• 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

Myriad said:
By the same parsimony argument:

We know that the only way we ever hear sound is via our ears. Therefore the most parsimonious explanation for sound is that all sound occurs in ears. A refined idealism would need to account for shared sounds heard by many. To allow this, we can propose that all sound occurs in the ears of God, but that's problematic; a better description is "ears at large" in which all sound exists. There is therefore no need to propose any category of sonic phenomena other than ears as the unique carrier of all sound.

Thus, idealism is more parsimonious than materialistic interpretations that require external things other than ears to exist as generators and transmitters of sound.
Click to expand...

"ears at large"? Do we also see by "eyes at large" and smell by "noses at large"?
 
Can someone please explain to me how to think things into existence? There are a few summoning spells I'd like to try out.
 
Originally Posted by marplots
I've never seen that.
If the basis for claiming something exists is going to be empirical/observation, it seems a bit contrary to say it still works, even without the empirical/observation. Do unseen Gods exist too? After all, I didn't see God doing the creating, but do see the pot, and it's boiling with stars now. Therefore God.

Somehow, abandoning the gold standard in service of preserving it seems odd.

Originally Posted by tsig

When you wake up is the world pretty much like it was when you went to sleep?

Originally Posted by marplots
It seems so, yes. How does it seem on your end?

tsig said:
You just refuted you own hilited statement.
Click to expand...

How so? Did you mistake the "it seems so" as a statement bestowing a clarity/conclusion unavailable? Don't read that as "it is so" by mistake.
 
marplots said:
Originally Posted by marplots
I've never seen that.
If the basis for claiming something exists is going to be empirical/observation, it seems a bit contrary to say it still works, even without the empirical/observation. Do unseen Gods exist too? After all, I didn't see God doing the creating, but do see the pot, and it's boiling with stars now. Therefore God.

Somehow, abandoning the gold standard in service of preserving it seems odd.

Originally Posted by tsig

When you wake up is the world pretty much like it was when you went to sleep?

Originally Posted by marplots
It seems so, yes. How does it seem on your end?



How so? Did you mistake the "it seems so" as a statement bestowing a clarity/conclusion unavailable? Don't read that as "it is so" by mistake.
Click to expand...

What good does all the semantic shuffling around do?

It seems that all you want to do is play word games.

You can now play solitaire.
 
These comparisons between reasonable skepticism and "I'll just deny reality exists until someone proves to me it does somehow" are growing tiresome.

If you don't see the difference between "If you tell me UFOs/Bigfoot/Conspiracies exist you need to provide evidence" and "PROVE I'M NOT A BRAIN IN A JAR!" there's little hope for you.
 
Belz... said:
You'd think that would convince some people...
Click to expand...
And it does. People duck when you throw something at them. People look for cover when it starts raining. They get off the road when a car's coming.

They may profess idealism, but they act like materialists.

Because if you don't, you don't survive for very long.
 
Like I said the good thing is if they don't really exist we can safely ignore any arguments they make.

Either they exist to make this argument, which makes them wrong, or they don't exist so they can't make any arguments for me to listen to.

When one argument by definition can only be made by figments of my imagination, I'm pretty comfortable dismissing it as bunk.
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
And it does. People duck when you throw something at them. People look for cover when it starts raining. They get off the road when a car's coming.

They may profess idealism, but they act like materialists.

Because if you don't, you don't survive for very long.
Click to expand...
I am not sure why rocks would hurt less or rain would be less uncomfortable under Idealism than it would under Materialism.
 
Darat said:
Anyone yet provided a definition for this "experience of conciousness" that we are meant to know?
Click to expand...

An ostensible definition is as good as any. Just spread out your hand on a table and start hitting it very hard with a hammer and keep telling yourself that you don't know the experience of consciousness.
 
Darat said:
Anyone yet provided a definition for this "experience of conciousness" that we are meant to know?
Click to expand...

I've asked him to explain what he means by "consciousness" three times so far, but no response yet. He hasn't posted since last time I asked, but I fully expect I'll be asking a fourth time before long.
 
Robin said:
I am not sure why rocks would hurt less or rain would be less uncomfortable under Idealism than it would under Materialism.
Click to expand...
Why would you have evolved to instinctively make a material response to a material problem if the material is not real?

Why would you have evolved to anything if the material is not real?

Why anything?
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
I am not sure why rocks would hurt less or rain would be less uncomfortable under Idealism than it would under Materialism.
Click to expand...

You are just aggressively avoiding the point.

The point is that you demonstrably don't believe what you are arguing.

You live in reality, same as all of us. You act as if everything you see/hear/taste/touch/smell is objectively real. Everyone does. Unless you're in a rubber room in a straightjacket you are accepting of reality.

To then question that to put on some big "Wise Old Man on the Mountain" act or demand other people prove it to explain away Woo is just wrong.

This whole "Yeah you doubt my Woo... well then I doubt EVERYTHING! That'll show you!" routine got old a long time ago.

Skepticism is not some game of who can drop their level of doubt down the lowest.

Accepting a base level of reality is both perfectly reasonable and necessary for any sort of intellectual growth or discussion.
 
JoeBentley said:
This whole "Yeah you doubt my Woo... well then I doubt EVERYTHING! That'll show you!" routine got old a long time ago.
Click to expand...
I am sure it did, but who exactly do you claim is saying such a thing?
 
marplots said:
I've never seen that.

If the basis for claiming something exists is going to be empirical/observation, it seems a bit contrary to say it still works, even without the empirical/observation. Do unseen Gods exist too? After all, I didn't see God doing the creating, but do see the pot, and it's boiling with stars now. Therefore God.
Somehow, abandoning the gold standard in service of preserving it seems odd.
Click to expand...

JoeBentley said:
You live in reality, same as all of us. You act as if everything you see/hear/taste/touch/smell is objectively real. Everyone does. Unless you're in a rubber room in a straightjacket you are accepting of reality.

To then question that to put on some big "Wise Old Man on the Mountain" act or demand other people prove it to explain away Woo is just wrong.
This whole "Yeah you doubt my Woo... well then I doubt EVERYTHING! That'll show you!" routine got old a long time ago.

Skepticism is not some game of who can drop their level of doubt down the lowest.

Accepting a base level of reality is both perfectly reasonable and necessary for any sort of intellectual growth or discussion.
Click to expand...

Robin said:
I am sure it did, but who exactly do you claim is saying such a thing?
Click to expand...

Hilited it for you but of course you are going to say that he didn't use those exact words.
 
JoeBentley said:
Like I said the good thing is if they don't really exist we can safely ignore any arguments they make.

Either they exist to make this argument, which makes them wrong, or they don't exist so they can't make any arguments for me to listen to.

When one argument by definition can only be made by figments of my imagination, I'm pretty comfortable dismissing it as bunk.
Click to expand...

The "You can't prove reality exists" is the nuclear hand grenade of arguments because while it might blow up opponents arguments it also destroys your own.
 
tsig said:
Hilited it for you but of course you are going to say that he didn't use those exact words.
Click to expand...
Why should I say that????

If he was responding to marplots then a good tip.for the future is not to.put it under a quote from someone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom