The only information one has about the external world comes through the senses. No conclusions based on sense-data are immune from error. Appeals to the validity of some bit of sense-data can only be made by appealing to some other bit of sense-data, which is either assumed to be valid, or whose validity depends on some other bit of sense-data: hopelessly circular reasoning with no stable foundation. There is no reason to assume science is contingent on reality being a certain way; science in a computer simulation could be identical to science in a world of external material stuff.
Naturalism, 'Materialism' vs Dualism and teh Gap
- Thread starter Dancing David
- Start date
The best I can manage is to quote what I am responding to. If quoting someone doesn't fairly represent what they said, I'm at a loss. My best guess is that my comments don't accurately fit some imagined structure about how the debate is supposed to be framed. Guilty as charged.
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
No. You are simply repeating the same, exceptionally simple error again and again, and acting as though it has not been pointed out to be fallacious already.
Option 1: Assume the universe exists. Assume that tests and experiments, when repeated, produce identical results. Perform tests and experiments. Record results. Produce new technology that can perform more tests. Outcome: I have a computer and can type this to you.
Option 2: Assume the universe is fake and we're all heads in jars. Assume that the results of tests and experiments are maliciously designed to appear identical. Do them anyway. Perform tests and experiments. Record results. Produce new technology that can perform more tests. Outcome: I have a computer and can type this to you.
Option 3: Assume the universe is fake and we're all heads in jars. Assume that the results of tests and experiments are maliciously designed to appear identical. Don't do them, because it doesn't matter. Outcome: die from dehydration because drinking water is falling for the delusion that thirst is a real sensation.
And herein we come to the death spiral that solipsism without fail goes to and without fail can't escape from.
If you don't agree that you and I share the same reality on what possible level are we supposed to have a discussion?
Everything I have, will, or could say will be thrown back in my face via the "X can't be used to proof X" and the demand will be made for something outside reality to be introduced into the argument to prove reality and that's... ludicrous.
Reality is that objective bedrock of existence and experience that we all share. If we don't share, then it's not reality.
So the question is "What would reality be like if reality didn't exist?" Well it wouldn't, so case closed.
Again this like saying that globes and maps don't work cause they can't show what's north of the north pole.
Just because a question can be elucidated verbally doesn't make it valid to say nothing of even .000000000000001% useful.
The idea that we have to acknowledge some footnote of doubt that hovers over the very concept of our connection to reality is just massively unreasonable, especially since it always without fail comes from people that just obviously and demonstrably don't actually think reality isn't real, they just want to maintain it as a trump card to be played when needed and ignored when ot.
If you don't agree that you and I share the same reality on what possible level are we supposed to have a discussion?
Everything I have, will, or could say will be thrown back in my face via the "X can't be used to proof X" and the demand will be made for something outside reality to be introduced into the argument to prove reality and that's... ludicrous.
Reality is that objective bedrock of existence and experience that we all share. If we don't share, then it's not reality.
So the question is "What would reality be like if reality didn't exist?" Well it wouldn't, so case closed.
Again this like saying that globes and maps don't work cause they can't show what's north of the north pole.
Just because a question can be elucidated verbally doesn't make it valid to say nothing of even .000000000000001% useful.
The idea that we have to acknowledge some footnote of doubt that hovers over the very concept of our connection to reality is just massively unreasonable, especially since it always without fail comes from people that just obviously and demonstrably don't actually think reality isn't real, they just want to maintain it as a trump card to be played when needed and ignored when ot.
If we all share the same reality, how is it possible that we can ever disagree?
Because some people are unwilling to accept evidence. Like the people who enjoy cantaloupe. It is factually, unarguably, awful.
Those people are capable of denying reality? Can't we just tell them to walk in front of a speeding bus? That would cure them of their love for cantaloupe (and probably buses too).
yes, both while awake and while dreaming - even when there is no 'matter' to warrant the duck . . . so what?
You don't need to assume the universe is "fake". The Matrix-computer you're typing on works just as well as its physical counterpart. The Matrix-gun can kill you just as easily as its physical counterpart.
Parsimony doesn't count either. Materialism makes assumptions just like any other "ism": electrons are pieces of matter vs. electrons are bits of code.
Science cannot tell us the true nature of the things we study- the simulated electron behaves the same as the physical one. How do we justify any assumption of what an electron really is?
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
This is rather the point.
If the universe we experience is absolutely indistinguishable from a material, external one, and we can never experience, say, bobbing about in saline solution, there is no way to coherently say that we are "really" brains in jars. There is no way in which the universe behaves as though we are brains in jars; the ability to say "well, we might be anyway" is more a quirk of language than an actual, semantically valid statement.
EDIT: Note the use of the phrase "can never" in the above. If it is possible for there to be a break in the illusion, then the universe is not indistinguishable from a material one. In this case, we move into the realm of there needing to be evidence in order to accept the assertion of possibility, and the idea can be dismissed once we look around and see that there isn't any, rather than simply because it is worthless by definition.
Because some people are very, very silly.
You have this precisely backwards.
Materialism is not an assertion of the "true nature" of reality, as such questions are incoherent and undefined. Materialism is the conclusion that the universe and all things in it are made of a single substrate, which we refer to as "matter".
Last edited:
There is likely a single reality and one possible explanation is a common shared external material reality, another explanation is a shared consciousness - no biggie really since neither matter nor consciousness are defined . . . and matter understood as increasingly squirrely or information the distinction is fuzzy.
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
There is no meaningful definition of "consciousness" which could account for the universe we observe. If you start expanding the term to the point where it can, it runs into the twin problems of not really being what anyone means when they say "consciousness" any longer and becoming indistinguishable from materialism, which reduces the entire idea to nothing more than semantic quibbling.
Either way, it is worthless.
I would be hesitant about making any ontological conclusions when 95% of the universe is mysterious dark energy/matter.
As I said, beware of people who are sure of themselves. The wise man knows he knows not.
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
If the biggest problem for materialism that you can come up with is that there is some unknown sort of matter, then I see no reason to be hesitant at all, thank you.
The wise man also knows that playing purposefully obtuse in order to avoid accepting what has long ago been proven only serves to make you look like a fool.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
No one should ever be sure of anything? A wise man walks around thinking a chasm could open under his feet at any minute?
Is he walking on a glacier?
The problem is what happens in reality isn't "The wise man knows he knows nothing" meaningless cliche.
What happens is "The pretentious man only pulls this cliche out when he wants to sound deep or defend Woo."
What happens is "The pretentious man only pulls this cliche out when he wants to sound deep or defend Woo."
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
annnnoid
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,703
……that’s seriously strange, cause as of right now, experimental physics has not produced a single anything at the most basic levels of reality. There are various particles (no ‘single this that or the other’) and various properties (spin, charge, mass)…all of which seem to disappear into some incomprehensible nothingness that nobody has yet acquired the slightest capacity to understand (just try and find a single physicist who can explain the origins of QM).
(...meaning, of course, that it is not 95% of the universe that is a mystery, it is 100%...but why quibble).
IOW…there simply does not exist anything remotely resembling a ‘single substrate’ (certainly not anything that can be experimentally differentiated)…not by any stretch of whatever metaphysics it is that is used to define whatever it is that physicists are attempting to describe.
…as demonstrated above, the biggest problem for materialism is not that there is ‘some’ unknown matter, it is that there is no known matter, and certainly no ‘single substrate’.
So why don’t you take your blindingly non-existent ego and show us how much of a fool you most certainly are not… and tell everyone how you intend to ‘prove’ that materialism is accurate…cause as of this moment in time no sane philosopher or physicist would ever make such a stupid claim (of course, you are neither a philosopher nor a physicist so maybe stupid claims are ok for you).
I predict you’ll vaporize on contact…but we’ll see how your high school credentials stack up against a theoretical physicist.