Materialists......

DreadNiK said:
What I'm wondering is where this is going...

Is there a point to this?
Click to expand...

We are just having a discussion. This thread has gone off in a very different direction to the one intended, but since people are still asking questions and trying to clarify difficult concepts and tricky philosophical arguments I don't see that it matters if it isn't going anywhere. If it is helping people to communicate and allowing people to get a clearer understanding of this area of metaphysics and philosophy of religion, then that is an end in itself. I don't usually get to the point where I can have a debate like this. I am usually drowned out by people trying to spam the thread out of existence. Strategic use of the ignore function has helped.....
 
JustGeoff said:
We are just having a discussion. This thread has gone off in a very different direction to the one intended, but since people are still asking questions and trying to clarify difficult concepts and tricky philosophical arguments I don't see that it matters if it isn't going anywhere. If it is helping people to communicate and allowing people to get a clearer understanding of this area of metaphysics and philosophy of religion, then that is an end in itself. I don't usually get to the point where I can have a debate like this. I am usually drowned out by people trying to spam the thread out of existence. Strategic use of the ignore function has helped.....
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I was just checking that my leaving this thread alone on the grounds that it has turned into philosophical...erm...trying to think of a less perjorative sounding term than masturbation...but I can't... was correct.

However, if you could give me an example of how this discussion may be more than 'an end it itself' I would be most interested, since so many of my discussions with philosophical minded people end similarily, with me failing to see how there is any benefit to anyone in discussing further or even how anyone in the discussion differs in anything but word...

But I won't try and spoil it for those who enjoy it as an end in itself.
 
DreadNiK said:
Fair enough. I was just checking that my leaving this thread alone on the grounds that it has turned into philosophical...erm...trying to think of a less perjorative sounding term than masturbation...but I can't... was correct.

However, if you could give me an example of how this discussion may be more than 'an end it itself' I would be most interested, since so many of my discussions with philosophical minded people end similarily, with me failing to see how there is any benefit to anyone in discussing further or even how anyone in the discussion differs in anything but word...

But I won't try and spoil it for those who enjoy it as an end in itself.
Click to expand...

What you are really asking is "What is the point in philosophy, anyway?"

The answer is that if you are talking about what difference it makes to the cogs and wheels of life as people live it on a daily basis, then not much. But philosophical ideas cannot be said to have had no influence on the development and structure of the civilisation we live in. Philosophy, and changes in philosophy, are some of the most basic structural components guiding the course of history. So on the level of the bigger picture, they are amongst the most important ideas and important debates that have ever seen the light of day. Try to imagine the history of the western world without Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Newton, Galileo, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietschze, Heidegger, Wittgenstein..... I can't. Their ideas have shaped the course of history. It's no mere co-incidence that the last six of these men were Germans and that it was the actions of Germany as a nation which determined much the course of 20th century history. It was the aftermath of WWII which led to the establishment of the state of Israel. These events are still dictating the course of history.
 
JustGeoff said:
But I still don't understand why you think that something capable of not existing could also be causeless.
Click to expand...
Here is the nub of the problem. You have 100% certainty that something that was capable of not existing must have a cause. 100% certainty.

I ask you for the basis for this 100% certainty and here you are again, responding that you don't understand why I don't have that same 100% certainty.

So are you 100% certain that something capable of not existing must have a cause because you don't understand why I am not 100% certain?

That is only an argument from ignorance. You don't understand how something can be capable of not existing and not have a cause, therefore it cannot be so.

I don't have 100% certainty that because I can't think of a logical argument to demonstrate this to be the case. And apparently neither can anybody else.

You are telling me that all there is to this argument is that nothing is nothing and something is something that something can come from.

But you fail to show how this leads to "something capable of non-existence must have a cause"

Again, show me the logical inconsistency in:
Code: 
There exists an x such that:
  if x exists then x might not exist
  x does not have a cause
 
Robin said:
Here is the nub of the problem. You have 100% certainty that something that was capable of not existing must have a cause. 100% certainty.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I am claiming exactly what I you are saying I am claiming. I have made the counterfactual claim to the one you specified:

"Something which is NOT capable of not existing cannot have a cause."

or more correctly:

"Something which could NOT have failed to exist cannot have had a cause, unless it was necessarily caused by something-else which could NOT have failed to exist."

Do you agree with that?

Again, show me the logical inconsistency in:
Code: 
There exists an x such that:
  if x exists then x might not exist
  x does not have a cause
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

This translates into:

There is an x such that:
x is contingent (x might not have existed)
x is causeless

Could you give me an example of something which is both causeless and contingent?
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Then "external reality" is a necessary thing.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

You need to be more clear about exactly what you mean. Are you saying that "physical reality"/"The whole of the Universe" is/maybe a necessary thing? Are you saying that even though the individual parts of the the universe are contingent, the totality is necessary? If so, on what basis are you concluding this?
 
JustGeoff said:
"Something which is NOT capable of not existing cannot have a cause."

or more correctly:

"Something which could NOT have failed to exist cannot have had a cause, unless it was necessarily caused by something-else which could NOT have failed to exist."
Click to expand...

Well, if we consider the post-inflation universe to be completely deterministic, then ALL things cannot have failed to exist. With this assumption, only the universe itself is in question.

I have a question. You say that God is the necessary cause of the universe (unless I'm mistaken.) But, obviously, this necessary (atemporal) cause could've been something else, right ? I mean, it wouldn't necessarily be anything that one could label as "god" one way or another.

Do you agree ? And if you do, could this something be the oft-posited original singularity ? (okay.. that's 2 questions)
 
JustGeoff said:
What you are really asking is "What is the point in philosophy, anyway?"

The answer is that if you are talking about what difference it makes to the cogs and wheels of life as people live it on a daily basis, then not much. But philosophical ideas cannot be said to have had no influence on the development and structure of the civilisation we live in. Philosophy, and changes in philosophy, are some of the most basic structural components guiding the course of history. So on the level of the bigger picture, they are amongst the most important ideas and important debates that have ever seen the light of day. Try to imagine the history of the western world without Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Newton, Galileo, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietschze, Heidegger, Wittgenstein..... I can't. Their ideas have shaped the course of history. It's no mere co-incidence that the last six of these men were Germans and that it was the actions of Germany as a nation which determined much the course of 20th century history. It was the aftermath of WWII which led to the establishment of the state of Israel. These events are still dictating the course of history.
Click to expand...

Wheels and wagons....

Besides that, please don't tell me what I am really asking...I know what I'm asking...I'm the one who asked...

For example, I can see the point in say, coming up with the harm principle, because it provides a philosophy to live by, and can be used as an explanation for personal action...

Marx obviously caused a great deal of things to happen...

What I can't see is what effect this particular topic might have...however I would be honestly interested in being enlightened as to any potential application of the discussion of this particular issue...
 
Last edited:
DreadNiK said:
Marx obviously caused a great deal of things to happen...

What I can't see is what effect this particular topic might have...however I would be honestly interested in being enlightened as to any potential application of the discussion of this particular issue...
Click to expand...

Marx's philosophy was a direct descendent of Hegel's philosophy. Hegel's philosophy is a very sophisticated offshoot of these particular issues. All this stuff is related.
 
Geoff said:
You need to be more clear about exactly what you mean. Are you saying that "physical reality"/"The whole of the Universe" is/maybe a necessary thing? Are you saying that even though the individual parts of the the universe are contingent, the totality is necessary? If so, on what basis are you concluding this?
Click to expand...
I'm saying that some sort of "external reality" or "external existence" or "physical reality" is necessary. The details are contingent. I'm concluding this on the basis that I feel like being argumentative.

~~ Paul
 
JustGeoff said:
Conclusion:

The real situation, whether you are a materialist or not a materialist, is that we can indeed tell the difference between a physical process and a subjective experience. We may wish to claim that "in some way" they are one and the same thing. So they appear to be both the same and different, depending on how you look at it. This I can tolerate. But I cannot tolerate any more supposedly intelligent people trying to tell me that they are indistinguishable, identical and that they have no idea what I mean by "inherently subjective". I'll tell you what I mean by "inherently subjective". I mean the experience of seeing red. Even if you think that "in some unknown way" experiences and brain processes "are the same thing" you also know d*mned well that in another very obvious way, they are also different. The brain process is objective and the subjective experience is, well, subjective. So at the very least we have "two different perspectives on the same thing".

You can claim the two perspectives are somehow two perspectives on "the same thing". But do not insult my intelligence by expecting me to believe there are not even two perspectives. And once you accept that there are two perspectives then there is no need to go on claiming you don't know what "subjective" means, or what minds are, or how experiencing red is "anything over and above a physical processes". It is "over and above" a physical process simply on the grounds that all other physical processes have only one perspective and only in this case is there a second one. So the thing which is "over and above a physical process" is the subjective experiences associated with the relevant brain activity. Now, what the consequences of this are going to be for the wider worldview of the materialist is no immediate concern of mine - and whether or not you think this disproves materialism is another matter entirely. Maybe the problem can be solved. Just do not try to tell me you do not even know what the problem is, because you might just as well tell me that Jesus fed five thousand people with a single basket of fishes. And that would be stupid, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...


This, Geoff, is like that old analogy about the brain as radio and conciousness as a broadcast from "God". Whereas the radio can be taken apart and the circuitry studied...but by doing thus one would never be able to experience a radio show. Quantifying voltages across the radio's components tells one nothing of the antics of Amos and Andy, and yet the two are inextricably linked.

Personally I like that analogy. It's eloquent. However the brain does not seem to be such a simple device. There is no detectable signal from God...and the brain seems more a computer with conciousness as an evolved OS. I think it's something that someday medical/computer science will solve...perhaps by creation of a synthetic "brain" that is capable of or even attains conciousness?? That'd be pretty intense no? ;) Of course even then we'd still not be able to answer whether or not our creation experienced "red" as do we.

Such questions are more properly handed over to logic...where we can expect William of Ockham to answer a simple "yes".

-z
 
JustGeoff said:
I think this thread has run out of steam. :)
Click to expand...

This thread died several pages ago. Right now it is a shambling zombie waiting for someone to beat it over the head with a blunt object Shaun of the Dead style.
:D
 
JustGeoff said:
I'm not sure I am claiming exactly what I you are saying I am claiming. I have made the counterfactual claim to the one you specified:
Click to expand...
Do you have a time machine????? Or psychic powers?

You made the claim on 20th June 2006, 09:40 AM here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1714342#post1714342

I questioned your certainty on 22nd June 2006, 12:59 AM here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1714342#post1714342

More than two days later.

So what you are saying now is that this statement:
JustGeoff said:
Why do people have so much trouble grasping this most basic principle? You can say "We can't be sure" as many times as you like. It doesn't make it true. We can be 100% sure. Nothing comes from Nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Click to expand...
was posted as a counterfactual to my questioning of the claim more than two days later?

No, Geoff, let's get it clear. You made the claim I asked you to justify the claim.

This translates into:

There is an x such that:
x is contingent (x might not have existed)
x is causeless

Could you give me an example of something which is both causeless and contingent?
Click to expand...
Let's get this clear, contingent has more than one definition, here are two:
1. might not have existed
2. dependent on or conditioned by something else

They cannot be used interchangeably unless you can show that they are equivalent.

You are starting your argument with one definition then finishing it with the other. Otherwise you are assuming that the definitions are equivalent - in other words you are assuming your conclusion.

And in any case, asking for examples is not a valid reasoning process. Similarly I can't give you an example of something that is causeless and must have existed. And neither can you.

And incidentally, did this thread have any steam to begin with?
 
Robin said:
And incidentally, did this thread have any steam to begin with?
Click to expand...

Yes, it was posted while I was on dope-diet revising for my exams. I was all steamed up. :)

I'll try to answer your query tomorrow - my brain needs a break.
 
JustGeoff said:
Yes, it was posted while I was on dope-diet revising for my exams. I was all steamed up. :)

I'll try to answer your query tomorrow - my brain needs a break.
Click to expand...
LOL. Well, that would explain a lot. You started out gung-ho to bash some materialists (one in particular, who doesn't even post here, as far as I know) for their stupidity. Over time it is my impression that your position has mellowed to; "Materialism is fine unless you want to discuss something immaterial." ;)

Hope you did well on your exams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom