I challenge you: your best argument for materialism
- Thread starter Bernardo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- consciousness materialism
So, let's get this straight. You decided that it is more relevant to argue against my claim that I can publish a book (which would be my fifth), instead of arguing for materialism; is that right?
Silly conflation: to say that reality is in consciousness does not imply that reality doesn't exist.
Sorry, there's some substance here is there? You might want to point it out. I can't see any links to any published research.
You go first. You brought up your book, but don't care to "elaborate" on its substance. You say you're gonna ignore trolls ,yet post like one. You guarantee smoldering ash but your Zippo needs butane.
But that's the thing. Materialism is the assumption you start with. You first assume that the universe is real, then you experiment on it. You have a few possible outcomes:
1. The experiments show that the universe is material because it is.
2. The experiments show that the universe is material but it isn't.
3. The experiments show that the universe isn't material because it isn't.
All experimentation has agreed with the first two, so we're down to those two, and whatever possibilities option 2 has.
The universe could be actively deceiving us, malevolently or not; or it could be that our own belief that the universe is material makes it seem so. The former assumes an outside influence for which there can never be evidence. The latter would makes us the WH40k Orks.
There is no logical reason to believe anything but outcome number 1.
What's a JREF?
Finally something with content. I would argue that the existence of consciousness is the primary datum of reality and the one undeniable empirical fact. And that is the sole ontological entity (and therefore primitive) that monistic idealism requires. Now, the argument behind monistic idealism, of course, also requires that we grant validity to logic, although, as you point out, we cannot use logic to argue for the validity of logic. In this sense, certain things are indeed assumed, but none more than what materialism assumes. My goal isn't to prove anything (that's for naive positivists), but to show that, as far as logic and empirical evidence go, monistic idealism is a far BETTER ontology than materialism.
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Pretty much any one can get a vanity press to publish themselves.
What exactly happens after you publish your book and all your arguments are not refuted?
And if it will make you happy.
Why is it the one undeniable, empirical fact of existence?
Is it undeniable because it has been proven so? If so, by whom?
Or, is it undeniable because you don't want to deny it? And without that assumption your house of cards falls?
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
I don't subscribe to either materialism OR idealism.
Check out the idea of the holographic universe (the one from string theory). I don't think you'll like it, though; while nothing is "real", everything is meaningless--so your hopes and dreams and ideas have nothing to do with shaping it.
Check out the idea of the holographic universe (the one from string theory). I don't think you'll like it, though; while nothing is "real", everything is meaningless--so your hopes and dreams and ideas have nothing to do with shaping it.
This is such a complete misunderstanding of philosophy of science! Materialism is an ontology, not an experimental outcome or conclusion. It's one of several possible ontological interpretations of experimental outcomes. All that can be experimentally demonstrated are the patterns and regularities of reality, not their ontological interpretations.
You may not be hiding anything, but you aren't supplying anything either. Like..........erm................you know....................evidence.
Do you need a more thorough and detailed explanation for how to click on an hyperlink? <snip>
Edited by Loss Leader:
Edited. Rule 0.
Last edited by a moderator:
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
That's what I said about the OP too!
I assume you're not going to answer my question.
Last edited:
Don't you think you might perhaps be projecting some of your own prejudices and expectations on me?
Presupposing that your claim can not be experimented on is outright stating that it's unfalsifiable and therefore a meaningless claim.
Will check back tomorrow to see if anyone has ACTUALLY BEEN ABLE TO ADD ANYTHING TO THE LIST!You want me to read your book before commenting on your thread? Hmmmm, OK, I see.....