• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

marplots said:
In short, it moves from "I saw it happen" to "I assume it happened because I see the result and assume the world works in a certain way."
Click to expand...

Sure, why not? Given the basic assumption that external reality exists, all else follows; including being wrong and then correcting.
 
Craig4 said:
I checked "Predators and Editors" which lists John Hunt Publishing as a Vanity Publisher. Elsewhere on the website they pretty much admit that they are a vanity publisher but defend it by saying the big six publishers have vanity arms too. I have to say that it undermines one's argument to present oneself as a well respected and widely published author when the books came out from a vanity press. I'm not against self publishing or non-traditional publishing for those who want to do it but works should be identified as such. A book from Harvard University Press is not the same as a self published book as the crucible of approval of approval is missing.
Click to expand...
I find the discussion of the publisher the most interesting part of this thread, so . . . The scariest thing on their website is this:
Iff Books said:
Whatever you do, please don’t send the contract to a lawyer/attorney.
Click to expand...
Now for my next impression, Jesse Owens. <Runs from that publisher as fast as possible.>
 
Dancing David said:
Bernardo said:
As some of you know, I think materialism is baloney.
Click to expand...

Well it is a moot point... the universe behaves as though it is material, regardless of teh ontology of the universe. So it may be godthought, dancing energy , butterfly dreams or whatever Mind theory you are proposing.

It is a moot point the universe appears to be material:

One challenge, show any evidence of consciousness absent an organic brain.

So the second challenge, show any evidence that the universe does not behave as though it is material.
Click to expand...

iteration 01
 
Bernardo said:
As a statistician, do you think you have appropriately sampled my work?

Are you seriously suggesting that I should cover sufficient ground of an entire ontology in a couple of forum posts?
Click to expand...

No I have not appropriately sampled your work. If your work fits the assumptions of independence then that would be a big deal. Is your work novel? Does it address materialism? If so then it is not independent. Does it address idealism? If so then it is not independent. The sample size of your work does not approximate the subject I'm sorry to say, so you could have written a stringent and comprehensive book on a crap subject. So I guess the real question is whether what you're writing about is crap or not.

Now that we got that out of the way, take your next question and think about it. What did you just expect from us in your first post? hint: did you think we'd cover sufficient ground of an entire ontology in a couple of forum posts too?
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Of course you have. You've come back to an already-boiling at some point.
Click to expand...

Oh yes. I am familiar with the aphorism that "a watched pot never boils." For this reason, I generally make it a point to leave it unobserved and come back later. Quite often, I find that upon my return, it is, indeed, boiling.

What happens exactly, when the pot is outside of my view, must remain a mystery.

The thing is, if I were to watch it, that instance would no longer be a case of an unwatched pot - the very thing I wanted to know about.
 
Donn said:
Sure, why not? Given the basic assumption that external reality exists, all else follows; including being wrong and then correcting.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. That's the assumption I go with on a daily basis. So long as it remains an assumption, I don't see where even the OP would have a problem.
 
My best argument for materialism is that the world behaves independent of whether I'm conscious or not. When people go to sleep or fall unconscious, the world around them remains the same. All of our observations about the world prove over and over that the world behaves independently of our conscious experience, and moreover, that our conscious experience itself can be traced to the brain, which is material. It only takes a brief stroll over the findings of neuroscience to see how everything that we experience in the mind is nothing but a consequence of brain activity, which can be manipulated to create/alter conscious experience.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
Yes, of course. That's the assumption I go with on a daily basis. So long as it remains an assumption, I don't see where even the OP would have a problem.
Click to expand...

Your objection then is to expressing certainty?
 
Bernardo said:
As a statistician, do you think you have appropriately sampled my work?

Are you seriously suggesting that I should cover sufficient ground of an entire ontology in a couple of forum posts?
Click to expand...

I would suggest that it's not a good idea to promote a book by offering a sampling of its stupidest ideas.

It's the same principle that keeps me from going to see a movie where the trailers make it look awful. You KNOW they put the best parts in the trailer. They'd be stupid to do otherwise. Therefore, if the trailer is terrible, you KNOW most of the movie will be worse.

(Again, unless they are really, really bad at promotion.)
 
marplots said:
It seems to me there is no difference in your Mandelbrot example than in any framing that includes an unknowable future. Consider that the future will happen - at least some version of it. It doesn't yet exist, but will. We are not privy to the results until the future arrives. Now, if idealism can reconcile this, why not the Mandelbrot set? (It's the same problem, because the future is calculated by the present and the calculation must be done for the future to arrive.)
Click to expand...


That's correct, there's no substantial difference. Using a deterministic calculation like the Mandelbrot set, instead of "the future" in general, is a bit clearer because it renders consideration of the question of free will unnecessary.

If idealism can reconcile an unknown (let's leave out unknowable, since that introduces a lot of additional assumptions) future, then sure, a deterministic computational result is no trouble either. But can it?

A universal consciousness that does not encompass all future states of the world raises the question of where that future comes from. If it doesn't already exist within that consciousness, it must emerge from causal processes occurring within it. The future experiences of that consciousness are thus contingent on processes by which the future is generated, reducing the universal consciousness to the status of universal observer, and making this form of idealism (as many others have pointed out) equivalent in all respects to materialism.

A universal consciousness that does encompass all future states of the world—that is to say, is omniscient—renders the world redundant. Not only that, it's an incoherent construct. An omniscient entity cannot learn or experience anything (everything that can be learned or experienced already has been) so in what sense can it be conscious?
 
tsig said:
Your objection then is to expressing certainty?
Click to expand...

My objection is to the arguments presented I have responded to, specifically, not materialism, a view I hold myself. If an argument doesn't stand up, I can't support it merely because it reaches the conclusion I hold.

Bad arguments be bad.
 
marplots said:
What happens exactly, when the pot is outside of my view, must remain a mystery.
Click to expand...

No, it mustn't. If it's really mysterious to you, point a camera at the pot and leave. I guarantee that part of the universe does not cease to exist when you're gone.

The idea that it's a "mystery" only works under the frame of mind that things must be 100% certain in order to be known. That is not how science or indeed how skepticism works. Things behave as if they are independant from minds, all the time, and do not behave as if they weren't. That's good enough for me.
 
poblob14 said:
I find the discussion of the publisher the most interesting part of this thread, so . . . The scariest thing on their website is this: Now for my next impression, Jesse Owens. <Runs from that publisher as fast as possible.>
Click to expand...

I didn't see that when I looked the first time but I had to check for myself. Holy ****** It really does say "whatever you do don't take the contract to a lawyer", on the Contracts page. Wow!
 
Dessi said:
If a materialist can address his argument by simply being more precise in their language ("altered consciousness" instead of "more/expanded consciousness ), then his argument is that the stoner slang "expanded consciousness" is a misnomer, not that psychedelic experiences are inconsistent with materialist descriptions of consciousness.
Click to expand...

How's this for an analogy?

Now, some of my opponents will say that granite statues are contingent upon granite material. However, this is clearly not the case. After all, a sculptor will take a block of granite and chip away at it, forming the statue. How, then, could a reduction in granite produce an increase in granite statues?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom