Most irritating theological argument ever

[Interesting Ian]

Neither do I. However, I do know enough to know that it isn't out of the question that science may one day be able to explain consciousness.

That's interesting. So, you know something which in principle is impossible

 

[Upchurch]

What is the keyboard?

Why does it function the way it does?

What are the elements of its composition?

Where did it come from?

Why is it on my desk and for what purpose?

Materialism doesn't answer any of those questions.

????

How can you honestly this? The keyboard is a product of materialism based science. Here are the answers to those very questions:

1. The keyboard is device that transforms mechanical input into electrical input.
2. It works by a series of switches that open an close when a key is pressed sending a pre-arranged series of electrical signals
3. It is composed primarily of plastic, copper, and paint (probably with other elements as well).
4. This specific keyboard came from Dell in California.
5. It is on my desk because I placed it there for the purpose of inputing signals into my computer.

All answered under the assumption of materialism. Do you still think materialism doesn't answer any of these questions despite the answers above?

I think not.

Apparently, but perhaps you should open your mind to trying.

How can there seem to be a mind-independent reality since by definition such a reality must forevermore be beyond what we could possibly perceive?

Why must it "forevermore be beyond what we could possibly perceive"? I'm perceiving it right now!

On the contrary, nothing is. WE do not perceive this mysterious material world. All we are aware of are qualia.

Oh? and from the immaterialists world view, where do qualia come from and why does it decieve us into perceiving a material world? Why do I perceive that my desk is hard and brown and that my keyboard clicks and is black if my desk and keyboard are not the source of the perception?

And according to the materialist, qualia are not really constitutive of the furniture of reality.

That's right. According to the materialist, qualia are a consequence of reality, not the reality itself. So what?

 

[Upchurch]

That's interesting. So, you know something which in principle is impossible

Only if you hold a very narrow and closemined view of what is possible.



There is so much to know, Ian. Why close your mind to so much?

 

[Upchurch]

You clearly don't understand my position. I have never claimed that my position denies the external world operates according to physical laws. Simply because mind is the prime reality doesn't entail that the derived reality (ie the physical world) is entirely manipulable at will.

Ah, this part I didn't understand. You're not denying that physical/material world exists at all. Okay.

How, then, do you come to the conclusion that the mind is the "prime reality" and what does that mean?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Ah, this part I didn't understand. You're not denying that physical/material world exists at all. Okay.

How, then, do you come to the conclusion that the mind is the "prime reality" and what does that mean?

I am interested in what he has to say to that question too.

Ian, if I am misunderstanding your postion could you please briefly explain what your position is? Or at the very least point me in the right direction to do some google searches. Otherwise well be talking right past each other.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Materialism doesn't answer any of those questions.

????

How can you honestly this? The keyboard is a product of materialism based science. Here are the answers to those very questions:

1. The keyboard is device that transforms mechanical input into electrical input.
2. It works by a series of switches that open an close when a key is pressed sending a pre-arranged series of electrical signals
3. It is composed primarily of plastic, copper, and paint (probably with other elements as well).
4. This specific keyboard came from Dell in California.
5. It is on my desk because I placed it there for the purpose of inputing signals into my computer.

All answered under the assumption of materialism. Do you still think materialism doesn't answer any of these questions despite the answers above?
Apparently, but perhaps you should open your mind to trying.
Why must it "forevermore be beyond what we could possibly perceive"? I'm perceiving it right now!
Oh? and from the immaterialists world view, where do qualia come from and why does it decieve us into perceiving a material world? Why do I perceive that my desk is hard and brown and that my keyboard clicks and is black if my desk and keyboard are not the source of the perception?
That's right. According to the materialist, qualia are a consequence of reality, not the reality itself. So what? [/B]

I really don't think there is any further purpose in pursuing this conversation. You need to obtain a good grounding in metaphysics. Same goes for you Nyarlathotep. Hope this doesn't offend you both.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Hope this doesn't offend you both.

Who are you and what did you do to the real Ian?

 

[Interesting Ian]

I am interested in what he has to say to that question too.

Ian, if I am misunderstanding your postion could you please briefly explain what your position is? Or at the very least point me in the right direction to do some google searches. Otherwise well be talking right past each other.

I essentially subscribe to Berkeley's position ie subjective idealism which is a type of immaterialism.

The best introduction to my position can be obtained here

A slightly more in depth exploration of my position can be obtained here

For a more in depth look at Berkeley's position (which is very similar to my own), then go to this website.

 

[Yahweh]

You don't need to know anything about science. I'm talking about philosophy.

Ian, you may have missed a comment I made previously, but I'll repeat it here and hope your read it:

Consciousness and qualia are described by Congnitive Neuralscience, they cannot be described by Philosophy.

First, keep Philosophy and Science seperate, you wont get anything accomplished.

To address a few of your concerns all at once, I'll answer them right now:

"Assumption of materialism"
Materialism is not assume, Einstein was the first to put an end to the millenia old debate of the existence of atoms.

See this page as a timeline of Einsteins work.

I can go into vast detail describing the existence of atoms if Einstein doesnt impress you... (Note: That last statement was a bit of subtle observational humor, but I can still describe atoms in detail...)

And to sum up my stance on Materialism: Everything that exists can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena.

You clearly don't understand my position. I have never claimed that my position denies the external world operates according to physical laws. Simply because mind is the prime reality doesn't entail that the derived reality (ie the physical world) is entirely manipulable at will.

I agree, the things that occur inside the mind cannot alter objective reality.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian, you may have missed a comment I made previously, but I'll repeat it here and hope your read it:

Consciousness and qualia are described by Congnitive Neuralscience, they cannot be described by Philosophy.

They cannot be described at all, full stop (or period as you yanks say).

First, keep Philosophy and Science seperate, you wont get anything accomplished.

Oh dear me.

To address a few of your concerns all at once, I'll answer them right now:

"Assumption of materialism"
Materialism is not assume, Einstein was the first to put an end to the millenia old debate of the existence of atoms.

See this page as a timeline of Einsteins work.

I can go into vast detail describing the existence of atoms if Einstein doesnt impress you... (Note: That last statement was a bit of subtle observational humor, but I can still describe atoms in detail...)

It might interest you to know that my Ph.D that I am studying for is concerned with how Berkeley regarded the microscopic realm. I come to the conclusion that Berkeley quite unmistakably embraced the existence of corpuscles (atoms) in his last work (siris), and even in his early work, written in his 20's, he never explicitly denied the existence of the microscopic realm.

Anyway, one can be a immaterialist (idealist) and quite consistently believe in the existence of atoms, electrons, protons, quarks etc. I would say, however, that maybe the belief in something like gravitational force (as in an existent superimposed on reality as it were) perhaps has some tension with immaterialism.

 

[Yahweh]

They cannot be described at all, full stop (or period as you yanks say).

Welcome to the world of Science, while it may be incomplete in some respects, we (as scientists with a thirst for blood and scientific advancement) have a habit of appending to science.

Oh dear me.

It might interest you to know that my Ph.D that I am studying for is concerned with how Berkeley regarded the microscopic realm. I come to the conclusion that Berkeley quite unmistakably embraced the existence of corpuscles (atoms) in his last work (siris), and even in his early work, written in his 20's, he never explicitly denied the existence of the microscopic realm.

First, congratulations on that PhD.

Second, although I am unfamiliar with Berkeley (I'll research him in depth and get to you later), I do know about corpuscles. However, I dont think you were making reference to red and white bloodcells.

Anyway, one can be a immaterialist (idealist) and quite consistently believe in the existence of atoms, electrons, protons, quarks etc. I would say, however, that maybe the belief in something like gravitational force (as in an existent superimposed on reality as it were) perhaps has some tension with immaterialism.

Makes sense to me.

There is one problem, you previously stated above (in big bold text) the following:

BTW I do not believe that materialism explains anything at all. Could you name anything at all that materialism explains and how it does this?

Unless I'm calling myself the wrong word, I define myself as a materialist. I believe everything can be explained in terms of matter (all things which objectively exist are made of matter) and natural phenomena (This includes interactions between matter and energy, qualia which is described in all those neat cognitive neurosciences, and "mind" which is described in cognitive social sciences which include cognitive psychology).