Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-04-2017, 06:47 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Cheers, I suspected as much. Assertions about why his assertions are true huh.

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, 06:51 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 04:54 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 02:26 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

I never claimed it was an actual property. I said it was an example property. I committed no fallacy.

"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, 06:55 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 06:51 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 04:54 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

I never claimed it was an actual property. I said it was an example property. I committed no fallacy.

You are a dishonest troll. You CONSTANTLY commit the reifcation fallacy, and you refuse to answer the questions posed to you. Your constant evasion is getting old.

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, 07:49 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 02:26 AM)Naielis Wrote:  ...but in any QM class they use color and hardness as the example properties.

Bucky has already indicated that this was not used in the class he took, and unfogged was only able to find one example of a class where it was used. So I would say "any QM class" is a bit of an overstatement. All you can realy claim is that it was used in the class you took.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2017, 07:57 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 04:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 02:38 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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…"

Just trying to be fair here -- I don't have much use for metaphysics either, but whether or not thoughts are identical to the electrochemical reactions which produce them is indeed a hot topic in the philosophy of mind (yes, this is a real discipline, with university departments devoted to it), and there are numerous philosophers who ask the same sort of questions that Naielis is asking, and even some who give the same answers. He doesn't claim to know more than engineers from MIT, but they are not philosophers. He is approaching this from the philosophical side, and I for one consider that legitimate (whether or not I agree with his conclusions). To say that NO ONE agrees with him is an overstatement, and unfair.

This is, after all, the philosophy forum, not the science forum.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
11-04-2017, 08:00 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.

This line of reasoning comes from Descartes, and he "got there from here" by literally sticking God into the gap. He used independent reasoning to "prove" the existence of God (basically a version of the ontological argument). Since Naielis claims to be an anti-theist, it would be interesting to know how he crossed that particular gap.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
11-04-2017, 08:17 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 07:57 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  .... there are numerous philosophers who ask the same sort of questions that Naielis is asking, and even some who give the same answers. He doesn't claim to know more than engineers from MIT, but they are not philosophers.

He's not asking anything. He's asserting, and his reasoning is unsupported, and false. He didn't even bother to address the link to MIT, just as he totally failed to address all the links I gave him last week.

Philosophy can philosophize, or whatever they do.
In 2017 they can say nothing about what goes on in 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, 08:23 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 08:17 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 07:57 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  .... there are numerous philosophers who ask the same sort of questions that Naielis is asking, and even some who give the same answers. He doesn't claim to know more than engineers from MIT, but they are not philosophers.

He's not asking anything. He's asserting, and his reasoning is unsupported, and false. He didn't even bother to address the link to MIT, just as he totally failed to address all the links I gave him last week.

Philosophy can philosophize, or whatever they do.
In 2017 they can say nothing about what goes on in brains.

...and yet they continue to do so.

Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2017, 08:28 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 05:59 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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

I got to the position that I exist from doxastic basicality. I justify it in only other perceptions rather than other beliefs.

"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, 08:30 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 08:23 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 08:17 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  He's not asking anything. He's asserting, and his reasoning is unsupported, and false. He didn't even bother to address the link to MIT, just as he totally failed to address all the links I gave him last week.

Philosophy can philosophize, or whatever they do.
In 2017 they can say nothing about what goes on in brains.

...and yet they continue to do so.

Tongue

Too bad it's all BS, and adds nothing to what has been TAKEN OVER by science.
They *try* to say things. They have nothing to *add* in 2017.

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: