My argument against materialism

[Robin]

Auṃ- That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. If you subtract the infinite from the infinite, the infinite remains alone.

This is one way the hindus put it, think on the bit in bold

Can you cite the source?

 

[AlBell]

I shall remember it if my metaphysic ever comes under serious attack.

I shall not defend it with vigour but with reason. If it cannot be defended with reason then I shall relinquish it.

Any attack is at ontological axiom level and you can no more defend your choice than anyone else by appealing to epistemology.

 

[Robin]

Any attack is at ontological axiom level and you can no more defend your choice than anyone else by appealing to epistemology.

Anyone who attacks any metaphysical position using ontology would first have to justify the validity of ontology.

So I am not holding my breath for that.

When you boil it down, Materialism is defined functionally - that everything, including our minds, is ultimately governed by some combination of necessity and chance.

Idealism, on the other hand, must contend that mental things such as will, cognition and understanding are not reducible to a combination of necessity and chance, that they are things in and of themselves.

If I had to defend a position I would rather be defending the former, rather than the latter.

 

[annnnoid]

What follows is taken from the infinite speculation of the theoretical tadpole: chapter 2, verses 9-21 (a book within the transcendental volume known as: Ugtdmq [see below]).

- that everything, including our minds, is ultimately governed by some combination of necessity and chance.

Including the cognitively adjudicated categories known as ‘necessity and chance’. But ‘necessity and chance’ are functions of that peculiar category of materialism known as ‘consciousness’ (if there were no human consciousness…would ‘necessity and chance’ occur as necessity and chance?). So far there is endless disagreement over whether ‘consciousness’ is an ontological or epistemological category (and which precedes which anyway?). It would appear to be unique in that regard. IOW…the cognitive scientist exploring ‘consciousness’ is, ultimately, not seeking a comprehensive map of neural correlates (a futile proposition anyway…as has been demonstrated elsewhere), or a sufficiently robust theory of mind, he/she is asking the thought (or moment-of-being) to identify its true nature (it’s not an atom, or a cell, or a galaxy, or a mathematical construct…it’s seeking the identity of the ability to seek identity…understanding as revelation as opposed to information [epistemology seems to become somewhat circular at this point][vast implications…explored more comprehensively in ‘ruminations of the inebriated frog’…chapters negative 3 through root 8 ¼ ]). The ontology of epistemology (the identity of the processes of knowing I suppose,,, requiring, it would seem, a new epistemology [what was it you said once, about the deficiencies of science?]). At which point we discover whether idealism or materialism actually prevails, or if there is some new variety of ‘ism’ to be articulated. If anyone cares to take a look around the current cognitive landscape (or the historical one)…there is a place where being and knowing intersect. Classically, it is referred to as ‘mysticism’. Functionally…I’d say it’s just normal. Or is ignorance normal? Certainty and self-knowledge are infinitely more parsimonious than ignorance and endless confusion (especially when shaving), however bizarre the conclusion.

When you boil it down, Materialism is defined functionally

Essentially…materialism is defined by something with the capacity to do so (which is hardly trivial…the computationlists dream of proving themselves meaningless notwithstanding). The question is the nature of that ‘something’. A function of ‘necessity and chance’ (which are nothing more than conceptual categories [of qualifiable accuracy] describing something yet to be understood)…or some kind of guiding principle behind/within it. I think HypnoPsi argued reasonably persuasively for the latter (to the degree that anything can be argued for anything).

All philosophical references taken from the ultimate guide to dubious metaphysical quantities. AKA:….Ugtdmq….a word with about as much meaning as the contents therein.

 

[AlBell]

Anyone who attacks any metaphysical position using ontology would first have to justify the validity of ontology.

So I am not holding my breath for that.

When you boil it down, Materialism is defined functionally - that everything, including our minds, is ultimately governed by some combination of necessity and chance.

Idealism, on the other hand, must contend that mental things such as will, cognition and understanding are not reducible to a combination of necessity and chance, that they are things in and of themselves.

If I had to defend a position I would rather be defending the former, rather than the latter.

So by necessity and chance you have your position; I'll continue to choose to believe that, at least by some tiny chance, will exists.

ps. Try not to run too many red lights 'at random'.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Any attack is at ontological axiom level and you can no more defend your choice than anyone else by appealing to epistemology.

Defending one's choice by appealing to epistemology is a prerequisite for knowing.

I'm not quite sure what an ontological axiom is. Can you give me a few examples?

 

[AlBell]

Materialism True or Idealism True or Dualism True are the usual.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Materialism True or Idealism True or Dualism True are the usual.

Can you tell me the difference?

ETA: Given that this is what you mean by axioms, I suspect something's going on with the definitions. I'm not sure there's a difference in an ontological stuff between "thing which behaves like quarks that is matter", or "thing which behaves like quarks which is mind". I suspect there is no actual difference, just an imagined one.

 

[AlBell]

Will/Intent/Teleology/Purpose. Does not, cannot, exist if choice is Materialism.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Will/Intent/Teleology/Purpose. Does not, cannot, exist if choice is Materialism.

There are many people I know of who call themselves materialists who believe will, intent, and teleology do exist. So this sounds like a straw man.

What's more, if you seriously believe that materialism suggests this, perhaps you are misunderstanding materialism.

 

[AlBell]

Someone does, Two wise to be.

BTW, I have no interest in continuing this discussion, here, and now. I've been around the track too many times. I won't convince you, nor you, me.

 

[Nonpareil]

Will/Intent/Teleology/Purpose. Does not, cannot, exist if choice is Materialism.

So?

 

[AlBell]

Was your response determined, or random?

 

[Nonpareil]

Was your response determined, or random?

False dichotomy. It is neither fully determined nor fully random. It is stochastic.

 

[annnnoid]

False dichotomy. It is neither fully determined nor fully random. It is stochastic.

AKA...I don't know so I'd better cover all the bases to make it look like I do.

 

[The Norseman]

AKA...I don't know so I'd better cover all the bases to make it look like I do.

AKA...I don't know anything about stochastic processes so I'd better say something to cover the fact I just got pwned.

 

[The Norseman]

annnoid: "Well, is it black or white? Which is it?"

Argent: "It contains a bit of both, actually. We call it 'gray'."

annnoid: "So you really don't know and are just trying to cover your bases! LOL"

 

[Robin]

Was your response determined, or random?

My response was determined by me.

 

[Robin]

I think HypnoPsi argued reasonably persuasively for the latter

Really, who did he persuade?

I wish people would stop talk about arguments when no actual argument has actually been presented.

 

[annnnoid]

annnoid: "Well, is it black or white? Which is it?"

Argent: "It contains a bit of both, actually. We call it 'gray'."

annnoid: "So you really don't know and are just trying to cover your bases! LOL"

N-man….apparently somewhat lacking in insight.

Simple fact. N-man. Argent hasn’t a clue whether it’s random or anything else and neither do you. Call it whatever you want (stochastic…that must mean we know exactly what’s going on here….wrong!). One thing is certain…science it ain’t. You can babble till the cows come home…nobody knows the truth of the realities that we function as. Course, that doesn’t stop anyone from believing they do. It’s called religion.

But thanks all the same Norseman. Some JREFers are simply not worth responding to. You’ve now become one of them. Poster’s who I can be all but certain will never say a single thing worth reading ever.

Welcome to the ‘ignore’ list.