My argument against materialism

punshhh said:
You are already at your destination, you never left, you only remember this in your own way.
Click to expand...

"Departing from reality,
It's filled with an unholy beauty.
Why cannot this be so
With Life? So filled with longing
Of what will never be, and yet,
What will. Therein lies the only
Hope of sanity, as we blindly search
For that which we already have."
 
The Norseman said:
"Departing from reality,
It's filled with an unholy beauty.
Why cannot this be so
With Life? So filled with longing
Of what will never be, and yet,
What will. Therein lies the only
Hope of sanity, as we blindly search
For that which we already have."
Click to expand...

Not enough gibberish.

One unworthy worker's version on the verge of vernacular
Enter a sour house to do battle with spectacular Draculas
Lick tall walls to find them all sweeter than a cane
Pour the quick elixir in your wounds to ease the pain

Ooh, plum been runnin', buck a doz
Ooh, smoke banshee's honey, bee sting buzz
Ooh, plum been runnin', buck a doz
Ooh, smoke banshee's honey, bee sting buzz
 
The Norseman said:
"Departing from reality,
It's filled with an unholy beauty.
Why cannot this be so
With Life? So filled with longing
Of what will never be, and yet,
What will. Therein lies the only
Hope of sanity, as we blindly search
For that which we already have."
Click to expand...

My uncle is sick,but the highway is green.
 
PixyMisa said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

Mathematical modeling of what can't be tested or observed is speculation.

Does materialism have a way of conceptualising reality beyond the current horizon of verifiable understanding, or is it indifferent, or does it just ignore such possibilities?
 
punshhh said:
Mathematical modeling of what can't be tested or observed is speculation.
Click to expand...
Of course. But it's formal speculation rather than ill-defined handwaving.

Does materialism have a way of conceptualising reality beyond the current horizon of verifiable understanding, or is it indifferent, or does it just ignore such possibilities?
Click to expand...
Mathematics.
 
Two questions: Why can't inference give decent details, because so far the ONLY posit you've given eventually came through "experience" and the only experience I care to listen to comes from Hendrix.

My second question, is it that you give equal value to "other possibilities" no matter the ability (or lack thereof ) or your or anyone's ability to describe it? It seems you do, because you have real lack of ability in describing your point, yet you stick to it and won't attempt common ground (it is common ground, we aren't asking you to come down from your pedestal here, we just want you to describe what you're seeing)

The strongest part of materialism is that it does a DAMN good job of removing subjectivity from measurement and models. Perhaps that's why we fail to meet your requirements; we just don't work with experience or conviction. That will probably stay true for most areas of science.

And because Pixy's ever famous "one word answers" actually do irk me, I want to say that EVERYONE gets to use mathematics, it's not specific to materialism. You'd have to derive a postulation absent of mathematics, or at worst bastardizing it to formulate an argument agai......OOOOhhhh I see what Punshhh wants us to eventually come to.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
Mathematical modeling of what can't be tested or observed is speculation.
Click to expand...

Why would a sane person care about something that cannot be tested or observed?

punshhh said:
Does materialism have a way of conceptualising reality beyond the current horizon of verifiable understanding, or is it indifferent, or does it just ignore such possibilities?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "current horizon of verifiable understanding"?
 
What do you mean by "current horizon of verifiable understanding"?
Click to expand...

Do you mean "the vast unknown" by which OBVIOUSLY the inference of materialism has no grasp, nor ever can! You sure don't know what's in the current horizon of verifiable understanding, but you sure know enough about it to make that an argument, which is weak sauce.
 
Lowpro said:
Do you mean "the vast unknown" by which OBVIOUSLY the inference of materialism has no grasp, nor ever can! You sure don't know what's in the current horizon of verifiable understanding, but you sure know enough about it to make that an argument, which is weak sauce.
Click to expand...

Do you accept that the understanding of nature through science moves "forward", progresses?
If so this frontier of understanding is what I am refering to as a horizon and that which is not yet understood scientifically is by definition in a sense beyond that horizon.

I may not be up to speed with where this horizon is, however I am aware that it exists, though perhaps is described differently by scientists.
Perhaps the frontiers of scientific discovery is more palatable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom