Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2017, 07:32 PM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2017 07:41 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
There is no category "mental" (other than "happens in a brain").
Thoughts are nothing but electro-chemical reactions.
http://engineering.mit.edu/ask/what-are-thoughts-made
Philosophy has no tools or capacity with which to investigate brains.

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
11-04-2017, 02:26 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 04:20 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 01:42 PM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

And you need to study more grade school science. Electrons do not have colour, nor do they have any known substructure. They're assumed to be point particles with a point charge, and no spatial extent, so they cannot be defined as "soft" or "hard" LOL.

—I think you're confusing electrons and molecules.

You need to learn example properties for QM. Electrons are colorless yes, but in any QM class they use color and hardness as the example properties.

"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
11-04-2017, 02:28 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 04:55 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 01:42 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Electrons have color and hardness. They're either white or black and soft or hard. You need to study more QM.

I found one lecturer using those terms and this question about it

"In the lecture adams describes two properties of electrons, which he names color and hardness, both being binary in nature, i.e. white/black, and soft/hard. He claims these are alternate names for two conventionally well known properties of electrons, and shall be referred to via these names at the moment."

*emphasis mine

Electrons do not have color or hardness except in some strange analogy. Probably an instructor trying to make physics understandable to philosophy students.

Not to make it understandable. It's to make it easier to work with. Instead of talking about actual properties you can just hardness and hardness box. But this why I said "example property" like five times.

"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
11-04-2017, 02:36 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 05:09 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 03:11 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Lol "ancient woo language"

Just a little FYI I passed your thread onto a friend of mine who does have a ph.d in philosophy, awarded by Stanford university in Palo Alto California.

I've also extended an invite if they find what you say remotely interesting to join the forum.

We'll see....

Consciousness is a pretty hot topic among philosophers. Even if my arguments aren't particularly interesting to them, they should find the subject interesting.

"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
11-04-2017, 02:38 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(10-04-2017 07:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no category "mental" (other than "happens in a brain").
Thoughts are nothing but electro-chemical reactions.
http://engineering.mit.edu/ask/what-are-thoughts-made
Philosophy has no tools or capacity with which to investigate brains.

You're falsely equating again. If you're going to equate two things, that means you have to reduce one into the other. You've already said that the full is impossible. So these cannot be identical. As we've gone through many times, thoughts are properties of electro-chemical reactions. They are not the reactions themselves.

"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
11-04-2017, 04:41 AM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2017 04:56 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 02:38 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 07:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no category "mental" (other than "happens in a brain").
Thoughts are nothing but electro-chemical reactions.
http://engineering.mit.edu/ask/what-are-thoughts-made
Philosophy has no tools or capacity with which to investigate brains.

You're falsely equating again. If you're going to equate two things, that means you have to reduce one into the other. You've already said that the full is impossible. So these cannot be identical. As we've gone through many times, thoughts are properties of electro-chemical reactions. They are not the reactions themselves.

Prove it.
You're making assertions with no evidence again.
I don't have to play your idiotic word games, just because you ignorantly assert something, and place your head in your ass BY your word games, and then insist someone must remove it for you.
Your introduction of "properties" is false, and you have provided not a shred of evidence for the notion. Only assertions.
You have been told time and again, (and shown), that PET scans can see the reactions happen.

You don't know more than engineers from MIT.
Give it up.
You lost, and NO ONE agrees with your woo. Go peddle it somewhere else.

"WHAT ARE THOUGHTS MADE OF?
They’re really just electro-chemical reactions—but the number and complexity of these reactions make them hard to fully understand…"

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
11-04-2017, 04:54 AM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2017 04:58 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 02:26 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 04:20 PM)SYZ Wrote:  And you need to study more grade school science. Electrons do not have colour, nor do they have any known substructure. They're assumed to be point particles with a point charge, and no spatial extent, so they cannot be defined as "soft" or "hard" LOL.

—I think you're confusing electrons and molecules.

You need to learn example properties for QM. Electrons are colorless yes, but in any QM class they use color and hardness as the example properties.

You can't be this stupid. You just contradicted yourself.
If they introduce a concept to assist in understanding (an analogy), it doesn't mean it's literally true. You CONSTANTLY make this error in logic.
It's called this : https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...eification

You do the same thing constantly all through this thread.
"When an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity -- when an idea is treated as if had a real existence". You make this error, and then run with the illogical FALSE result.

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
11-04-2017, 05:07 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Out of interest, has he ever indicated how you get from "I certainly exist" to certainty about anything else yet, as per his supposed system?

Not that I agree such a statement has any meaning. It's too wrapped up in subjective, abstract and circular language.

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
11-04-2017, 05:20 AM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2017 05:24 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Let's say I'm dreaming right now. I can't possibly know that I'm not.

Nails, along with everyone else, is just part of my dream. At best he represents a real thing, although he may just be jumbled up nonsense. Nails can be as certain as he likes that he "exists", and yet still be a fictional character in my subconscious.

Or I could be a seemingly self-aware character in someone else's dream.

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
11-04-2017, 05:59 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 05:07 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Out of interest, has he ever indicated how you get from "I certainly exist" to certainty about anything else yet, as per his supposed system?

Not that I agree such a statement has any meaning. It's too wrapped up in subjective, abstract and circular language.

No.
He just asserts his epistemic certainty. He refuses to say how he got to that position.
He's a real religious child. 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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: