Arguments agaisnt Materialism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-02-2017, 09:33 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 08:57 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 12:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Not only do I understand this, I discuss this with Unbeliever all the time.

No. You bring it up all the time, and then ignore the answer.

(21-02-2017 12:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The skeptic's question is how you know your perception is representing reality accurately.

And the answer is that it doesn't matter, and borders on incoherent. See below.

(21-02-2017 12:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  How do you even know your perception is representing external reality at all.

By definition. We have been over this.

We exist; this is inarguable. We sense something; this is likewise inarguable. We describe what we sense as "external reality"; this is semantics.

From there, unless you want to argue that our sensory input is literally random, and does not correlate in any way to the thing being sensed - which is demonstrably false - we have a sufficient basis to begin building accurate models of the universe. Literally all that is required for science to work is consistency in our senses, not "accuracy" (which is so nebulous in this context as to be meaningless anyway) or "completeness".

Since we have consistency, science works.

But there's your problem. External reality refers to what is external to one's own mind. You cannot introspect into it and you cannot introspect about it. Defining the subject of all our perception as the external world doesn't solve the problem for the materialist. It merely changes the meaning of external world. Now the external world doesn't refer to what is outside of our introspective reach, but instead refers to what we perceive. What we perceive is within our introspective reach. It is something we can introspect about. It is the subject of our introspective act. The materialist has the challenge of justifying the presupposition of what I will call universal observability.

"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
22-02-2017, 09:43 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
At work.

Am very tired. Is there a 'Simpler' or 'Layman's' way of wording Naielis' above ideas?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 09:44 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 07:00 AM)whateverist Wrote:  And this is supposed to imply what exactly for materialism? This is very far from saying that materialism has no utility or heuristic value. Would you care to say more about what you think it means?

Sure. I think it means the scientific community shouldn't dismiss the dualistic approach too eagerly. There are great arguments for dualism. I'm a property dualist myself, which is similar to supervenience physicalism. But I think the supervenience physicalist still works from reductionism. You hint at the idea that materialism has utility. And I disagree. I think many have taken materialism to be identical with science. The argument that I'm making in my paper, which I might turn into a book, is that materialism doesn't provide an adequate foundation for the scientific method. Materialism still faces the challenges of justifying the underlying principles that allow for science to work.

"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
22-02-2017, 09:51 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 08:45 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  You know, this is starting to remind me of the Eric Hovind spiel, or whatever his name is.

"Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?"

"Yes, I could."

"That's because you don't have my special way of knowing things. I can't be wrong using my special way. It's God."

Replace God with dualism, and it's the same argument. Special pleading.

Eric Hovind works under a faulty presupposition as well. But I have no doubt you are much more intelligent than he. But you have yet to resolve the issue. Skepticism is a huge topic in epistemology. You can't dismiss it because a Hovind mentions it a lot.

"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
22-02-2017, 09:57 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 08:49 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Saying "nuh-uh" does not make fallacies magically disappear.

That was my point. You can't speak fallacy into existence. I simply responded to your bare assertion with bare assertion.

Quote:Yes, they are. At best, it is a pointless and overly complex way of stating that some labels refer to specific things, while others can be more general. However, the formulation that the argument you present attempts to use is incoherent, as it attempts to assert that the name "Benjamin Franklin" is somehow inherently rigid, and could not even possibly refer to anything but the historical figure by that name.

You totally misunderstood what was said. Do you not remember the part where they explained that the terms have an established content. Benjamin Franklin refers to the man. They were talking within that context. It was painfully obvious. You need to get out of the materialist dogma for a second and remember that words have content.

"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
22-02-2017, 10:02 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 09:24 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

I disagree with your statement Naielis that,

"It has the ability to monitor its own thoughts with omniscience and infalibility."

This is simply an ascertion.

How can you gauge either the supposed 'Omniscience' or the 'Infallibility' of any such 'Introspection'?

When I use introspection, I refer only to observation of one's own thoughts. So is there any point at which you can believe a false proposition about what you are thinking at a given moment.

"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
22-02-2017, 10:03 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 09:43 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Am very tired. Is there a 'Simpler' or 'Layman's' way of wording Naielis' above ideas?

Sure.

"Dualism is real because reasons. Those reasons can't be explained and there's no evidence for them. See Rupert Sheldrake."

Go git some sleep.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 10:04 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
At work.

Must admit the term "Words have content" is interesting to think about.

After all "Words have meaning(s)" is also a valid statment though with subtly different connotations.
.
.what is it you mean with your phrasing, Naielis?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 10:04 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
(22-02-2017 09:44 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(22-02-2017 07:00 AM)whateverist Wrote:  And this is supposed to imply what exactly for materialism? This is very far from saying that materialism has no utility or heuristic value. Would you care to say more about what you think it means?

Sure. I think it means the scientific community shouldn't dismiss the dualistic approach too eagerly. There are great arguments for dualism. I'm a property dualist myself, which is similar to supervenience physicalism. But I think the supervenience physicalist still works from reductionism. You hint at the idea that materialism has utility. And I disagree. I think many have taken materialism to be identical with science. The argument that I'm making in my paper, which I might turn into a book, is that materialism doesn't provide an adequate foundation for the scientific method. Materialism still faces the challenges of justifying the underlying principles that allow for science to work.

[My bold.]

I think any effort to provide a dualistic foundation for science would truly be a legs-on-snakes operation.

“Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.”

― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 10:09 AM
RE: Arguments agaisnt Materialism
At work.

(22-02-2017 10:03 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  
(22-02-2017 09:43 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Am very tired. Is there a 'Simpler' or 'Layman's' way of wording Naielis' above ideas?

Sure.

"Dualism is real because reasons. Those reasons can't be explained and there's no evidence for them. See Rupert Sheldrake."

Go git some sleep.

Can't, at work.

Hug
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: