Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-04-2017, 08:31 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 07:49 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(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.

Yes that was an overstatement. But I certainly think it's used in a lot of classes. It's how early physicists formulated it and it's how MIT and Notre Dame do 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
11-04-2017, 08:44 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 08:00 AM)Grasshopper 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.

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.

Descartes often did shove God into the gaps as did Leibniz. But the way I arrive at my own existence is by interlocking my epistemology with ontology. If is the case that minds inherently know of their own existence, then we can cross the gap. This could be said differently though. You might say that there are certain faculties we possess which are infallible or near infallible. For example, introspection is infallible. Your ability to know what it is that you are thinking at a present moment is infallible simply because a conscious mind can be defined as an entity which is aware of its own thought by nature. Robvalue's question also seems similar to the criticisms of Descartes' attempt to reason from his cogito to other points. My solution is similar to the models you proposed. But the difference is that I place certainty at my foundation and then place models of reality upon that foundation. If you have no solid foundation and you begin modeling, then you have only models to corroborate models and no actual established interaction with reality.

"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, 08:47 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 08:44 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 08:00 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  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.

Descartes often did shove God into the gaps as did Leibniz. But the way I arrive at my own existence is by interlocking my epistemology with ontology. If is the case that minds inherently know of their own existence, then we can cross the gap. This could be said differently though. You might say that there are certain faculties we possess which are infallible or near infallible. For example, introspection is infallible. Your ability to know what it is that you are thinking at a present moment is infallible simply because a conscious mind can be defined as an entity which is aware of its own thought by nature. Robvalue's question also seems similar to the criticisms of Descartes' attempt to reason from his cogito to other points. My solution is similar to the models you proposed. But the difference is that I place certainty at my foundation and then place models of reality upon that foundation. If you have no solid foundation and you begin modeling, then you have only models to corroborate models and no actual established interaction with reality.

Except when it's not, and you're psychotic, and don't know it.
Whole lot of Prepositionalism, and unfounded assumptions going on there.

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, 08:54 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 08:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 08:44 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Descartes often did shove God into the gaps as did Leibniz. But the way I arrive at my own existence is by interlocking my epistemology with ontology. If is the case that minds inherently know of their own existence, then we can cross the gap. This could be said differently though. You might say that there are certain faculties we possess which are infallible or near infallible. For example, introspection is infallible. Your ability to know what it is that you are thinking at a present moment is infallible simply because a conscious mind can be defined as an entity which is aware of its own thought by nature. Robvalue's question also seems similar to the criticisms of Descartes' attempt to reason from his cogito to other points. My solution is similar to the models you proposed. But the difference is that I place certainty at my foundation and then place models of reality upon that foundation. If you have no solid foundation and you begin modeling, then you have only models to corroborate models and no actual established interaction with reality.

Except when it's not, and you're psychotic, and don't know it.
Whole lot of Prepositionalism, and unfounded assumptions going on there.

But sane minds can distinguish between the sane and insane. We can also distinguish between dream states and conscious states.

"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, 08:55 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 08:44 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 08:00 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  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.

Descartes often did shove God into the gaps as did Leibniz. But the way I arrive at my own existence is by interlocking my epistemology with ontology. If is the case that minds inherently know of their own existence, then we can cross the gap. This could be said differently though. You might say that there are certain faculties we possess which are infallible or near infallible. For example, introspection is infallible. Your ability to know what it is that you are thinking at a present moment is infallible simply because a conscious mind can be defined as an entity which is aware of its own thought by nature. Robvalue's question also seems similar to the criticisms of Descartes' attempt to reason from his cogito to other points. My solution is similar to the models you proposed. But the difference is that I place certainty at my foundation and then place models of reality upon that foundation. If you have no solid foundation and you begin modeling, then you have only models to corroborate models and no actual established interaction with reality.

I think you're not really answering the question here. Your method of being certain that you exist is basically the same as Descartes's. But how do you get from that to certainty that anything else exists? How do you avoid solipsism? How do you know, at any given time, that you're not dreaming or being deceived by a demon (or a brain in a vat)? That's where Descartes invoked God. How do you get across that gap?

My answer to the question is that I cannot be certain of anything else. I live my life as if the external world exists, and is as it appears to be -- and that seems to work for me. And that's all I require. I don't need epistemic certainty. If you claim to have certainty about things beyond your own existence, how do you justify it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
11-04-2017, 09:01 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
All irrelevant, and off point, and not necessarily true. There is no absolute
boundary between these states. You could be insane and not know it, and you would have no way of determining it. Most people dreaming cannot tell the difference between waking and dream states. An EXTERNAL observer may. You are not an external observer to yourself. You rate your confidence in your bullshit WAY above what is reasonable, and it fails to take into account the possible flaws.

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, 09:07 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 08:55 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 08:44 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Descartes often did shove God into the gaps as did Leibniz. But the way I arrive at my own existence is by interlocking my epistemology with ontology. If is the case that minds inherently know of their own existence, then we can cross the gap. This could be said differently though. You might say that there are certain faculties we possess which are infallible or near infallible. For example, introspection is infallible. Your ability to know what it is that you are thinking at a present moment is infallible simply because a conscious mind can be defined as an entity which is aware of its own thought by nature. Robvalue's question also seems similar to the criticisms of Descartes' attempt to reason from his cogito to other points. My solution is similar to the models you proposed. But the difference is that I place certainty at my foundation and then place models of reality upon that foundation. If you have no solid foundation and you begin modeling, then you have only models to corroborate models and no actual established interaction with reality.

I think you're not really answering the question here. Your method of being certain that you exist is basically the same as Descartes's. But how do you get from that to certainty that anything else exists? How do you avoid solipsism? How do you know, at any given time, that you're not dreaming or being deceived by a demon (or a brain in a vat)? That's where Descartes invoked God. How do you get across that gap?

My answer to the question is that I cannot be certain of anything else. I live my life as if the external world exists, and is as it appears to be -- and that seems to work for me. And that's all I require. I don't need epistemic certainty. If you claim to have certainty about things beyond your own existence, how do you justify it?

I agree with your statement that we can't be certain of anything else. That's where models enter into the picture. I don't claim certainty beyond my foundation. That's why I find it somewhat odd that Bucky brings up certainty regarding me changing my positions on theism.

"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, 09:09 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 09:01 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  All irrelevant, and off point, and not necessarily true. There is no absolute
boundary between these states. You could be insane and not know it, and you would have no way of determining it. Most people dreaming cannot tell the difference between waking and dream states. An EXTERNAL observer may. You are not an external observer to yourself. You rate your confidence in your bullshit WAY above what is reasonable, and it fails to take into account the possible flaws.

I don't fail to notice flaws in my worldview. I simply believe that the flaws and problems in it can be solved in the future by further study. I rule out worldviews when their problems seem impossible or improbable to be solved in the future.

"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, 09:36 AM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2017 10:42 AM by John Derderian.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 08:31 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 07:49 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  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.

Yes that was an overstatement. But I certainly think it's used in a lot of classes. It's how early physicists formulated it and it's how MIT and Notre Dame do it.

No, it is not how early physicists formulated it. The idea of "color" and "hardness" for electrons is an analogy introduced around 1990. That's about a century after the early work in quantum mechanics.

Color and hardness are used as a simplified analogy for other, more complicated, *real* properties of the electron. They're used to simplify discussion of the principles of QM without getting into the details of the real properties.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like John Derderian's post
11-04-2017, 10:46 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 09:36 AM)John Derderian Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 08:31 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Yes that was an overstatement. But I certainly think it's used in a lot of classes. It's how early physicists formulated it and it's how MIT and Notre Dame do it.

No, it is not how early physicists formulated it. The idea of "color" and "hardness" for electrons is an analogy introduced around 1990. That's about a century after the early work in quantum mechanics.

Color and hardness are used as a simplified analogy for other, more complicated, *real* properties of the electron. They're used to simplify discussion of the principles of QM without getting into the details of the real properties.

Oh sorry. Thanks for the correction on the history there. But yes I know it's only for analogy.

"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: