Beliefs: how do they work?

[Dancing David]

And you can imagine the experiment. Therefore if materialism is true, it is indistinguishable from idealism?

I think the argument both ways here is flawed?

cj x

Nope it is true, until there is a meaningful distinction we can act as though quanta of energy, butterfly dreams and godthought are all equivalent.

there is no privileged place, no privileged perspective, objectivism still applies as a way of predicting the behavior of reality.

 

[RandFan]

PS: I always find it funny how solipcistic/idealistic/post-modernist believers use logic to support their illogical beliefs where if their claims are true, logic would not apply in their fantasies at all. More hypocrisy.

I couldn't agree more which is why I asked Malerin why he would bother to convince others of his solipsism. None of us exist but he gives a damn about what we think. Go figure.

 

[RandFan]

Hey isn't this just an attack on Malerin, not his position? A major ad hominem? Can't you rewrite it to make it less so?

No. It's an attack on his position.

And why would logic not apply in idealism? Logic is presupposed in most theistic belief systems after all - say Aquinan theology. The idealist universe would still have laws of physics for example?

It's the whole using doubt to justify any belief you want.

Premise: We can't prove that what we percieve as a material world is in fact material or that what we know of as reality didn't start 5 minutes ago.
Conclusion: All beliefs are equally justified and god is a distinct possibility.

If you use this argument then the laws of physics and logic don't apply.

In other words, you don't get to have your cake and argue that logic and reason only apply when you want them to.

 

[RandFan]

A lot of armchair philosophers like this form of idealism because, since it is so ill-defined, it allows for such things as parapsychological phenomena, reincarnation, various forms of deities and so on. In the end, though, it is equivalent to materialism because none of those things actually exist.

Bingo.

 

[paximperium]

Hey isn't this just an attack on Malerin, not his position? A major ad hominem? Can't you rewrite it to make it less so?

It is an attack on his position and a statement concerning his actions and hypocrisy.

It isn't an ad hom because it doesn't attempt to undermine his entire argument just by throwing insults.

It undermines his argument by showing his dishonesty and how he does not act or live his life as as someone who believes what he spews. It undermines his argument by contrasting his thought process with other similar woo-believers. It undermines his argument by showing how the is completely inconsistent with applying his "philosophical claims" to his pet theistic belief but hypocritically does not do so with reality itself. In other words, it undermines his argument by showing he is all talk and no action.

And why would logic not apply in idealism? Logic is presupposed in most theistic belief systems after all - say Aquinan theology. The idealist universe would still have laws of physics for example?

Because his position that the universe/reality based on his vague solipcistic version of idealism somehow allows his to make this illogical claim that "All possibilities are plausible/equal." is as illogical as the thought process of a schizophrenic.

Monkey jumps making a star eat fish, magic pixies or I can fly because I'm Zeus is as logical a premise as a+b=c, I could get into a car crash tomorrow or god is possible.

 

[Prometheus]

It is an attack on his position and a statement concerning his actions and hypocrisy.

It isn't an ad hom because it doesn't attempt to undermine his entire argument just by throwing insults.

It undermines his argument by showing his dishonesty and how he does not act or live his life as as someone who believes what he spews. It undermines his argument by contrasting his thought process with other similar woo-believers. It undermines his argument by showing how the is completely inconsistent with applying his "philosophical claims" to his pet theistic belief but hypocritically does not do so with reality itself. In other words, it undermines his argument by showing he is all talk and no action.

Because his position that the universe/reality based on his vague solipcistic version of idealism somehow allows his to make this illogical claim that "All possibilities are plausible/equal." is as illogical as the thought process of a schizophrenic.
<snip>

To be fair, actually Pax, your response to Malerin is an Ad Hominem. I agree that his arguments in this thread thus far are hogwash, and what you say about his character may even be true. Nevertheless, your response is about him and his behaviour--not about flaws in his actual arguments. This is the heart of the Ad Hominem fallacy; no matter how bad a person or a pattern of behaviour is, there's always the possibility that his arguments are correct--until you actually look at those arguments.

 

[RandFan]

This is the heart of the Ad Hominem fallacy; no matter how bad a person or a pattern of behaviour is, there's always the possibility that his arguments are correct--until you actually look at those arguments.

The behavior goes to the argument. If you argue that I don't exist and then you carry on an argument with me it's kinda difficult to buy your argument.

I understand what you are saying but the point is, if you don't believe your argument then why should I?

 

[Prometheus]

The behavior goes to the argument. If you argue that I don't exist and then you carry on an argument with me it's kinda difficult to buy your argument.

I understand what you are saying but the point is, if you don't believe your argument then why should I?

That may well be a useful approach to dealing with people IRL. In terms of logical argument, however, it's still a fallacy.

 

[paximperium]

Nevertheless, your response is about him and his behaviour--not about flaws in his actual arguments.

I understand your point. However, unfortunately this goes into the heart of his claim.
I did not refute his "arguments" because they have been dismantled multiple times even in many other threads and see no need to jump into it.

There is no known way to "prove" Idealism since the cosmos acts for all intent and purpose to be materialistic. An unfalsifiable claim is nothing more than naval gazing semantic juggling. Therefore we can only judge the actions of the claimant to determine the underlying purpose of the claim or whether this person actually believes in his/her claim to determine the sincerity of the claimant.

We can easily see that he repeats his claims and arguments ad nauseum despite them being refuted multiple times.
We can easily see that he refuses to "test" his claim but always finds some cop-out excuse.
We can easily see he selectively applies his "philosophy" only to things with zero repercussion.
eg. If he wants to prove his belief to himself, he just needs to jump out a window, but he doesn't instead he always finds some silly excuse.

We can CONCLUDE that he does not believe in his own argument and instead has some other agenda.

 

[RandFan]

That may well be a useful approach to dealing with people IRL. In terms of logical argument, however, it's still a fallacy.

As one who leaps to his feet constantly to yell "fallacy" I have to take your admonition with some degree of humility. If person A make an argument and person A acts contrary to the argument then the behavior of person A doesn't render the argument incorrect and to say so is fallacy.

I'm not doing that.

As humans we have adrenal glands that are too big and frontal lobes that are too small to permit us to only make decisions based on reason and logic sans all emotion and intuition. It's unreasonable to think that rhetorical devices should never be used to persuade.

"If you don't accept your argument then why should I even consider it" is an appropriate use of rhetoric so long as one does not state, you don't accept your argument therefore it is wrong. Further, the rebuttal, you are only making and ad hominem argument misses the mark. If you are trying to persuade me that shaving my head will make me virile and rich and you don't shave your head and you lack any argument other than to state, you can't disprove idealism then I've got wonder why you don't shave your head.

The question still holds, if you don't believe your argument then why should I?

 

[Prometheus]

I understand your point. However, unfortunately this goes into the heart of his claim.
I did not refute his "arguments" because they have been dismantled multiple times even in many other threads and see no need to jump into it.

There is no known way to "prove" Idealism since the cosmos acts for all intent and purpose to be materialistic. An unfalsifiable claim is nothing more than naval gazing semantic juggling. Therefore we can only judge the actions of the claimant to determine the underlying purpose of the claim or whether this person actually believes in his/her claim to determine the sincerity of the claimant.

We can easily see that he repeats his claims and arguments ad nauseum despite them being refuted multiple times.
We can easily see that he refuses to "test" his claim but always finds some cop-out excuse.
We can easily see he selectively applies his "philosophy" only to things with zero repercussion.
eg. If he wants to prove his belief to himself, he just needs to jump out a window, but he doesn't instead he always finds some silly excuse.

We can CONCLUDE that he does not believe in his own argument and instead has some other agenda.

I think the claims you make here are essentially correct. However, as you point out yourself, Idealism is an unfalsifiable position. That being the case, there's no need--nor even any possibility--of going 'into the heart of his claim'. The sincerity (or lack thereof) of his claim is irrelevant. I fear that by attempting to argue against such a position, you're just falling victim to classic trolling.

 

[RandFan]

I fear that by attempting to argue against such a position, you're just falling victim to classic trolling.

Welcome to the forum. Yeah, that's what we do. I've no problem with it so long as someone is acting more like a human being than a spam bot. So long as that person is contributing something of substance. The idealism vs materialism discussion is a valid one and I think it can be enlightening for those who are following along. By pointing out the inconsistency of someone like Merlin you expose the vapid notion of idealism as anything that should be acted on or used to justify any other beliefs.

Hell, perhaps Pax and I are wasting our time but then, you can't disprove idealism. So there.

 

[paximperium]

Welcome to the forum. Yeah, that's what we do. I've no problem with it so long as someone is acting more like a human being than a spam bot. So long as that person is contributing something of substance. The idealism vs materialism discussion is a valid one and I think it can be enlightening for those who are following along. By pointing out the inconsistency of someone like Merlin you expose the vapid notion of idealism as anything that should be acted on or used to justify any other beliefs.

Hell, perhaps Pax and I are wasting our time but then, you can't disprove idealism. So there.

I think that Prometheus is confusing a logical philosophical argument and a debate/rhetorical argument.

The philosophical argument on an unfalsifiable claim is worthless and goes no where, so all we have left to really argue about is whether Idealism has any relevance to reality or to our lives.

We can conclude that that idealism is only useful as a theistic cop-out and has little relevance to anything else.

 

[Prometheus]

I think that Prometheus is confusing a logical philosophical argument and a debate/rhetorical argument.

Not confusing the two, but aiming for the former. If your actual intent is to engage in the latter, then I have no problem with that. Apologies.

The philosophical argument on an unfalsifiable claim is worthless and goes no where, so all we have left to really argue about is whether Idealism has any relevance to reality or to our lives.

We can conclude that that idealism is only useful as a theistic cop-out and has little relevance to anything else.

Very good. Carry on.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

For the record, it's not a personal attack to challenge someone to cough up something to support his or her claims. Nor is it considered a personal attack to question a person's credibility if it's relevant to the discussion, to point out that a person doesn't live according to his or her professed beliefs (since it's more an attack on said beliefs) or to state contempt for the tactics a person uses in a discussion, again if it's relevant. There was a thread about this in Forum Management. My reply on page 6 sums up my take on this.

Anyway--

Here's a simple rule of evidence: if X is consistent with theories A,B,C, then X cannot be evidence for theory A, B or C. For example, suppose the police have three suspects for a murder. Carpet fiber evidence comes in, and wouldn't you know it, all three suspects have the same brand and color of carpet. Because the evidence is consistent with all three suspects, it cannot be used as evidence to single out any of the three suspects. They can each point to the other when confronted by the "evidence".

Your analogy is failing already. We do not have evidence that is equally consistent with the suspects, rather we have your postulating the mere possibility of alternate realities. Possibility does not equal plausibility, especially if that's all you have to go on, and you can't reasonably draw any conclusions about our current reality from purely speculative alternatives.

Again, if we had already discovered "glitches in the system" like in The Matrix then you'd have good reason to hold these outside realities on equal footing. If however the illusion of reality were absolutely flawless, then it's really not a problem for materialism because this reality is all that's ever going to concern us, and the outside reality is never going to affect our lives in any meaningful way. Furthermore, the evidence we gather and conclusions we draw could only apply to the reality we live in, regardless of the illusion.

What you are essentially doing is insisting that we consider alternate suspects who happen to be intangible ghosts with ghost carpets, and then suggesting the fibers could have come from them as well.

Likewise, the information you get from your senses when you look at your wife is consistent with countless competeing theories of reality (a vivid dream, an experience machine, a computer simulation, an actual person, etc.). Yet you continue to cling to the idea that your sensory evidence is proof your wife is an actual person (and proof of materialism, overall). Since your sense-data is consistent with other competing realities, I could just as validly say that you seeing your wife every day is evidence of her being a dream figure (actually, that would be invalid, since the sense-data couldn't support any model of reality, but you get the point).

You didn't substantiate your countless competing theories of reality, you just asserted that they're possible without demonstrating how sense data could be consistent with them. By your logic, creationism and evolution are equally likely to be true and the evidence could fit either one, just because creationism has been brought up as a 'possible alternative.'

I see this in a lot of atheists- materialism is assumed from the get-go and evidence is then made to fit the theory, rather than the other way around. You continue to say "abuse of skepticism", but you are the one who can't seem to question your core beliefs. As I said, it's a curious intellectual blindspot I've noticed in strong theists/atheists.

You continue to appeal to your personal Pyrrhonic skepticism while failing to grasp that most skeptics around here regard skepticism as the demand for evidence, whether it concerns God, alternate realities, or whatever. Might the conclusions I currently accept be wrong? Of course they could. However it would take evidence to convince me, not the mere suggestion of the possibility of alternate realities, or the assertion that they somehow deserve an equal share of the same evidence.


If solipsism were true, then you'd better hope that the one true existent is an atheist. After all, an atheist would be far less likely to believe in his or her godlike powers and use them to wish you into the cornfield.

 

[Dancing David]

Certain arguments are used to defend a lack of evidence, the greatest of these came in a plasma cosmology thread where a poster claimed:

"I am an agnostic on fusion in stars." and this is the way it runs, you claim that you are an agnostic on something that has a reasonable data base to explain it in a hypothetical sense. This then allow you to claim that therefore all sorts of nonsense should be tolerated that does not have a reasonable data base to explain it. (Like how the Electric Star model explains the Hersprung-Russell diagram.)

Then you act as though you are on the moral high ground because you are an agnostic, it is a great defense for lack of evidence.

 

[Malerin]

::Munches popcorn::

This is getting entertaining.

So if a smoker claims that smoking is bad for your health, he's lying?

Props to Prometheus (and CJ) for pointing the fallacy out, even though he doesn't agree with me. On anything.

 

[Malerin]

No. I don't "cling" to anything. A brain in a vat or an experience machine would still render the same results so who cares? I experience love and my wife seems real. I care and believe that she is real. However I don't really have a choice. Pretending that she isn't real won't solve anything. In fact it is irrational and would likely cause me a lot of heartache and headache.

So you believe she is real, not because of any evidence, but because the negation of that belief would cause "a lot of heartache and headache". Oh, and she "seems" real. "Seems" an odd way to justify a belief.

This is dishonest on your part because you already know that I've questioned my core beliefs.

Not really

I'm fine with idealism. No clinging. No dogmatic beliefs.

I'm just honest enough to admit that I can't beat the locked room test.

You on the other hand, well, you are the one who can't question your core beliefs because if you did you would have to admit that your internal feelings or experiences aren't worth squat.

As evidence, they're not. I've been saying that countless times. Sense-data, internal feelings, and experiences are consistent with countless models of reality. I think you're becoming confused about what the argument is.

You use cars and computers and the rest because you, like me, have no choice. God? Well, we have a choice about that and there is no evidence. Unlike my wife who I can see every day and pretending she isn't there won't make it true.

More appeals to sense-data and how things "seem". Because it seems a certain way, it must be true! The sun goes around the Earth, am I right?

And why does how I act have anything to do with the argument I make? I'm a little surprised you would commit such an obvious fallacy.

For the record, I have not stated that I am a solipsist or idealist. The most I have claimed here is that idealism has an epistemological advantage over other "isms", and that I lean towards theism (out of personal experience, which I have admitted is a faith-based belief). Arguing that solipsism and idealism are possible (or as likely as anything else) does not make one a solipsist or idealist. It makes one an agnostic and skeptic, qualities which are sorely lacking here.

And, as CJ pointed out, an idealist or solipsist does not have to behave in any different way if they believe the solipsist or idealist reality they find themselves in has certain rules and is internally consistent. Getting hit by a "dream" truck might hurt just as bad as getting hit by a "real" truck.

 

[Nick227]

The only thing you are demonstrating is the placebo effect. In other words it is only effective at making you feel better. The point that you are missing is that the the active ingredient (for lack of a better term) is the belief not the act. I've no doubt that we could convince people that praying to a jug of milk is effective and therefor it would be as effective. Your point is only one of technicality.

Actually, the active ingredient is the expectation. Whether the point is a technicality depends on how you're looking at things. One could also state that natural selection inevitably chooses our gods as it works on our genes.

Anyway, you asked the question.... "To date no one has disputed the argument that prayer to god works no better than prayer to a jug of milk. Can you?".....and the answer is Yes, whether it destroys a pet theory or not, I'm afraid.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Likewise, the information you get from your senses when you look at your wife is consistent with countless competeing theories of reality (a vivid dream, an experience machine, a computer simulation, an actual person, etc.). Yet you continue to cling to the idea that your sensory evidence is proof your wife is an actual person (and proof of materialism, overall). Since your sense-data is consistent with other competing realities, I could just as validly say that you seeing your wife every day is evidence of her being a dream figure (actually, that would be invalid, since the sense-data couldn't support any model of reality, but you get the point).

I'm not a major expert on brain chemistry, Malerin, but my understanding is that the whole brain-in-a-vat argument is not really on such strong ground anymore. So I don't agree that there are "countless competing theories of reality." We are not watching a movie show.

Dan Dennett points out the issues with complexity, which are staggering. Susan Blackmore disputes the existence of a "stream of consciousness," and afaik to date no one has managed to find the hardware in the brain to create more than transitory representations.

This is not to say that it's impossible but that it seems unlikely.

Nick