To think or to blindly follow.....

[hammegk]

Oh, Geoff. I'm not a materialist. I haven't been arguing in favor of materialism. I'm just trying to sort through all the drek and find the irrefutable refutation of materialism. I'm missing it so far. Not agreeing with the refutation does not constitute being a materialist.

~~ Paul

Nor, sfaik, were your comments mentioned. BTW, thank you for sharing. Are you willing to name your position? PM maybe?

Geoff, I am saddened by your dishonesty in this regard.

I'd say the interpretation could go either way,but I see your viewpoint too.

Really? That is new to me. The bible equals materialism??

No, nor was that said by anyone but you.



GEOFF: Please ignore Larsen's inanities. I suggest using the software ignore capability, but stop letting him string you along.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nor, sfaik, were your comments mentioned. BTW, thank you for sharing. Are you willing to name your position? PM maybe?

Did you notice how, when we really get into it, we can't seem to agree on what these positions mean? See first sig line.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Agreed that defining a position is tough, and I see the sig. Yet, here you are in thread that is basically nothing but ontology.

As you know, if I find Stimpy's Denial a useless and meaningless copout, akin to putting one's fingers in one ears and saying La La La I can't Hear You.

At least Geoff is trying to push his (Dare I say imo unwillingness to take a stand .. ) to a level 1 step above the body/mind duality problem we see as perceiving humans.

Just my 2cts, of course ...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Stimpy presented a version of scientific epistemology. He wasn't saying anything about metaphysics. The ultimate source of the things that science investigates could be anything. The distinction is noted here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_materialism

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Erm, yes. SFAICS, Scientific Naturalism (ala Stimpy) allows one to be a closet dualist while pretending otherwise. Whatever.

It takes cojones grandes to declare oneself an ontological materialist and defend the position of strong atheism that god cannot exist. Accepting that *you* as well as brain & body can be replaced with a computer, a program, and some good I/O devices is also required.

Objective idealism sticks everything back in the closet, while accepting completely the scientific method. I prefer fully logical positions. Of course, someone may yet convince me my position is not logical, and others may think it's already been so demonstrated. As yet, I don't agree that my position has been demonstrated illogical in any sense.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Stimpy presented a version of scientific epistemology. He wasn't saying anything about metaphysics.

Yeah, that what he said. But underneath his claims of epistemological naturalism was materialism, through and through. He never figured out how to stop equating subjective=objective with no explanation, in exactly the same way Kevin does. He hadn't sorted out his own understanding of the relationship between subject and object.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yeah, that what he said. But underneath his claims of epistemological naturalism was materialism, through and through. He never figured out how to stop equating subjective=objective with no explanation, in exactly the same way Kevin does. He hadn't sorted out his own understanding of the relationship between subject and object.

If you actually remain open-minded about the very existence of distinct subjects and objects until evidence comes in, you end up with a Kevin or Stimpy sort of position. We don't have certainty, but we have excellent reason to believe that subjects are made of matter and cannot be fundamentally distinguished from the rest of existence.

You don't need to assume that materialism is true to conclude that materialism is true. It follows from our observation that the world acts exactly as if it had existence outside of and independant of our minds and perceptions.

As Nagarjuna put it, humans are like any other physical phenomenon. We arise dependant upon pre-existing conditions, persist for as long as conditions allow, and then cease. Any belief that we differ fundamentally from other phenomena relies on unsupportable philosophical assumptions.

On the other hand if you covertly assume the existence of an immaterial consciousness at the get-go and build a house of cards from there, you end up with a Geoff sort of position and all sorts of problems.

 

[hammegk]

You don't need to assume that materialism is true to conclude that materialism is true.

Of course. One should then proceed as if it's a conclusion, not a fact, and recognize that it is not the only possible conclusion, and that other conclusions may be as logically coherent and defensible if not moreso.

It follows from our observation that the world acts exactly as if it had existence outside of and independant of our minds and perceptions.

True, but that statement says nothing whatsoever about materialism being the conclusion.

 

[Piggy]

OK, I've read the whole thread up to here, but still don't see the point of it.

JustGeoff, what exactly is this thread about, please? If it's been stated precisely and I missed it, please tell me which post or cite it.

If it's to critique the citation in the OP, I think we're done with that.

If it's this....

This thread... is about being aware that... we should all think carefully before we engage in backwards reasoning which starts from a conclusion and tries to re-arrange all the questions. It is merely saying that it is a better idea to start from the questions instead.

... then I think we all agree with that also.

Is there something else here? Is there something specific other than the cite in the OP to which you believe this applies, and which we therefore need to consider?

Thanks.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Of course. One should then proceed as if it's a conclusion, not a fact, and recognize that it is not the only possible conclusion, and that other conclusions may be as logically coherent and defensible if not moreso.

I haven't run into one that is as defensible given Occam's Razor and our current observations, but I have not ruled out the possibility of enountering one.

True, but that statement says nothing whatsoever about materialism being the conclusion.

On the contrary, that plus Occam's Razor gets you materialism, since the simplest story to explain this stuff which is external to all known minds is to just say that it is stuff external to all known minds. Adding a supermind to watch it all is a superfluous assumption.

 

[hammegk]

Yeah, straight as an arrow.

Kevin thinks he perceives, Kevin thinks he perceives stuff that isn't perceived as thought, Kevin conceives that the not-thought stuff he perceives causes thought, Kevin concludes thought does not exist, but not-thought does. LOL.

I haven't run into one that is as defensible given Occam's Razor and our current observations, ...

Perhaps you should actually think about the things you think you stumble over.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yeah, straight as an arrow.

Kevin thinks he perceives, Kevin thinks he perceives stuff that isn't perceived as thought, Kevin conceives that the not-thought stuff he perceives causes thought, Kevin concludes thought does not exist, but not-thought does.

Kevin is thinking he is perceiving a straw man. Kevin fails to perceive where Kevin concluded thought does not exist.

 

[Piggy]

Piggy sets up the bar and invites his buddies over for another round of the ever-popular Philosophy Thread drinking game.

Piggy draws "non-sequitur" from the hat.

Piggy enters the number for the local detox center into the speed-dialer.

 

[hammegk]

Kevin is thinking he is perceiving a straw man. Kevin fails to perceive where Kevin concluded thought does not exist.

Kevin agrees he is a dualist. Thanks. That wasn't so hard, was it? Illogical, though.

Think on.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin agrees he is a dualist.

No.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Erm, yes. SFAICS, Scientific Naturalism (ala Stimpy) allows one to be a closet dualist while pretending otherwise. Whatever.

How do you figure?

It takes cojones grandes to declare oneself an ontological materialist and defend the position of strong atheism that god cannot exist. Accepting that *you* as well as brain & body can be replaced with a computer, a program, and some good I/O devices is also required.

Who is doing this?

Objective idealism sticks everything back in the closet, while accepting completely the scientific method. I prefer fully logical positions. Of course, someone may yet convince me my position is not logical, and others may think it's already been so demonstrated. As yet, I don't agree that my position has been demonstrated illogical in any sense.

Then you should have no trouble with Stimpy's axioms.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yeah, that what he said. But underneath his claims of epistemological naturalism was materialism, through and through. He never figured out how to stop equating subjective=objective with no explanation, in exactly the same way Kevin does. He hadn't sorted out his own understanding of the relationship between subject and object.

I don't know what conversation you're referring to, so I can't address this.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

No.

Good. Are you a post-Kantain idealist? Or just confused as to what your position entails?

Who is doing this?

No one posting here, that's for sure.

Your choices remain -- dualism or ~materialism -- should you choose to address ontology, and the possibility of free-will, teleology in what we perceive as this universe, etcetc.

Then you should have no trouble with Stimpy's axioms.
~~ Paul

Only with the silence of those axioms with respect to the provisos I just mentioned.

 

[cyborg]

Accepting that *you* as well as brain & body can be replaced with a computer, a program, and some good I/O devices is also required.

What the hell is that even supposed to mean? What exactly am I supposed to be beyond my brain and body (which is a redundant phrase)?

 

[hammegk]

LOL. Yes, that's what some of us are discussing. "What exactly am I supposed to be ...". What is that 'I' is a first step for some. We would agree that the human-I-ego-etc requires a brain/body to operate at the level we are communicating.

What makes you 'think' --so to speak-- your brain/body are separate systems?