Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2017, 11:04 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 07:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 12:40 PM)Naielis Wrote:  For example, it is often said that materialism cannot truly explain just how or why some brain states are conscious, and that there is an important “explanatory gap” between mind and matter.

Neuro-scientists never say that. Who are you even talking about ?
More unsupported ASSertions.

That was a quote from IEP. I'm ignoring you from now on.

"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
09-02-2017, 11:11 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 01:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  There is no "immaterial aspect of the waves". The concept is incoherent. Repeating it constantly will not make it any less so.

Ok please justify this. In what way is it incoherent?

"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
10-02-2017, 12:02 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2017 12:06 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 09:42 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Sources: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/skepcont/

Pragmatism holds that whatever works is what is true. But the skeptic can show how this view reduces to subjectivism. The skeptic can ask questions like "how do you know what works". They can ask how you are able to falsify anything if you can't verify anything. If the pragmatists answer to these questions is simply that their system works, then they have begged the question. They have assumed they can use their senses to show that something is true about reality external to themselves. But that is the exact claim in question. How does the pragmatist know their senses are reliable? To say that their senses are reliable because we know they work is to appeal to information gained through the senses in order to verify their reliability. This question-begging attempt at a solution shows that the pragmatist is ultimately arguing that reality is subservient to their subjective view. Under pragmatism, a proposition is true if it appeals to the subjects senses. This opens the door for skepticism. If you cannot verify your own or anything's physical existence, then you can't even begin to argue about the physical.

I would say that pragmatism is about "doing what works". I don't need to claim or assume anything is true with certainty; just that experience and logic seem to suggest that a certain action will probably produce a certain outcome. Personally, I make no claims of certainty about anything at all. I make pragmatic assumptions, such as, "Things seem to pretty much work the same way as they previously have." It doesn't matter if this is really true or not, as long as it works. It doesn't matter what this reality really is; my assumptions seem to work within the context of this reality. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what it is. It's all the same to me.

Pragmatism can use scepticism to develop useful beliefs and to avoid seemingly bad ones, to make the decisions which appear to have the most usefulness. Again, certainty is not a useful concept here. In the above example, the pragmatic assumption is based on evidence. All the experience of my life is positive evidence for this. Gravity seems to have worked the same for every day I've been alive, and so on. As soon as the evidence suggests something else might be going on and the approach no longer works, it will be time to reconsider.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
10-02-2017, 12:12 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2017 12:17 AM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 11:11 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 01:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  There is no "immaterial aspect of the waves". The concept is incoherent. Repeating it constantly will not make it any less so.

Ok please justify this. In what way is it incoherent?

Exactly backwards.

It is your claim that there is an "immaterial aspect" to sound waves. It is your responsibility to justify this. To do so, you must first provide a definition for "immaterial claim".

Until you have a definition, the claim is incoherent. It means nothing, and can be discarded as nonsensical and worthless.

Even after you have a definition, you still have to establish that this "immaterial aspect" actually exists, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

I will repeat myself here, because it is just as relevant now as it was when I said it last, has been relevant since the beginning of the discussion, and will continue to be relevant until you actually take a moment to think about things.

(09-02-2017 01:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 12:36 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The immaterial aspect of the waves is not present when the engineer builds the speaker. It's contained within the wave.

There is no "immaterial aspect of the waves". The concept is incoherent. Repeating it constantly will not make it any less so.

(09-02-2017 12:36 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Information can be contained in the physical (some dualists would say it must be contained in the physical) but understood or interpreted in the aphysical and by aphysical means. It has two components. It has it's physical properties and it has it's content/ meaning. The same goes for a line of code or a word being written on a page.

You do not possess coherent definitions of those terms. As a result, this is gibberish.

"Information" actually has a concrete definition, and has to do with the number of possible states of a given entity. It is quantifiable, and is contained within the entity itself.

"Meaning" is another thing entirely, and has to do with all the various connections, inferences, and deductions that a given conscious observer makes with that information. It is not contained within the source of the information. It is created by the observer.

Your argument seems to be that meaning - which is what you are presumably referring to when you say "immaterial aspect" - is contained within the sound waves themselves. This is nonsensical. Likewise, "interpreted in the aphysical by aphysical means" is absolute gibberish. Both are directly caused by your poor grasp of semantics.

Define your terms
, boy, or you're going to spend eternity running around in circles asking incoherent questions and giving even more incoherent answers.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
10-02-2017, 12:15 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Oh yeah, I've come across this before. As far as I aware, "material" just means "literally exists", as opposed to "existing" as an abstract concept. As usual, scientists please correct me if I'm wrong.

So to say something is immaterial but literally exists is just a contradiction. I think some people assume "material" means "currently detectable and understood by science", making it a dirty word for woo peddlers.

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
10-02-2017, 12:46 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 12:12 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 11:11 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Ok please justify this. In what way is it incoherent?

Exactly backwards.

It is your claim that there is an "immaterial aspect" to sound waves. It is your responsibility to justify this. To do so, you must first provide a definition for "immaterial claim".

Until you have a definition, the claim is incoherent. It means nothing, and can be discarded as nonsensical and worthless.

Even after you have a definition, you still have to establish that this "immaterial aspect" actually exists, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

I will repeat myself here, because it is just as relevant now as it was when I said it last, has been relevant since the beginning of the discussion, and will continue to be relevant until you actually take a moment to think about things.

(09-02-2017 01:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  There is no "immaterial aspect of the waves". The concept is incoherent. Repeating it constantly will not make it any less so.


You do not possess coherent definitions of those terms. As a result, this is gibberish.

"Information" actually has a concrete definition, and has to do with the number of possible states of a given entity. It is quantifiable, and is contained within the entity itself.

"Meaning" is another thing entirely, and has to do with all the various connections, inferences, and deductions that a given conscious observer makes with that information. It is not contained within the source of the information. It is created by the observer.

Your argument seems to be that meaning - which is what you are presumably referring to when you say "immaterial aspect" - is contained within the sound waves themselves. This is nonsensical. Likewise, "interpreted in the aphysical by aphysical means" is absolute gibberish. Both are directly caused by your poor grasp of semantics.

Define your terms
, boy, or you're going to spend eternity running around in circles asking incoherent questions and giving even more incoherent answers.

Actually this is not true. If you're going to claim that something is incoherent, you have to demonstrate that it is so. The fact that someone can't prove something, doesn't make it incoherent. For it to be incoherent, it would have to either commit logical fallacy or fail to make any sense as a working concept. Demonstrate that it is incoherent. I gave you several arguments for the immaterial here. But let's do the easiest one. What is your consciousness? Is your consciousness solely material? I would argue that it is incoherent to say yes to this. You can say that your consciousness is entangled with or even caused by physical events and objects, but to say your consciousness is physical is to say that your very comprehension and introspection is a physical event.

"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
10-02-2017, 12:48 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 12:15 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Oh yeah, I've come across this before. As far as I aware, "material" just means "literally exists", as opposed to "existing" as an abstract concept. As usual, scientists please correct me if I'm wrong.

So to say something is immaterial but literally exists is just a contradiction. I think some people assume "material" means "currently detectable and understood by science", making it a dirty word for woo peddlers.

No material means it exists in the physical world. It means it is made of matter or energy. There are things that exist, but are not physical. They are not made of matter or energy. What is content/ meaning made of? What is ontological truth made of? What is logic made of? These are irreducible immaterial objects.

"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
10-02-2017, 12:57 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
They are abstract concepts. They exist conceptually. They are not "made of" anything. They are just ideas we come up with that help us understand things. Ultimately, they are only represented in reality by the configurations of our brains.

There is no evidence to suggest that abstract concepts can have any effect on reality. So if they do exist independently somewhere, it is irrelevant that they do.

What do you mean they are "objects"?

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
[+] 4 users Like Robvalue's post
10-02-2017, 02:11 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
I have a video about this. We prescribe abstract concepts. We "create" them; they can be said to be objects within an abstract system.

We describe reality. We use abstract concepts to help us do that. It doesn't guarantee that any concept, however seemingly useful, actually corresponds to anything "real".




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
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
10-02-2017, 03:11 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
N. I am very curious. Can you answer my philosophy author question?

The reason I ask is I pretty much read all of the ones through western history, Plato, Seneca, Cicero, through Descartes, Voltaire then the 20th century etc. But I began with them when 16.

This is why I want to know. To get a better idea of where you are coming from. Smile

You have not had much time to study many. For example, have you read Kant?

Thanks. Dale

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: