My argument against materialism

[Robin]

It is, of course, a profoundly incomprehensible mystery that this universe has somehow created a race of creatures with some manner of capacity to decide their own fate. With the ability to evaluate their own condition and take responsibility for achieving something that might be described as harmony, balance, understanding (or not). Somehow the ability to choose must come with the ability to choose incorrectly. The issue of personal responsibility/free will lies at the very heart of human nature. What it means, whether it exists, and how or if it is achieved are issues that are ultimately unanswerable.

Let me rephrase somewhat more econonically. How did the universe produce an animal with the capability of understanding and influencing it's own environment?

Still a profound question but not so incomprehensible.

It simply becomes an individual question: how will I live my life?

Not a matter of epistemology - a matter of decision.

Religion has all the answers, but religion doesn’t know what they mean or where they come from (a broad generalization).

Speak for yourself. Don't tell me that religion has all the answers about how I should live my life.

Science has none of the answers, so there’s no need to even look there (yet).

Neither science nor religion will ever have that particular answer in my case. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Science doesn't tell you not to walk off a cliff, but it can tell you what will happen if you do.

Religion is prescriptive but I will not be looking to fill that prescription.

I personally know a number of people who love their children profoundly and would likely cut off their arm before they allowed any variety of abuse to occur.

But then again there are people who believe that they love their children profoundly but who perpretrate a variety of abuses. Both groups believe that they love their children. So is the belief reliable? Or would we have to look to the behavioural evidence of love?

My impression of the epistemology is that it is supremely functional….under very specific conditions.

What conditions would those be?

A stopped clock is supremely functional in displaying the correct time ... under very specific conditions.

 

[dafydd]

So, what was the point again?

When will someone please clearly state this "case against materialism"???

I have no clue what the case is. Punshhh and Annniod seem to be unable to express it.

 

[dafydd]

Y’know Halfcentaur…I’ll consider that. Because…as Mr. Fincher said “you’re not in control”…so, who knows???? Maybe you didn’t even write it. Like, how do you know you did? And would you even know, if you didn’t?

As for being smug….

…dude…I just finished a twenty odd page challenge to point out the massive mistake of someone’s ‘smugness’

Smug Scientism run amok.
-I post a list of every word that describes any experience any human being could ever have (and quite clearly describe it as exactly that)
-Dude says we can and have detected every single one of them (like fMRI stuff)
-Twenty odd pages later…..after dealing with multiple interventions by hostile skeptics
..and one suspension
…turns out the ‘truth’ (as in ‘non-smug-position), as explained by Professor Rees., Director of the Cognitive Science Department of University College London
…he says ‘we can handle reasonably straightforward cases in limited ways because of limited interpretive abilities and the all but infinite number of possible cognitive states’
-..so, from "everything" we end up at "limited cases"
-twenty pages later….smug-be-gone….

There’s a song up here in Canada. Kind of famous. A one-hit-wonder kind of thing. The title of it went “what’s going on”?

Simple question. Kinda weird that no one knows the answer. Sounds like a big question though. Is it ‘smug’ to ask it? Personally, I think it’s ‘smug’ to presume you’ve answered it.

If you look up the word smug in a dictionary there will be a picture of you there.

 

[annnnoid]

Case in point. Another fine example of smug scientism.

And, surprise, surprise, if asked why you love your children, or what is love, science provides the best way to answer the question.

So science can answer ‘why’ we love our children. This will come as news to just about everyone…from the American Psychological Association….to every parent alive today. Perhaps you could provide some kind of evidence to support this absurd claim?

As for what love is? Science has yet to come anywhere close to answering what being/consciousness is…so how is it science can now answer what ‘love’ is?

Science has lots to say about electro-bio-chemical processes. Science cannot and does not have the slightest thing to say about love (you want to talk about love, you read Shakespeare…not Shrodinger). Science, as Robin quite clearly pointed out, is descriptive. If you’re so convinced otherwise, perhaps you could demonstrate what, exactly, it is about the human experience of ‘love’ that science is capable of describing?

I don't recall anyone saying that the current science wasn't limited.

Then you weren’t reading very closely were you.
...and when it comes to human nature (love, for example), you sure seem to have some truly fantastical ideas of what it's capabilities are.

Btw, I'm still waiting to see the emails you said you were happy to show us...

I guess you still weren’t reading very closely.

 

[devnull]

I have no clue what the case is. Punshhh and Annniod seem to be unable to express it.

Well then, wouldnt that mark the end of the conversation?

 

[PixyMisa]

I wonder if annnnoid even grasps the fact that he was wrong.

 

[annnnoid]

If you look up the word smug in a dictionary there will be a picture of you there.

…a withering insult from dafydd.

Dictionary….picture.….me…..smug.

It is truly regrettable that ‘ignore’ only works when I’m signed-in. As I said to tsig….you only confirm your irrelevance with every post.

 

[Dancing David]

But energy isn't a form of matter...

Really, what do you think matter is, I make this statement all the time over in the SMT forum, I have not been corrected yet.

Matter is energy, which is why the double slit experiment happens and BEC exists. Perhaps you are using different defintions I am?

 

[annnnoid]

I wonder if annnnoid even grasps the fact that he was wrong.

I wonder if Pixy realizes what it says about Pixy that he feels the need to post such a thing?

Just saying ‘annnnoid is wrong’ over and over and over isn’t going to make it so Pixy.

 

[Robin]

So science can answer ‘why’ we love our children. This will come as news to just about everyone…from the American Psychological Association….to every parent alive today. Perhaps you could provide some kind of evidence to support this absurd claim?

As for what love is? Science has yet to come anywhere close to answering what being/consciousness is…so how is it science can now answer what ‘love’ is?

Science has lots to say about electro-bio-chemical processes. Science cannot and does not have the slightest thing to say about love

So you are quite confident that love has nothing whatsoever to do with electro-bio-chemical processes in our brains?

Do you have any evidence of this?

 

[PixyMisa]

So science can answer ‘why’ we love our children.

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

This will come as news to just about everyone…from the American Psychological Association….to every parent alive today.

[citation needed]

As for what love is? Science has yet to come anywhere close to answering what being/consciousness is…

The fact that you don't like the scientific understanding of consciousness in no way alters the existence of that understanding.

so how is it science can now answer what ‘love’ is?

The usual way: Forming coherent predictive naturalistic hypotheses - and testing them.

Science has lots to say about electro-bio-chemical processes. Science cannot and does not have the slightest thing to say about love

You rather assume your conclusion there, don't you?

Science, as Robin quite clearly pointed out, is descriptive. If you’re so convinced otherwise, perhaps you could demonstrate what, exactly, it is about the human experience of ‘love’ that science is capable of describing?

How and why and where and when.

Then you weren’t reading very closely were you.

[citation needed]

...and when it comes to human nature (love, for example), you sure seem to have some truly fantastical ideas of what it's capabilities are.

[citation needed]

I guess you still weren’t reading very closely.

[citation needed]

 

[Lord Emsworth]

What's the illusion
of an illusion?

Is this a serious question? If yes, you might wish to rephrase.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

So, what was the point again?

When will someone please clearly state this "case against materialism"???

I have no clue what the case is. Punshhh and Annniod seem to be unable to express it.

This is to be expected, you see. All the answers, spiced up with the inability to understand what they mean.

 

[dlorde]

Perhaps you could provide some kind of evidence to support this absurd claim?

The short answer is evolution - for a species like ours, where a mating pair have relatively few offspring that are dependent for a considerable time, there is a strong selection pressure in favour of those who protect and nurture their offspring before all else, during their vulnerable period.

As for what love is? Science has yet to come anywhere close to answering what being/consciousness is…so how is it science can now answer what ‘love’ is?

It is the powerful emotional attachment by which the protective and nurturing requirement (above) is manifest.

Science, as Robin quite clearly pointed out, is descriptive.

Indeed - so science can describe the evolutionary origins of love, and consequently, its purpose.

If you’re so convinced otherwise, perhaps you could demonstrate what, exactly, it is about the human experience of ‘love’ that science is capable of describing?

See above.

Then you weren’t reading very closely were you.

Someone said the current science was unlimited in its capabilities? Please post the link - ISTR someone saying that all the states on the list you posted could be discerned/distinguished by measuring the activity of the brain, but no more than that...

...and when it comes to human nature (love, for example), you sure seem to have some truly fantastical ideas of what it's capabilities are.

Not really, it's pretty straightforward - although, I suppose, to someone unfamiliar with the science of the last couple of centuries it might seem fantastic.

I guess you still weren’t reading very closely.

I'm sorry, did I miss a link or a post containing those emails? Or did you withdraw the offer?

If I missed the emails, please post/repost the link - or perhaps the other thread contributors can do so. Thanks.

 

[dlorde]

Really, what do you think matter is

I probably wasn't clear - what I meant was that matter is a form of energy, but energy isn't matter, like ice is a form of water, but water isn't ice.

 

[dafydd]

...we use an awful lot of words that we don't really know the meaning of

You do. I don't.

 

[dafydd]

…a withering insult from dafydd.

Dictionary….picture.….me…..smug.

It is truly regrettable that ‘ignore’ only works when I’m signed-in. As I said to tsig….you only confirm your irrelevance with every post.

Of course you are the final arbiter when it comes to irrelevance. Are you ever going to answer a question?

 

[dafydd]

What's the illusion
of an illusion?

Oooh,how clever.

 

[dafydd]

Well then, wouldnt that mark the end of the conversation?

The thread has passed it's expiry date. Still,punshh and annnoid continue to be amusing.

 

[dafydd]

Is this a serious question? If yes, you might wish to rephrase.

He stopped being serious a while ago.