I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[MikeG]

......As to your publishing record, I find it strange that you can't even type the name of your publisher into this thread, as was requested earlier.

A simple list of titles, date of publication, and publisher would go some way to showing us that you are not the troll your posts in this thread so far seem to be demonstrating. (Or are you simply a disingenuous marketeer?)

Here is "Why Materialism is Baloney" on Amazon

"Publisher: Iff Books (25 April 2014)"

Aside.........5 months later another book is ready for publication. Wow, that's quick.

Rationalist Spirituality

Publisher: O Books; Reprint edition (1 Jan 2011)

Meaning in Absurdity

Publisher: Iff Books (27 Jan 2012)

IFF Books

ABOUT JOHN HUNT PUBLISHING

John Hunt Publishing began in 2001 under the name of O Books, and now publishes 300 titles a year. In 2010 the company began reorganizing itself into a number of autonomous imprints operating worldwide in different genres.

We are largely run by authors who have gravitated to being involved in publishing, whether coming up through editing, design or marketing, and they draw in turn on a pool of like-minded people. A central office looks after sales, accounts, and royalties.

We rely heavily on in-house online publishing systems, designed by authors, for authors, in order to be lean, quick, and hand back to the author as high a proportion of the sales income that we can achieve. For example, our ebooks royalties are 50% of receipts (averaging about one third of the sale price), which is the highest royalty rate we are aware of in commercial trade publishing.

What also distinguishes us from other publishers is our attention to marketing. We provide every book with a basic promotional campaign (including but more than the usual press release you usually get with commercial publishers). And then, for every 500 copies sold, we dedicate another round of publicity. This way, the books that are succeeding in the marketplace get the attention they deserve. 90% of our sales come through the bricks-and-mortar and online retailers.

From the above IFF website

 

[PixyMisa]

Oh, yeah:

Bernardo, you are arguing against materialism on a web forum. That's an automatic failure, lose your next turn, and take a ten-point penalty level of foolishness.

 

[ehcks]

Do you really not understand the difference between idealism and solipsism? No, really?

Perhaps you could expand upon that difference.

What is it about your version of idealism that allows you to know that minds other than your own exist?

 

[Robin]

Yes.

The point being not that this proves materialism, because it's not something that can be proven; rather that materialism can explain why you ducked, where idealism cannot.

Science can explain why you ducked, I don't see how Materialism explains that. The fact that we duck does not imply that any of the objects we observe exist as material objects, as opposed to, say, abstract mathematical concepts in an algorithm.

But as I have been saying, I think Bernardo's metaphysics is not Idealism, nor Solipsism, but just plain old Materialism with different labels glued on.

As such it is no more or less explanatory than Materialism.

 

[Robin]

Perhaps you could expand upon that difference.

What is it about your version of idealism that allows you to know that minds other than your own exist?

There is no metaphysical system that allows you to know that. So is Materialism the same as Solipsism because we can't prove in it that other minds exist?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I demand all you figments of my imagination stop arguing and agree with me!

 

[PixyMisa]

Science can explain why you ducked, I don't see how Materialism explains that. The fact that we duck does not imply that any of the objects we observe exist as material objects, as opposed to, say, abstract mathematical concepts in an algorithm.

If you are an abstract mathematical concept in an algorithm, and the rock is an abstract mathematical concept in an algorithm, and so is everything else, that's materialism.

The fact that we duck implies that the objects we observe exists as material objects. What "material" means might be surprising, but it's also unknowable, so that doesn't matter a whole lot.

There are forms of idealism that we don't know aren't true, that some physicists suspect might be true... And they are indistinguishable from materialism, and bear no resemblance at all to Bernardo's nonsense.

 

[ehcks]

There is no metaphysical system that allows you to know that. So is Materialism the same as Solipsism because we can't prove in it that other minds exist?

We're using different versions of "know;" perhaps I should have left it as "believe."

My mind is a function of my brain. You also have a brain. I would be stupid to say you have no mind.

 

[JoeMorgue]

1. The idea that the entire universe, including all the people in it exists only in your head is just massively egotistical, basically claiming you are some sort of God entity.

2. Why are you arguing with figments of your imagination and how exactly do you expect figments of your imagination to argue back?

3. Okay so reality isn't real and we're all figments of your awesome reality containing mind. Cool whatever. What now? What possible world view can spring from such an intellectually hollow idea? You can't have science or reason or anything that operates within the context of... reality. As PixyMisa said it's nothing more then deny reality, offer no alternative viewpoint, and pat yourself on the back for how insightful you are.

4. If the entire universe is in my head why would I have in my own personal universe an argument this stupid?

 

[asydhouse]

Here is "Why Materialism is Baloney" on Amazon



Aside.........5 months later another book is ready for publication. Wow, that's quick.

Rationalist Spirituality



Meaning in Absurdity



IFF Books

From the above IFF website

My point was that Bernardo should answer questions in this thread, and not ask us to do research on the internet.

So it's an elaborate self-publishing venture then. Nothing wrong with that, as business models change due to developing technology. But the OP's claims to being a published author rather smacked of claiming to be an established and respected voice, through implying that he was published by a publisher, which takes more than just organising one's resources to get a book printed and distributed.

Hence my suspicions that he is disingenuous in starting this thread. It's a marketing ploy, is my assessment.

 

[Dubious Dick]

Dear Bernardo,

Regarding materialism and consciousness. Forget all that philosophical waffle.

1. Take one well contructed brick wall.
2. Take one head (yours)
3. Propel head against brick wall repeatedly.
4. Report back concerning the effects of material reality on consciousness.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And this entire thread is a good example of why Philosophy is bunk.

 

[MikeG]

My point was that Bernardo should answer questions in this thread, and not ask us to do research on the internet.........

Yeah, I know. Sorry. I was bored (buggered back, nothing to do......)

It seems to me to be a glorified version of vanity publishing, but short of ringing the office in Hampshire (where they have a no-phones policy anyway, apparently), I don't think we can say for sure.

 

[PixyMisa]

And this entire thread is a good example of why Philosophy is bunk.

I don't think what Bernardo's doing qualifies as philosophy. It would get him kicked out of the Cub Scout Little Philosophers Merit Badge program.

 

[DarthFishy]

And this entire thread is a good example of why Philosophy is bunk.

This thread is a good example of why incorrectly applying philosophical concepts is bunk.

As well as some pretty good examples of how to counter these concepts (using philosophy).

In terms of all the "bashing your face in a brick wall/stubbing your toe/throwing a rock at you head"-style counter arguments:

Reacting to a stimulus does not prove that a stimulus is "material" and not imagined.

Experiencing pain does not mean that the source is "material" and not imagined.

This does not mean that the Idealism espoused by Bernardo is true, but those counter arguments are quite weak.

A better counter argument is the one suggested by PixyMisa/Dessi (and others I think): namely that Bernardo's Idealism is functionally indistinct from Materialism, and thus pointless.

 

[marplots]

No it just means you're a hypocrite spouting off something you don't really believe in. Usually to justify Woo.

If it's hypocritical to make an argument for something you don't believe in, I fear both our courts and universities are full of such animals.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

"Belief and certainty clog the gears of analytical discussion." - Marplots

 

[MikeG]

I don't think what Bernardo's doing qualifies as philosophy. It would get him kicked out of the Cub Scout Little Philosophers Merit Badge program.

But to be fair, the Pseudo-Intellectual Jargon badge was well-earned, albeit with a remnant weakness in the understanding of "parsimonious".

 

[marplots]

Dear Bernardo,

Regarding materialism and consciousness. Forget all that philosophical waffle.

1. Take one well contructed brick wall.
2. Take one head (yours)
3. Propel head against brick wall repeatedly.
4. Report back concerning the effects of material reality on consciousness.

Sweet. An actual experiment.

...

OK, deed is done. Turns out the wall was a figment of my imagining after all.

I assume the results of my experiment have settled the issue to your satisfaction?

 

[PixyMisa]

I agree that this is a more intelligent avenue of attack. But I deny that the premise -- i.e. that it is functionally indistinguishable from materialism -- is correct. Here is why:

http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/09/does-it-matter-whether-all-is-in.html

Your conclusions do not follow from your premise.

Human minds are a product of human brains. This is a fact.

If human brains, and all other matter, are the product of a supreme overmind, or more plausibly, an infinite cellular automaton, it doesn't change a single thing about how human minds arise. The are still the product of human brains, they are still material processes, they are still entirely separate, and they still die when the brain does.

 

[Bernardo]

Human minds are a product of human brains. This is a fact.

If human brains, and all other matter, are the product of a supreme overmind, or more plausibly, an infinite cellular automaton, it doesn't change a single thing about how human minds arise. The are still the product of human brains, they are still material processes, they are still entirely separate, and they still die when the brain does.

Amen! Alleluia!
Where's East?