Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-04-2017, 11:22 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 07:57 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 04:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

They may agree, but no philosopher worth their salt goes around claiming certainty about such things.

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, 12:31 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 11:22 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  They may agree, but no philosopher worth their salt goes around claiming certainty about such things.

Bertrand Russel Wrote:The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
11-04-2017, 12:34 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 11:22 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 07:57 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  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.

They may agree, but no philosopher worth their salt goes around claiming certainty about such things.

Actually certainty is a pressing issue in 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
11-04-2017, 12:51 PM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2017 04:52 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 12:34 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(11-04-2017 11:22 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  They may agree, but no philosopher worth their salt goes around claiming certainty about such things.

Actually certainty is a pressing issue in epistemology.

Ergo, epistemologists are not worth their salt, and probably a good reason why it's all bullshit.

I would like to start to study some serious substantive slick epistemology, so someday I could be somewhat certain, but I have a lisp, and they won't let me.

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, 04:44 PM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2017 04:47 PM by SYZ.)
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
LOL... spot the difference:

(11-04-2017 02:26 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Electrons are colorless yes...
(11-04-2017 02:26 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Electrons have color and hardness...

This guy is just up to the ol' theist trick of denying his own bullshit, or lying. Or both.

Theists are invariably caught out whenever it comes to discussing science because they don't drill deeply enough into Professor Google's database, and seize on the first bit of information they think supports their claims.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 06:01 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(11-04-2017 04:44 PM)SYZ Wrote:  LOL... spot the difference:

(11-04-2017 02:26 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Electrons are colorless yes...
(11-04-2017 02:26 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Electrons have color and hardness...

This guy is just up to the ol' theist trick of denying his own bullshit, or lying. Or both.

Theists are invariably caught out whenever it comes to discussing science because they don't drill deeply enough into Professor Google's database, and seize on the first bit of information they think supports their claims.

No. I was referring to the example properties used in QM classes. I've taken some. I didn't google anything. You simply misunderstood.

"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
19-04-2017, 07:29 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
62 pages? really

The standard model is all we have. There is nothing else yet. "awareness" may need a minimum number of interactions before it emerges. I think the term is Non reducible. If reality is an illusion, then its as real as it gets.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like AB517's post
12-08-2017, 12:46 PM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Materialism thought science was dismantling idealism only to find it was dismantling materialism all along. Silly materialists, remind me of Republicans.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: