Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2017, 07:38 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 07:24 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 06:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  Unsupported claim.

I supported it in other posts.

Not successfully.

Quote:No, they exist as patterns in brains.
Quote:Well how do you know this? Can you prove this?

All of the evidence of neuroscience supports this.
Scientific knowledge is provisional - I don't share your childish need of absolute certainty.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
10-02-2017, 07:53 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 12:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Actually this is not true. If you're going to claim that something is incoherent, you have to demonstrate that it is so.

Which I have done, by pointing out that you have no coherent definition. That is what "incoherent" means, Naielis.

This is not complicated.

(10-02-2017 12:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I gave you several arguments for the immaterial here. But let's do the easiest one. What is your consciousness?

A process performed by the brain.

(10-02-2017 12:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Is your consciousness solely material? I would argue that it is incoherent to say yes to this.

No more so than it is to say the same of a computer program.

(10-02-2017 12:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

And?

"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
[+] 5 users Like Unbeliever's post
10-02-2017, 07:56 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 12:48 AM)Naielis Wrote:  What is content/ meaning made of? What is ontological truth made of? What is logic made of?

Category error.

(10-02-2017 12:48 AM)Naielis Wrote:  These are irreducible immaterial objects.

No, these are incoherent questions. You may as well ask what sound purple makes.

As I said, you do not have a firm enough grasp of semantics to meaningfully participate in these discussions. You are and have been asking gibberish non-questions, and making equally incoherent non-assertions, since the beginning of the discussion.

"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
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
10-02-2017, 07:58 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 12:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

Define consciousness.

If my thoughts can exist outside of my physical being please explain the mechanism by which they do.

Do you take the platitude, “I’m sending good thoughts your way” literally? That my good thoughts are apart from me and that they are capable of traveling through space-time?

You might as well jump right to it and make a case for a “soul” which is where you seem to be taking us.

The following is perfectly plausible if your argument were true ™
[Image: my_karma_ran_over_your_dogma_bumper_stic...ys_400.jpg]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 07:59 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2017 08:06 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Pragmatism is a problem for the skeptic. At least for the ones who don't want to starve.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 08:06 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 07:24 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 06:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  Unsupported claim.

I supported it in other posts.

No. You asserted it in other posts, just as baldly as you did here. You then tried to back it up by asking incoherent questions.

It was unsupported then. It remains unsupported now.

(10-02-2017 07:24 AM)Naielis Wrote:  So I'm not sure of the exact ontology of every immaterial thing.

We'll settle for a coherent ontology of one, at this point. The "immaterial aspect" of sound waves, for example, since you're so hung up on it.

(10-02-2017 07:24 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Meaning exists as patterns in brains? You know this how?

"Meaning" refers to all the inferences, deductions, connections, and emotional responses that a given stimulus brings out in an observer (it can also mean "definition", as it does in this parenthetical add-on, but that's rather beside the point at the moment). Meaning is by definition internal to the one doing the observing, not contained within the thing being observed, as you still seem to be (rather incoherently) trying to assert.

Since we know that our minds are brain function (and yes, we do know this, it's not something you can argue against), this means that we construct meaning within that.

(10-02-2017 07:24 AM)Naielis Wrote:  And if there's no content external to brains, how did content arise?

This is why you need to stop equivocating between "meaning" and "content". They do not mean the same thing, but because you have a poor grasp of semantics, you often try to say "meaning/content" as if they are equivalent terms.

They are not.

"Content" is the raw sensory data we receive from a stimulus. "Meaning" is what we do with it.

(10-02-2017 07:24 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
Quote:It exists as patterns in brains.

This is incoherent.

If it is, it is so because you are very bad at asking questions that can be answered coherently.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
10-02-2017, 08:08 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 07:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 07:24 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I supported it in other posts.

Not successfully.

Quote:No, they exist as patterns in brains.
Quote:Well how do you know this? Can you prove this?

All of the evidence of neuroscience supports this.
Scientific knowledge is provisional - I don't share your childish need of absolute certainty.

I don't need certainty in every belief. The claims of science can be viewed as probabilistic assessments based on repitition of experiments where the probability of a hypothesis being false approaches zero as the amount of experiments that fail to falsify it approaches infinity. But the foundation of the scientific method needs to be certain. If it isn't, then the whole things falls apart. Also, could you linke some of the neuroscience you're referring to?

"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, 08:09 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 07:27 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Concepts aren't made of anything? Then how do they exist? Are the laws of logic (referring to the truth they describe) abstract concepts having an effect on reality? They have no physical mass. And yet they are true of everything.

"The laws of logic are true of everything" is an incoherent statement.

No, really. It is. And I say this as the person on this site perhaps most obsessed with formal logic.

Take a moment. Read that sentence. Break it down. And then try to tell me what it means.

"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
10-02-2017, 08:10 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 08:08 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 07:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  All of the evidence of neuroscience supports this.
Scientific knowledge is provisional - I don't share your childish need of absolute certainty.

Also, could you linke some of the neuroscience you're referring to?

You do not understand.

Literally all neuroscience supports this.

"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
10-02-2017, 08:14 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(10-02-2017 08:09 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 07:27 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Concepts aren't made of anything? Then how do they exist? Are the laws of logic (referring to the truth they describe) abstract concepts having an effect on reality? They have no physical mass. And yet they are true of everything.

"The laws of logic are true of everything" is an incoherent statement.

No, really. It is. And I say this as the person on this site perhaps most obsessed with formal logic.

Take a moment. Read that sentence. Break it down. And then try to tell me what it means.

Ok so we both know the laws of logic. The law of contradiction is true of everything in the sense that any true proposition must also, by it's nature, falsify it's negation. The law of excluded middle simply acknowledges a true dichotomy. And the law of identity is just acknowledging basic ontology. To say that these are true of everything means there is no possible existence in which the laws of logic aren't true.

"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: