Materialists......

[articulett]

It's getting tough to keep up with this thread ... so, somewhat randomly ..


articulett, psst, articulett

Please respond to my questions to you:

Do you know what "epistemology" means?

Do you know what "ontology" means?

Do you contend epistemology answers onotological questions in any way?

If so, how?

Yes Hammy...in fact I learned it in a communications class from a professor who was one of the poorest communicators I have ever known. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that has to do with how we know what we know and the nature of knowledge...ontology is the branch having to do with beingness. I suppose that philosophical terms help answer philisophical questions in the same way that religious teaching help answer religious questions--whether they are useful or meaningful answers or questions is another question however. I know you believe in intelligent design. I was raised with religion and had fun with new age woo for a stint--I understand the nature and supposed importance of all this stuff...Like the term "free will", I think it is ultimately misleading and that it promotes a sort of backward egotistical kind of thinking that makes understanding the facts difficult. These things remind me of some forms of modern art--certainly they can be meaningful to some people, but not "getting them" or finding meaning in them is not a sign of ignorance--just like not like opera is not a sign of ignorance. Like modern art they seem to cause some people to see meaning that is not intentional and to think they are special for seeing this meaning. Unlike modern art, however, these "philosphies" seem to make some people unable to use the tool of skepticism to the full extent to separate facts from fiction while making those same people absolutely blind to that ignorance.

 

[articulett]

I wish I had written this, but it was Natalie Angiers: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/angier_24_5.htm

Being on the frontlines in the recent attempt to get ID taught in science class, I think its time that to quit catering to any woo notion that comes down the pike...and start teaching others the skills needed to understand what we know about the world including the egotistical way humans tend to fool themselves. Spreading the lie about materialism = nihilism, arrogance, or p-zombies...or even that materialism is "illogical" and/or that subjective feelings are as good a way as knowing something as facts just exacerbates the ignorance. It is only in your head, justgeoff that you think you are so far beyond me, Paul, Belz, Robin, and all others you roll your eyes at and attempt to "enlighten" with philosophical ********. I don't care how many isms you plug in or how you try to tie it to quantum mechanics, you still are spinning BS. The nice thing about science is that you don't have to speak philosophy or believe a certain way to understand it--it's not something we need justgeoff or any self described guru to translate for us. To me, you are just a more eloquent version of Interesting Ian, and you seem to only be convincing yourself.

 

[articulett]

Hmm, that sounds like straight ego loss. Generally higher doses of LSD (250 mikes or so) will obliterate the "I" for awhile (although it can be a very traumatic process, especially if you do not understand what is happening and confuse it with death or become afraid that your ego will never reform), and you can supposedly do the same thing through meditation.

I saw Stone Phillips have a transcendent experience with a persinger helmet--which uses magnetism to induce nirvana--and Cliff Pickover talks a lot about DMT and transcendent experiences...and recent science articles show that people taking psilocibin mushrooms report profoundly transcendent experiences of personal profundity leading to beneficial outlook. Even religious ecstacy has been shown to often involve epilepsy in a certain portion of the brain (the temporal lobe, I believe). But what do I know, I'm just a materialist, and I don't think I've had any actual transcendent experiences, though in my woo years, I convinced myself I had. I'm too afraid of the dark recesses of my mind to try hallucinogens--but maybe when I'm old.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Articulett,

Since you appear to be the only person who has got anything left to add, and since what you have to add is an irrelevant load of nonsense, I guess this thread has finally reached retirement.

I will respond to you once more only, in the vague hope you might actually read the response.

I see...Justgeoff and Hammy believe they are the ones uniting religion and science by pretending that the extremists on both side are extreme in the same way.

Strawman #1:

I did not pretend that scientistic extremists and religious extremists were identical. I just said they were both extremists.

But religion is extreme in that it all about "truth" coming from faith and feelings and science is all about useful truths built upon measurable facts and evidence....

Are you ready for this one........

THIS THREAD WAS AN ATTACK ON MATERIALISM, NOT SCIENCE.

Oh, I can't be bothered. You are a complete idiot.

I have as much right to speak on this forum as you and from what I read, I seem to be as understood as you are or moreso.

Of all the people who have posted in this thread, you have understood the least and contributed the least (of any value, that is - there has been plenty of irrelevant nonsense).

Go away. You are back on ignore.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Didn't say it was -- just noted that the I-zombie concept appears to not be the same as a p-zombie concept, in that there are people who can convincingly claim to have (temporarily, generally) lost their "i", but no-one (with the possible exception of lifegazer) can make convincing claims to p-zombiehood.

But there are many people who have become p-zombies with respect to portions of their subjective experience. People with blindsight, prosopagnosia, and so forth.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm not sure I'd say that "Mind is the thing that percieves objects". I said that "my mind is the sum total of all the things that I am aware of." I will stick to that definition.

I don't like it. I'm watching a butterfly, so the perception of butterfly is part of my mind. I look a way for a moment and lose part of my mind. I look back and it pops back into existence. It makes mind a fleeting, discontinuous jumble.

It's still a p-zombie. You do not need a new term. Without an "I", he has no mind. The "I" is not the mind, but the mind still depends on there being an "I".

Okay.

~~ Paul

 

[Belz...]

No, you are going to have to try much harder than that.

Harder ? Just because things APPEAR in a way doesn't mean they are. What more do you need ?

Looks like you are a dualist then.

That's the most ridiculous thing you could ever call me. I don't believe in a soul. You might also have noticed that the quote you responded to had quotation marks around it, indicating it was not MY position. You see, I'm not 100% sure my mind exists.

 

[Belz...]

OK...you do know I'm not an idealist, yes?

That shouldn't stop you from answering a question. I know you're not an idealist, yes.

Do you think that cats and dogs see objects? I assume they must. But they do not "conceptualise" anything.

It is a difficult subject area though. Kant famously claimed that everything must be cognised through a certain fundamental set of "categories". A.D. Smith completely disagrees with him and claims that perception does not require any prior conceptualisations.

Eh? So didn't you experience anything as a toddler?

Well, apparently you didn't understand what I said. I wasn't talking about experiencing. I was talking about idealism. If the entire world is in your mind, where do those concepts and shapes come from, if you didn't have prior experience of them ?

 

[Belz...]

Actually - a better question would be "what appears to exist?" or "how does reality manifest to me?" Jumping straight to "what exists" is too hasty.

This is a bit confused. The world as you experience it clearly does exist in some capacity, because that is what you have already established. The "something" which you already say exists is "the world as you experience it".

Then replace "the world as I experience it exists" by "the world as I experience it exists independently".

This is called the problem of other minds. How do you know that anybody else has a mind?

Well, I just mentionned that other people might not exist at all. If they don't, that kinda removes the whole problem of minds, doesn't it ?

You do realise I am a realist, yes? In no way do I deny that the world is real.

Geoff, I wasn't talking to you specifically. I was explaining my position.

I just deny the claim that material reality is ultimate reality in the way that materialists claim it is.

On religious ground, as we've seen.

If you don't want to do mental gymnastics, stay away from philosophers.

That's what I usually do. I prefer empirical truth to self-gratifying monologue. No offense.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not sure who the quote is from. I know I disagree with it.

I made it up. I was trying to illustrate a point.

What one should be 100% sure of is that the thought exists that "I exist", and that "I" interact with "the world".

I've said several times before. And I've said so in my little essay back there: if the "world" is suspect, then so is "I".

The conclusion doesn't follow from any of the premises. I disagree with little you posted, yet am as firmly an objective idealist as I've ever been.

Epistemology does not answer ontological questions.

The only answers that really matter are those of the kind provided by science, because they're not open to interpretation, and they don't take our dreams and hopes into account. Things are what they are and they do what they do. People can do philosophy all they want, but they should realise that it doesn't lead them to the "truth", it only leads them to an opinion.

Sorry if you think so. I am not trying to be pretentious and condescending.

Geoff, you're telling people you know their position better than they do. Of course you're trying to be condescending. Otherwise you'd simply say you disagree.

 

[Belz...]

All the normal rules of cognition gets obliterated and self-consciousness gets obliterated and all sorts of other things get seriously messed up, but somewhere under the mess there is still an "I".

An unsupported assertion if there ever was one.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't like it. I'm watching a butterfly, so the perception of butterfly is part of my mind. I look a way for a moment and lose part of my mind. I look back and it pops back into existence. It makes mind a fleeting, discontinuous jumble.

To a large extent, that is precisely what it is.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Harder ? Just because things APPEAR in a way doesn't mean they are. What more do you need ?

What you need is a credible explanation of WHY they are not as they appear. Materialists and idealists do not have this. Neutral monists do. Neutral monism is a claim that even though reality appears dualistic, it is actually monistic. Materialism just claims it is monistic and cannot account for the apparent dualism - so it either has to try to pretend there is no apparent dualism or it has to claim that "minds are matter" without any basis for making the claim. This is what leads to all its problems and why so many arguments defending materialism are critically dependent on assuming it is true.

You see, I'm not 100% sure my mind exists.

I am never quite sure how to respond when somebody says this. If you are telling me you are a p-zombie, I can't argue with you.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That shouldn't stop you from answering a question. I know you're not an idealist, yes.



Well, apparently you didn't understand what I said. I wasn't talking about experiencing. I was talking about idealism. If the entire world is in your mind, where do those concepts and shapes come from, if you didn't have prior experience of them ?

I still don't understand the question. If the entire world is in your mind, then the entire world is in your mind. What's the problem?

I have no idea why you think there is a problem. Please explain exactly what you mean.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Then replace "the world as I experience it exists" by "the world as I experience it exists independently".

That's a whole different issue. It is a lot harder to conclude it exists independently.

Well, I just mentionned that other people might not exist at all. If they don't, that kinda removes the whole problem of minds, doesn't it ?

Yes, but it leaves you with solipsism.

On religious ground, as we've seen.

That's completely untrue. I have offered no religious arguments at any point.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Geoff, you're telling people you know their position better than they do. Of course you're trying to be condescending.

Sorry, once more. I can't help it if I understand materialism better than most materialists do. It is not my fault that most skeptics are ignorant of philosophy. It's theirs, for deliberately ignoring it.

 

[DreadNiK]

Sorry, once more. I can't help it if I understand materialism better than most materialists do. It is not my fault that most skeptics are ignorant of philosophy. It's theirs, for deliberately ignoring it.

Typical. "I am going to tell people what they believe, then tell them they are wrong. I am teh philosophy guru and I know best."

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Typical. "I am going to tell people what they believe, then tell them they are wrong. I am teh philosophy guru and I know best."

You do accept that a significant proportion of the people around here believe the whole of philosophy is a complete waste of time, yes? You do not have to have a Ph.D. in philosophy to know more than someone who openly admits they know little/nothing about the subject and also states that they do not think they are missing out on anything because of this.

Put me in a room full of undergraduates trying to make sense of [insert obscure continental philosopher here] and you will not find me telling other people what to think.

 

[DreadNiK]

You do accept that a significant proportion of the people around here believe the whole of philosophy is a complete waste of time, yes? You do not have to have a Ph.D. in philosophy to know more than someone who openly admits they know little/nothing about the subject and also states that they do not think they are missing out on anything because of this.

Put me in a room full of undergraduates trying to make sense of [insert obscure continental philosopher here] and you will not find me telling other people what to think.

So you only strawman non-philosophers...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So you only strawman non-philosophers...

I don't strawman anybody.