My argument against materialism

[Robin]

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

Why not? Where is the incompatibility? Many people claim that there is this incompatibility but when you ask them to give the reasoning behind the claim they run away or become cryptic.

You cannot have an intention without comprehending something you cannot have comprehension without knowledge. So these things are necessarily complex.

There is volition and intention under Materialism, but there is also a recognition that these things require a mechanism

 

[annnnoid]

Really, who did he persuade?

God, the universe, and everything.

The argument is not infallible. It has flaws…as does every theory of first causes. To me it simply has fewer flaws than materialism in that particular regard. And just because I said he argued persuasively doesn’t mean he persuaded anyone. They're quite obviously two different issues. I found the whole construct rather elegant. Quite obviously, you did not. Doubtless the fact that he/she failed to respond to any of your explicit challenges didn’t endear you to either him/her or the position taken. I would have liked to read the response…if for no other reason than I haven’t heard such a position seriously debated before. Perhaps HypnoPsi will grace us with his/her presence again and take up whatever challenge you may wish to launch.

 

[Belz...]

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!).

Actually, we know quite a bit. But ignorance appeals to some, apparently. I guess it makes them feel right to say that science doesn't know squat in order to put it on equal footing with their nonsense. Then they point and say "Well I've got 50% chance of being correct", proving they don't know anything about probability, either.

Welcome to the ‘ignore’ list.

Wow, that was quick.

 

[Nonpareil]

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

Read the link.

Argent hasn’t a clue whether it’s random or anything else and neither do you.

Lie.

Call it whatever you want (stochastic…that must mean we know exactly what’s going on here….wrong!).

Straw man.

One thing is certain…science it ain’t.

Falsehood.

Try to think about what has been said to you before you speak. You might learn something.

 

[Nonpareil]

God, the universe, and everything.

Wrong answer.

 

[annnnoid]

Actually, we know quite a bit. But ignorance appeals to some, apparently. I guess it makes them feel right to say that science doesn't know squat in order to put it on equal footing with their nonsense. Then they point and say "Well I've got 50% chance of being correct", proving they don't know anything about probability, either.

Noam Chomsky: "Our understanding is thin, and likely to remain so." There are many who dispute your conclusion that 'we know quite a bit'. But that is secondary. Only a fool would argue that science is irrelevant or has nothing to say.

What it comes down to Belz, is that scientism is a religion that is most rampant amongst rabidly rational skeptics (go read what Scott Atran has to say about that if you want to understand the issue…..do you want to understand the issue?). The illusion of meaning becomes a substitute for every variety of truth (everyone does it, the problem is you skeptics think you’re special because your ‘facts’ are somehow different because they’re scientific). Science cannot tell you who or what you are. That is an unconditional, unquestionable fact. Life is not rational. That is an unconditional, unquestionable, fact. You, or Argent, can dredge up every variety of scientific construct you want. The simple fact is, they are all nothing more than constructs and you haven’t a clue how you understand a single one of them or why you constantly believe you need to. It’s called delusion. Welcome to the world of religion. You didn’t create it, and you don’t control it. Like the quote says, you’re just in charge.

 

[Robin]

God, the universe, and everything.

The argument is not infallible. It has flaws…

A major flaw is that it was not an argument.

as does every theory of first causes.

Some arguments from first causes are actual argument and can be addressed as such.

I would have liked to read the response…if for no other reason than I haven’t heard such a position seriously debated before. Perhaps HypnoPsi will grace us with his/her presence again and take up whatever challenge you may wish to launch.

My point was the HypnoPsi did not actually present an argument, he/she merely presented a collection of ideas with no real connection.

Whether or not we found that elegant is besides the point, it was not an argument. My challenge was to formulate it as an argument.

 

[yy2bggggs]

The illusion of meaning becomes a substitute for every variety of truth ...
Science cannot tell you who or what you are. That is an unconditional, unquestionable fact.
Life is not rational. That is an unconditional, unquestionable, fact.

I find it very difficult to take the above two claims seriously, especially with that qualifier, and most especially immediately after that complaint about the illusion of meaning. You appear to be doing nothing more than naysaying...

The simple fact is, they are all nothing more than constructs and you haven’t a clue how you understand a single one of them or why you constantly believe you need to. It’s called delusion. Welcome to the world of religion. You didn’t create it, and you don’t control it. Like the quote says, you’re just in charge.

...and mudslinging.

 

[The Norseman]

Actually, we know quite a bit. But ignorance appeals to some, apparently. I guess it makes them feel right to say that science doesn't know squat in order to put it on equal footing with their nonsense. Then they point and say "Well I've got 50% chance of being correct", proving they don't know anything about probability, either.



Wow, that was quick.

Yeah, it was. I guess it highlights the fact that his standards of behavior for others are far, far higher than his standards for himself.

Perhaps someone else can argue on his behalf and point out how I was wrong in my analogy?

 

[AlBell]

My response was determined by me.

Did you find some Will to help you out? If so, where did it come from?

 

[Dancing David]

Noam Chomsky: "Our understanding is thin, and likely to remain so." There are many who dispute your conclusion that 'we know quite a bit'. But that is secondary. Only a fool would argue that science is irrelevant or has nothing to say.

What it comes down to Belz, is that scientism is a religion that is most rampant amongst rabidly rational skeptics (go read what Scott Atran has to say about that if you want to understand the issue…..do you want to understand the issue?). The illusion of meaning becomes a substitute for every variety of truth (everyone does it, the problem is you skeptics think you’re special because your ‘facts’ are somehow different because they’re scientific). Science cannot tell you who or what you are. That is an unconditional, unquestionable fact. Life is not rational. That is an unconditional, unquestionable, fact. You, or Argent, can dredge up every variety of scientific construct you want. The simple fact is, they are all nothing more than constructs and you haven’t a clue how you understand a single one of them or why you constantly believe you need to. It’s called delusion. Welcome to the world of religion. You didn’t create it, and you don’t control it. Like the quote says, you’re just in charge.

Wow more straw.

 

[Nonpareil]

Wow more straw.

You get used to that pretty fast, with annnnoid.

 

[Belz...]

What it comes down to Belz

A common mistake, but you forgot the dots.

is that scientism is a religion

You're not starting your argument in a convincing way.

The illusion of meaning becomes a substitute for every variety of truth

Science is an illusion of truth ?

everyone does it

Here's that equivocation, again.

the problem is you skeptics think you’re special because your ‘facts’ are somehow different because they’re scientific

Baffling. Science has given us more answers than any other method in the history of man, and yet you now claim that those answers are no better than any other ?

Science cannot tell you who or what you are.

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. It sounds nice in a conversation, however, I'm sure.

That is an unconditional, unquestionable fact.

The universe was laid like a gigantic egg by a cosmic-sized Brown Chicken. That is an unconditional, unquestionable fact. Of course, it's a good thing that making a claim and covering it with another claim doesn't make the first claim true.

The simple fact is, they are all nothing more than constructs and you haven’t a clue how you understand a single one of them or why you constantly believe you need to. It’s called delusion. Welcome to the world of religion. You didn’t create it, and you don’t control it. Like the quote says, you’re just in charge.

Have fun using the products of our illusion to communicate over vast distances instantly.

 

[PixyMisa]

Not science but scientism, where scientism is, apparently, incontrovertible facts he doesn't like.

 

[punshhh]

Noam Chomsky: "Our understanding is thin, and likely to remain so." There are many who dispute your conclusion that 'we know quite a bit'. But that is secondary. Only a fool would argue that science is irrelevant or has nothing to say.

What it comes down to Belz, is that scientism is a religion that is most rampant amongst rabidly rational skeptics (go read what Scott Atran has to say about that if you want to understand the issue…..do you want to understand the issue?). The illusion of meaning becomes a substitute for every variety of truth (everyone does it, the problem is you skeptics think you’re special because your ‘facts’ are somehow different because they’re scientific). Science cannot tell you who or what you are. That is an unconditional, unquestionable fact. Life is not rational. That is an unconditional, unquestionable, fact. You, or Argent, can dredge up every variety of scientific construct you want. The simple fact is, they are all nothing more than constructs and you haven’t a clue how you understand a single one of them or why you constantly believe you need to. It’s called delusion. Welcome to the world of religion. You didn’t create it, and you don’t control it. Like the quote says, you’re just in charge.

I have been posting for a few weeks now and it has become apparent(not unexpected) that the materialists* don’t understand the language people like me and likewise yourself use.

It is rather peculiar that we use the same words, we are discussing the same things(at least on the surface, the same) and yet there is no meeting of minds.

The points on which the discussions break down are rather trivial on inspection and I see little meshing of ideas on which to build a bridge of understanding.

I drew an analogy the other day, I felt like a God of the gaps, my point in the thread kept falling through the “net” of materialist understanding. The larger holes are the separate disciplines or sciences, smaller ones are the mesh or framework of what can be described or known in materialist language or formulae. Yet finer is the mesh of materialist comprehension( or should it be reduction).

The net is cast wide, while remaining ever finite, it is cast deep into dark depths where the light of reason cannot see. Blind to the subtle truths that might pass right through even the finest of holes.

The very matter of materialism is so often discussed as some mental abstraction, while failing to find a purchase on the actual material itself.

Here we have two languages, I see little progress being made until a Rossetta stone of translation can be forged between us.


*I still don’t know with certainty what this group I am debating with is called.

 

[punshhh]

You see this part right here?

This is where you assume your conclusion.

Yes I know,

my infinite is formless

my finite has form

Now do you require a lack of assumption or an explanation or justification of the assumption?

As I am effectively blind to how this logic is formulated it is probably going to be easier if you actually construct the formulae itself and I help with the definitions I am trying to use.

 

[punshhh]

Here is one problem. You said earlier that when you say "finite" you mean "has form". However here you are describing "has form" in terms of "finite" which makes it circular.

It would be helpful if you used "finite" to mean finite and "has form" to mean "has form" and stop conflating these concepts.

yes I agree with this.

So when you say something "has form" you mean it can be described by science - is that a fair interpretation?

Now this is important in my line of thinking here, we must stick only to physical matter as understood by science.

But that basically means that it can be described by a mathematical model.

yes perhaps, I have yet to see a mathematical model describing an actual infinity.

And a mathematical model can describe something without boundaries.

Yes, however my point is that the unbounded quality of the thing(x) is only unbounded as a property of that finite thing(x). Its unboundedness is necessarily bounded by its being an aspect of a finite (x)

See my post to dlorde, I will return to the infinitely long rod.

So you still have not gotten anywhere.

I live in hope


Which questions do you mean?[/QUOTE]

Yes those were the questions I mean

 

[punshhh]

The explanation of the finite but unbounded has been given.


So? the explanation stands, regardless of your nonsensical (x)'s and 's.


?? please stop taking the piss.

If you think the explanation fails or is inadequate for some reason, state that reason clearly and in plain English.

Let me consider the infinitely long rod again;

My argument is that there can be no such thing, as the infinite length in itself would have to take the three dimensional rod with it into infinity.

Now when I imagine this, this is the result:

The rod would inevitably over a very great length curve around and meet itself "where it started" due to the curvature of space.
However it wouldn't be where it started as an infinitely long rod cannot have an end at either end.

So on meeting itself it would follow a course to one side of the previous loop, as arguably it could not occupy the same space simultaniously.

After an infinity of curving around, all the space in the universe would be occupied by an infinite number of loops.

Now for the rod to remain infinite it would require to be in an infinitely large universe to accomodate all the loops.

Hence we have an infinitely large universe consisting entirely of solid steel.

This is only an analogy, my point is any finite thing cannot have an aspect which extends infinitely in space or time. Or we end up back here, rather like the turtles all the way down.

So the unbounded finite thing must be bounded in some way.

 

[devnull]

I have been posting for a few weeks now and it has become apparent(not unexpected) that the materialists* don’t understand the language people like me and likewise yourself use.

No, we understand it.... it is just meaningless.

 

[punshhh]

Can you cite the source?

Sorry I could not find the source, it is an interpretation of the Mundaka Upanishad.

I will give you another reference on a more solid footing later, there are many references to the nature of Brahman in the various writings. It does not translate easily though and it is preferable to study them as a whole and develop an interpretation.