Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2017, 02:39 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 02:00 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(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.


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


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.


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



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.

Are you joking?

"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, 02:41 PM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2017 02:45 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 02:36 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 01:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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?

Yes I have. Your analogy is FALSE.
How have you never heard of the particle-WAVE duality.
You think waves have the property of hardness ? Facepalm
AN electron has nothing. Groups of electrons (ONLY) can be measured.
Metaphysics is USELESS here.

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, 02:44 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 02:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 02:36 PM)Naielis Wrote:  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?

How have you never heard of the particle-WAVE duality.
You think waves have the property of hardness ? Facepalm

........... do you know what an example property is?

"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, 02:47 PM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2017 02:51 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
-------------------------------------------------------

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, 02:50 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.

You asserted there were two kinds of properties, and asserted they were incompatible. There is nothing going on in brains that is not totally physical and totally compatible. It's YOUR job to demonstrate and evidence your assertion.

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, 02:51 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 02:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 01:42 PM)Naielis Wrote:  So why disregard my explanation of the incompatibility? It seems you're evading the issue.


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.


How?


So a thought has no content or information?


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

You asserted there were two kinds of properties, and asserted they were incompatible. There is nothing going on in brains that is not totally physical and totally compatible. It's YOUR job to demonstrate and evidence your assertion.

I demonstrated the incompatibility of mental and physical properties. I know it's my job. I already did it. It's your job to respond to my argument rather than dismissing it.

"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, 02:52 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 02:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  -------------------------------------------------------

Well said.

"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, 02:54 PM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2017 03:01 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 02:51 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 02:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You asserted there were two kinds of properties, and asserted they were incompatible. There is nothing going on in brains that is not totally physical and totally compatible. It's YOUR job to demonstrate and evidence your assertion.

I demonstrated the incompatibility of mental and physical properties. I know it's my job. I already did it. It's your job to respond to my argument rather than dismissing it.

You did no such thing. All you did was assert it. Mental processes ARE physical processes (which you would know if you knew any science) and you have NOT one example of one that isn't or that they are incompatible.

You used a false analogy in your electron example. It's idiotic. Electrons can't think. Mental processes do not emerge from the electron level. They emerge from a MUCH more complex level of brain structures.
They are totally compatible with THE SPECIFIC (complex physical) LEVEL of neurological (physical) complex structures, from which they emerge.

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, 02:54 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 02:39 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 02:00 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Francis bacon wasn't only a philosopher. You're misrepresenting him.

Are you joking?

I agree with her. Bacon is remembered primarily as an essayist and political figure (and, by a few crackpots, as the "real" author of Shakespeare's works). As a philosopher, he is a relatively minor figure.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
10-04-2017, 02:57 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 02:54 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 02:39 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Are you joking?

I agree with her. Bacon is remembered primarily as an essayist and political figure (and, by a few crackpots, as the "real" author of Shakespeare's works). As a philosopher, he is a relatively minor figure.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/bacon/#SH2k

"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: