I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[The Man]

This is not about arguments, but was of ways about thinking about the world.

So you weren't presenting an argument pertaining to "ways about thinking about the world"?

Through experience and application.
There is a subtle distinction. For example, realising that our experience of existing and the world may be a construct, or illusory, reminds me of the tentative nature of what humanity has gleaned about the world, the degree perhaps of how it may be our own mental construct, that we don't have any understanding of the basis of this existence, etc. Whereas in the absence of such realisations there would be a temptation to just assume that the world is just as we see it, entirely physical and obvious. That the understanding of the basis of it will be just around the corner for the physicists and our understanding is virtually complete.

Still, reminds me of bomb 20, it still blows up.

Now, where is the argument from ignorance?

You asserted it in your post that I quoted. Asserting limits on knowledge from explicitly a lack of knowledge only asserts that you can't know those limits. It is self defeating.

 

[pagetheoracle]

I'm not sure of all your points Bernardo but it seems you are being trashed by minds that don't want to think about the simple logic in most of your arguments and that shows scientism, not science: Attempts to suppress by word or deed is not scientific but anti-scientific. For instance I was on a science site and got called a troll by somebody who couldn't fault my argument but wanted to shut me up (Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me - or physical pain versus emotional reaction, or lack of it).

Ignorance shouts down and won't listen or even think about counter-arguments to its own prejudices. It wants to believe, not be shifted from its beliefs, however weird. Self-deception carries us along on a wave of optimism and it is only by stopping and examining the evidence that we ever change our beliefs.

It's like faith schools, which only teach Islam, Catholicism, Creationism - they are scared of change and should come out of the cupboard (If the gay community can do it, so can you bunch of hypocrites). Lazy people make assumptions about cause - courageous ones explore possibilities, through effort and without fear of loss (minds or bodies). They take nobody's word for it. We need to distinguish between what is subjective and objective.

I've seen people being woken up as a joke by pranksters who then run away, watching from a distance as some poor idiot is bashed by the slow witted sleeper, who assumes it was someone close to him that had done this, rather than investigate and wake fully. I've also seen my wife blame herself for a computer problem that was clearly the service providers fault because she didn't notice the evidence that showed it couldn't be her.

You are so right that the outside world is physical and the inside one is mental, with the emphasis on 'mental.'

 

[LarryS]

The future is undetectable in principle - yet none of us doubts it will arrive.

Can you give me a clear example of something you would say is "unfalsifiable in principle?"

Actually the future doesn't quite arrive, no matter how fast we run. As it is, both the past and the future will have to remain suppositions, practical and reasonable suppositions . . . suppositions so obvious that even my dog would make them - if I had a dog.

 

[marplots]

Actually the future doesn't quite arrive, no matter how fast we run. As it is, both the past and the future will have to remain suppositions, practical and reasonable suppositions . . . suppositions so obvious that even my dog would make them - if I had a dog.

Perhaps, in the fullness of time, you will get a dog.

I agree there are some interesting things to discuss about time, but I fear they'd be entirely off topic for this thread.

 

[turingtest]

I'm not sure of all your points Bernardo but it seems you are being trashed by minds that don't want to think about the simple logic in most of your arguments and that shows scientism, not science: Attempts to suppress by word or deed is not scientific but anti-scientific. For instance I was on a science site and got called a troll by somebody who couldn't fault my argument but wanted to shut me up (Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me - or physical pain versus emotional reaction, or lack of it).

Ignorance shouts down and won't listen or even think about counter-arguments to its own prejudices. It wants to believe, not be shifted from its beliefs, however weird. Self-deception carries us along on a wave of optimism and it is only by stopping and examining the evidence that we ever change our beliefs.

It's like faith schools, which only teach Islam, Catholicism, Creationism - they are scared of change and should come out of the cupboard (If the gay community can do it, so can you bunch of hypocrites). Lazy people make assumptions about cause - courageous ones explore possibilities, through effort and without fear of loss (minds or bodies). They take nobody's word for it. We need to distinguish between what is subjective and objective.

I've seen people being woken up as a joke by pranksters who then run away, watching from a distance as some poor idiot is bashed by the slow witted sleeper, who assumes it was someone close to him that had done this, rather than investigate and wake fully. I've also seen my wife blame herself for a computer problem that was clearly the service providers fault because she didn't notice the evidence that showed it couldn't be her.

You are so right that the outside world is physical and the inside one is mental, with the emphasis on 'mental.'

Wait, what? You're not sure of some of Bernardo's points...but anybody else who isn't, and explains why, is "trashing" and "suppressing" him, and thinking only...um...scientismistically?*

*My spellchecker not only underlined that word, I think I heard a groan and a pretty good facepalm smack from somewhere in the bowels of my computer.

 

[punshhh]

No: WHY do you think they are important ? What use would the answers be ?

They are inevitable questions if one is conducting philosophy. Their importance is in forming part of a comprehensive philosophy. Also they are important in a personal philosophy if one is concerned with the nature of ones own existence.

Rationally ? Do you even know what that word means ? And do you realise that you just created a contradiction ?

Well its possible that we are using the word in different ways. You seem to be suggesting that if the answer to a question is impossible, or of no value whatsoever, that the question is meaningless. This does not follow, the question is valid as a consequence of philosophical questions about things that can be known. Anyway the answer may appear to be impossible, this does not mean that it may not be possible at some future point.

Such as ?

If there is no alternative to existing, then how come something's don't exist? How come there are things that come into existence and other things cease to exist. What exactly exists automatically? How come lots and lots of other things don't exist?

It does not make sense that there could not be nothing, because something requires action of some kind, which is a lack of equilibrium, this surely requires some kind of stimulus.

No, I do not, because you are making a very poor case of it.

I have a policy here of only bringing things up if they are relevant to a discussion.

Go on. Expand on that.

The fruit fly interacts with its environment in a complex way. Most of this process is engaged in by the fruit fly by a kind of biochemical computation.

In your layman's opinion, but I don't give much weight to your interpretations of the ant's behaviour.

Well the ant followed a trail in the direction of its nest, at one point the lacewing became lodged behind a small stone. The ant then proceed to try three or four different approaches at manouvering the fly around the obstacle, all which failed. Then it paused and appeared to be giving it some deeper thought, then it went back behind the fly and pulled it back the way it had come. Once it had gone back an inch or so, it then pulled it sideways and right around the stone at a distance. Then rejoined the trail and went about its way.

I don't need to assert the intelligence and awareness on display here, it speaks for itself.

You are not asking about process, but about nature. I am asking you why it cannot be meaningless to discuss and seek something that I have demonstrated can never be answered.

You have not demonstrated "never", you have only demonstrated "at this time".

It can't.

Well I won't ask you how you know that, but how come then, did something come to exist? All things come to exist, do they not? Or they would be eternal.

Your conclusion does not follow from the stated premise, nor is it in evidence.

i will address this in my response to The Man.

 

[Belz...]

They are inevitable questions if one is conducting philosophy.

Doesn't mean there's an answer to them.

Their importance is in forming part of a comprehensive philosophy. Also they are important in a personal philosophy if one is concerned with the nature of ones own existence.

You answer to my question "why is it important" is thus "because it's important" ?

Well its possible that we are using the word in different ways. You seem to be suggesting that if the answer to a question is impossible, or of no value whatsoever, that the question is meaningless.

No, I'm saying that the question has no meaning if it makes no sense in light of reality.

This does not follow, the question is valid as a consequence of philosophical questions about things that can be known.

I think you should reevaluate your stance on philosophy. You put way too much weight on it.

Anyway the answer may appear to be impossible, this does not mean that it may not be possible at some future point.

Impossible in principle (logically) means it cannot change. You sure want there to be answers to those questions, don't you ?

If there is no alternative to existing, then how come something's don't exist?

Existence in and of itself does not means existence of a particular thing. Not only are you obsessed with philosophy, you are bad at it.

How come there are things that come into existence and other things cease to exist.

No, sorry, that doesn't happen.

It does not make sense that there could not be nothing, because something requires action of some kind, which is a lack of equilibrium, this surely requires some kind of stimulus.

Sorry, but this is totally wrong. Your premises are false, and your conclusion does not follow. Philosophy is about logic, which you do not seem to grasp.

The fruit fly interacts with its environment in a complex way. Most of this process is engaged in by the fruit fly by a kind of biochemical computation.

You are not answering my question. I can't say I'm surprised. What is knowledge ?

Then it paused and appeared to be giving it some deeper thought

See, this is where you keep failing: you are adding information that isn't in the observation. Ants are dumb machines. They do not give deeper thought to anything. We know this, but you ignore facts and muse instead. You think your musings are more important and deeper by the simple fact that you find them entertaining, but I am under no similar obligation. Your hypothesis is rejected.

I don't need to assert the intelligence and awareness on display here, it speaks for itself.

You have zero idea how to conduct science.

You have not demonstrated "never", you have only demonstrated "at this time".

Irrelevant. I am asking you a question. Stop dodging every tough inquiry.

Well I won't ask you how you know that

I'll answer anyway: first law of thermodynamics, and all scientific observation ever.

but how come then, did something come to exist?

Do you not have any memory whatsoever ? I've already told you that this never happened. You are asking a question based on false premises. Make an _effort_ to learn what I tell you, and ask questions that make sense.

All things come to exist, do they not?

No, they do not. Do you think that chairs pop into existence ? They are made from wood and metal, themselves transformed from other materials, composed of atoms and particles that have been there since the Big Bang, itself not a beginning in any sense of the word.

Or they would be eternal.

Yes, indeed.

 

[punshhh]

Doesn't mean there's an answer to them.

My point is that the questions are valid, whether or not there is an answer is an unknown. Philosophers settle on their individual perspective on these issues.

You answer to my question "why is it important" is thus "because it's important" ?

They are not intrinsically important, their importance is only in the sphere of philosophical perspectives. (These questions where some of the first things I wanted answers for as a young child, before I could talk indeed.)

No, I'm saying that the question has no meaning if it makes no sense in light of reality.

But if we don't know what reality is, how do we know?

I think you should reevaluate your stance on philosophy. You put way too much weight on it.

I realise the lack of use in day to day life of philosophy, this does not diminish my interest, I have always been fascinated by it and by mysticism.

Impossible in principle (logically) means it cannot change. You sure want there to be answers to those questions, don't you ?

We, humanity, are not in a position to say that questions are impossible to answer in principle. Even logic cannot be relied on as it is a human invention and humanity is imperfect.

Existence in and of itself does not means existence of a particular thing. Not only are you obsessed with philosophy, you are bad at it.

But I treat existence(that which exists) as a thing. I am aware of the different uses of the word. Indeed I am looking forward to the thread about existence.

No, sorry, that doesn't happen.

Science might assert this, philosophically it has not been established.

Sorry, but this is totally wrong. Your premises are false, and your conclusion does not follow. Philosophy is about logic, which you do not seem to grasp.

My point was that for there to be something(in existence) there must have been a precursor/origin. If this is not the case, it defies logic.

You are not answering my question. I can't say I'm surprised. What is knowledge ?

Our difference on this question is due to a difference in our definition of consciousness and knowledge. I regard consciousness and knowledge to be something the body does and the consciousness and knowledge referred to normally is a self conscious intellectual phenomena of the mind. Confining consciousness and knowledge to this latter definition is naive and ignores what physical bodies are doing.

See, this is where you keep failing: you are adding information that isn't in the observation. Ants are dumb machines. They do not give deeper thought to anything. We know this, but you ignore facts and muse instead. You think your musings are more important and deeper by the simple fact that you find them entertaining, but I am under no similar obligation. Your hypothesis is rejected.

The ant may have done a slightly deeper form of instinctive behaviour, analogous to deeper thought in higher animals.

Irrelevant. I am asking you a question. Stop dodging every tough inquiry.

I found it difficult to answer as I doubt your assertion that there are things that can never be answered. I accept that they may not be answerable by a human, but some other entity may be able to.

I'll answer anyway: first law of thermodynamics, and all scientific observation ever.

Yes, this indicates that things have a precursor. But it is still vulnerable to philosophical considerations and is not proof that things don't come from nothing.

Do you not have any memory whatsoever ? I've already told you that this never happened. You are asking a question based on false premises. Make an _effort_ to learn what I tell you, and ask questions that make sense.


No, they do not. Do you think that chairs pop into existence ? They are made from wood and metal, themselves transformed from other materials, composed of atoms and particles that have been there since the Big Bang, itself not a beginning in any sense of the word.


Yes, indeed.

Interesting, have you any idea what eternity means?

 

[Nonpareil]

Science might assert this, philosophically it has not been established.

That's funny. It's almost as if the vast majority of philosophers are just a bunch of people who don't understand basic logic, let alone science, because your success in philosophical pursuits doesn't depend on accuracy or peer-review but your ability to pander to a crowd.

But that would just be silly.

 

[halleyscomet]

That's funny. It's almost as if the vast majority of philosophers are just a bunch of people who don't understand basic logic, let alone science, because your success in philosophical pursuits doesn't depend on accuracy or peer-review but your ability to pander to a crowd.

But that would just be silly.

Philosophy:

1. The fine art of telling people what they want to hear while making them think they're hearing something revolutionary.

2. Mental masturbation.

 

[bruto]

I don't have much use for philosophy these days, but having once dipped into it and studied with a few pretty good philosophers, I must respectfully note that some did know how to use logic, and though one can find fault with much philosophy and by its nature philosophical speculation remains debatable, and though any joker can call himself a philosopher, his faults are his alone.

 

[Nonpareil]

I don't have much use for philosophy these days, but having once dipped into it and studied with a few pretty good philosophers, I must respectfully note that some did know how to use logic, and though one can find fault with much philosophy and by its nature philosophical speculation remains debatable, and though any joker can call himself a philosopher, his faults are his alone.

I have no issue with philosophy as an idea, and there are philosophers who do know what they're talking about. But my point, unfortunately, still stands: philosophy is not subject to peer review or any other standard of quality control beyond what sells, and thus, it is a place where theatrical idiots can flourish for repeating what are, frankly, some of the stupidest ideas ever put forth, just because people like them.

 

[punshhh]

That's funny.

Has it been established? i.e. that some things come into existence and other things cease to exist.

It's almost as if the vast majority of philosophers are just a bunch of people who don't understand basic logic, let alone science, because your success in philosophical pursuits doesn't depend on accuracy or peer-review but your ability to pander to a crowd.

But that would just be silly.

Silly(hilarious), I take it.

 

[punshhh]

I have no issue with philosophy as an idea, and there are philosophers who do know what they're talking about. But my point, unfortunately, still stands: philosophy is not subject to peer review or any other standard of quality control beyond what sells, and thus, it is a place where theatrical idiots can flourish for repeating what are, frankly, some of the stupidest ideas ever put forth, just because people like them.

I take it you have your own pet "stupidest ideas", which you just don't like.

 

[Lowpro]

There's a lot of philosophy which is subjected to peer review such as legal philosophy, anthropology ( there are definite branches of cultural anthropology that are philosophical in nature), and to some extent even mathematics.

I never like using peer review as a separation of science and pseudoscience or philosophy. Peer Review can be as much a cosmetic veneer as it can be a filter.

But that's not to contradict you Nonpariel, I just don't share the idea.

 

[bruto]

I think there's plenty of peer review among serious philosophers, even though of course the subject matter is abstract and a matter of opinion, and what constitutes peer review is itself more subjective. Stupid ideas and logical flaws are not likely to survive long among reputable philosophers, but any fool can call himself a philosopher.

 

[metacristi]

No; what is best is following the evidence. If the early evidence is misleading, then when you get better evidence you will find out that you were wrong, and change your mind. But if you steer to a middle way you will always be wrong.

Edit: If you mean that all scientific findings are tentative and subject to change if new evidence appears, then I have no problem with that. Of course, some findings are a lot less tentative than others.


Why? Also, how?

We know a lot more now than in Kelvin's day, and in particular, we have a very good idea of what we don't know. And we know that there's no unknown physics involved in consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrs-Azp0i3k#t=2046

Right. Of course I know that many 'skeptics' have many certitudes or quasi-certitudes. Except to acknowledge the manifest limits of what we call knowledge. Personally I would argue that we have to begin with a modest definition of knowledge, namely it is merely justified belief, and thus the best approach is still that suggested by me, we should always be prepared for possible non trivial, rational, paradigm shifts in ALL parts of what we accept today as knowledge. Basically nothing is exempted from possible rational replacement so there is little reason to give to the current knowledge the status you suggest. Some may easily dismiss such a (moderate) philosophical scepticism (we can define knowledge but fallibilism in non trivial ways should always be present, I don't think you really understood my stance) unfortunately for them Rationality show plenty that it cannot be so easily wiped out.

 

[Dancing David]

Has it been established? i.e. that some things come into existence and other things cease to exist.
Silly(hilarious), I take it.

Silly rabbit, if you want to put yourself through a blender then 'you' will no longer exist. And the 'mucky version of you' will come into existence.

And yes virtual particles sure do pop out the the zpe

 

[turingtest]

I think there's plenty of peer review among serious philosophers, even though of course the subject matter is abstract and a matter of opinion, and what constitutes peer review is itself more subjective. Stupid ideas and logical flaws are not likely to survive long among reputable philosophers, but any fool can call himself a philosopher.

You might liken it to "any fool can call himself a musician." Anybody can bang out a few basic one-finger power chords on a guitar, without any idea of, or interest in learning, the most basic of music theory, and call themselves a guitar player; but if you're jamming with me, and I ask for a Cmaj7, then Bm7, and you give me a deer-in-the-headlights look...well. My peer review is apt to be "you ain't much of one."

 

[pagetheoracle]

Wait, what? You're not sure of some of Bernardo's points...but anybody else who isn't, and explains why, is "trashing" and "suppressing" him, and thinking only...um...scientismistically?*

*My spellchecker not only underlined that word, I think I heard a groan and a pretty good facepalm smack from somewhere in the bowels of my computer.

If you're American you may not have heard the term (I'm in the UK, that other country that speaks English "but not as we know it Jim").

Why do I say he is being trashed? Because his points aren't discussed, just his personality attacked like in a Disney cartoon