My argument against materialism

[clown]

Wow, 66 pages of posts and still, nothing of the essence was said . On one side, we have a person that misunderstands and uses interchangeably words used to describe reality with reality itself (takes what is essentially a map used to describe area as mountains themselves). On the other, we have people asking why and asking him to prove that small blue thing he is calling lake is actually 100 tons of water...

Madness, I tell you, pure madness. .

And there is also almighty confusion of terms with consciousness interchangeably used with words such as matter, energy, intelligence and (probably) soul. That's why I dislike metaphysics so much. Stop turning in circles people, and start talking in the same language!

 

[laca]

What is energy?
can you conceive the answer?

Yes. It's only you who can't.

I use observations of nature to ponder the nature of what is inconceivable to humansme.

bolded part mine
Stop projecting.

For example it is inconceivable;

to an ameoba to breath air,
to an ant to use a mobile phone,
to my cat to fly in an airoplane,
to a man in an uncontacted Amazonian tribe that his body is made of countless spherical atoms.
to a dolphin that the ocean is on the surface of a sphere.

It is conceivable that every living thing we know would find aspects of reality which humanity is aware of inconceivable.

In order for a being to be able to find something inconceivable, it has to be able to conceive in the first place. You think amoebas can conceive? How about ants? Cats? Dolphins?

The example with the human fails too. The ignorant cannot conceive what it doesn't know about, that's true. But that doesn't mean it's inconceivable. I'm sure with proper education and evidence most humans would be able to conceive what their bodies are made of.

Why should humans be any different?

They shouldn't. But they are.

Are we in full possession of the facts?

No.

Take a look at the "what do we know" thread.

Why? Where?

 

[Robin]

I have accepted that "what energy is" is a meaningless category within materialism.

It is a meaningless category within anything.

As I have pointed out many times, if you have any question "What is X?" and an answer "X is Y" then you only have another question "What is Y?" and so ad infinitum.

That has nothing to do with Materialism - the same would be true of any metaphysic.

"What is..." questions ultimately cannot have any answer other than "it is what it is".

Why do you think that your mysticism delivers you from that conundrum?

 

[laca]

Thankyou for such an interesting post.

I have refrained from discussing consciousness in this thread because as stated in my previous post, I have no argument with the materialist explanation of it. Apart from the position adopted by some that the materialist position is the whole truth and to consider that there is anything else is ridiculous or nonsense.

No, it's untestable and therefore an exercise in futility only.

My position is that there may be aspects of life and consciousness which are at this time unknown to science.

As is everyone else's I'm aware of.

My reference to true self relates to spiritual exercise and is usually applicable only when the assumption of the existence of a "God" is accepted.

However my position is that this exercise is a valid and usefull exercise like yoga, jogging or meditation for example, even if said God doesn't exist (along with heaven or nirvarna).

No. You would have to substantiate that claim. You cannot.

To address your point, I appreciate how it is medically known how such brain injury effects consciousness. The way I see it is rather like a radio, you are yourself when you are receiving a signal and you can hear the music. However if the tuner does not work or a transistor is broken you don't hear music, or the signal is not being received. In this case you would not be yourself.

Re-read the post, this time aiming for comprehension.

 

[laca]

It is a meaningless category within anything.

As I have pointed out many times, if you have any question "What is X?" and an answer "X is Y" then you only have another question "What is Y?" and so ad infinitum.

That has nothing to do with Materialism - the same would be true of any metaphysic.

"What is..." questions ultimately cannot have any answer other than "it is what it is".

Why do you think that your mysticism delivers you from that conundrum?

I would say it's not so much thinking that it does, as not realizing that it doesn't.

 

[punshhh]

Wow, 66 pages of posts and still, nothing of the essence was said . On one side, we have a person that misunderstands and uses interchangeably words used to describe reality with reality itself (takes what is essentially a map used to describe area as mountains themselves). On the other, we have people asking why and asking him to prove that small blue thing he is calling lake is actually 100 tons of water...

Madness, I tell you, pure madness. .

And there is also almighty confusion of terms with consciousness interchangeably used with words such as matter, energy, intelligence and (probably) soul. That's why I dislike metaphysics so much. Stop turning in circles people, and start talking in the same language!

Hi, welcome to the thread, I am not confusing the map with the mountains, I'm just trying to get a group of map readers a drawers to put the map down for a minuite and look at the mountains.

The circles are a kind of locking of horns, I would love to tell it straight to these guys, but you wouldn't believe the riot of laughter it would produce and would would probably result in a visit to "la Hospital" for someone or other.

 

[laca]

The circles are a kind of locking of horns, I would love to tell it straight to these guys, but you wouldn't believe the riot of laughter it would produce and would would probably result in a visit to "la Hospital" for someone or other.

Are you even listening to yourself?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Hi, welcome to the thread, I am not confusing the map with the mountains,

You are confusing the map with the mountains. The next have of your statement actually shows this:

I'm just trying to get a group of map readers a drawers to put the map down for a minuite and look at the mountains.

 

[Belz...]

I understand that materialism is a branch of philosophy, Wiki etc explains this. But aren't you saying that philosophy is a waste of time?

Yes, which is why we switched to science.

Is materialism a belief or conviction that matter is the only thing that exists and all known phenomena can be explained through an understanding of how matter interacts?

Who cares ? We've already explained to you that what matters is how stuff behaves.

I doubt science will be able to describe the nature of a singularity any time soon.

We'd first have to show that they exist.

 

[punshhh]

Yes, which is why we switched to science.



Who cares ? We've already explained to you that what matters is how stuff behaves.



We'd first have to show that they exist.

I think we are now in agreement.

 

[tsig]

Hi, welcome to the thread, I am not confusing the map with the mountains, I'm just trying to get a group of map readers a drawers to put the map down for a minuite and look at the mountains.

The circles are a kind of locking of horns, I would love to tell it straight to these guys, but you wouldn't believe the riot of laughter it would produce and would would probably result in a visit to "la Hospital" for someone or other.

Go on tell us straight.

 

[tsig]

I doubt science will be able to describe the nature of a singularity any time soon. It may be able to in principle, however the problem of the laws of physics loosing their relevance in the event horizon presents a gulf between what we can understand through the laws of physics and a singularity which doesn't make any sense.

I have accepted that "what energy is" is a meaningless category within materialism. However we are discussing science here and I would expect scientists to want in principle to find out what energy is. If a scientist where to discover something new about energy by accident for example, I am sure there would be lots of experimentation into it.

My point about how energy does what energy does is a valid point. It is harking back to the question of how time, space and energy operate, producing existence, a mystery to science I presume.

I have no argument with the materialist explanation of consciousness. However rather like the previous point materialism as presented here does not concern itself with what life and being is.

How do life and being differ from life and being?

 

[punshhh]

It is a meaningless category within anything.

As I have pointed out many times, if you have any question "What is X?" and an answer "X is Y" then you only have another question "What is Y?" and so ad infinitum.

That has nothing to do with Materialism - the same would be true of any metaphysic.

"What is..." questions ultimately cannot have any answer other than "it is what it is".

Why do you think that your mysticism delivers you from that conundrum?

I do hear you Robin, I do also see this conumdrum.

My mysticism does not deliver me from it, it accepts it along with other conumdrums as consequences of exercising reason.

I see no reason why it is either invalid to ask or to experiment in an attempt to discover what energy is. Just like it was valid to ask what atoms are and what light is at earlier stages of our scientific understanding.

 

[punshhh]

Go on tell us straight.

As Manuel would say in Fawlty Towers "I knoww naathiing".

And neither does anyone else.

 

[punshhh]

How do life and being differ from life and being?

What is life? and how did it, or does it begin?

 

[Belz...]

What is life? and how did it, or does it begin?

Do you seriously not know the answer ?

Several of your questions seem more philosophical than skeptical or scientific. We did just agree that philosophy is useless in these matters, did we not ?

 

[dafydd]

As Manuel would say in Fawlty Towers "I knoww naathiing".

And neither does anyone else.

Speak for yourself.

 

[dafydd]

What is energy?
can you conceive the answer?

I use observations of nature to ponder the nature of what is inconceivable to humans.

For example it is inconceivable;

to an ameoba to breath air,
to an ant to use a mobile phone,
to my cat to fly in an airoplane,
to a man in an uncontacted Amazonian tribe that his body is made of countless spherical atoms.
to a dolphin that the ocean is on the surface of a sphere.

It is conceivable that every living thing we know would find aspects of reality which humanity is aware of inconceivable.

Why should humans be any different?
Are we in full possession of the facts?

Take a look at the "what do we know" thread.

Troll.

 

[laca]

As Manuel would say in Fawlty Towers "I knoww naathiing".

While you presented a compelling case for that in this and other threads, I'd still argue you must know something.

And neither does anyone else.

For the umpteenth time, please stop projecting.

 

[Belz...]

And neither does anyone else.

YOUR lack of knowledge is not indicative of any one else's.