM)Naielis Wrote:  You took a QM class where you weren't taught that electrons have a property of hardness?

You took a QM class where they actually SAID that ? Weeping
Someone needs to rescue you.

You've never heard of hardness boxes and color boxes? They're the most commonly used example qualities for all of QM. How have you not heard of them?

"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: