My argument against materialism

[devnull]

Was materialism born out of the process of analysing scientific experiments, or was a philosophical discipline adopted by the scientists?

I guess sooner or later, making crap up was bound to get old.

 

[punshhh]

Try Materialism.

If that isn't sufficient, try this.

Thanks, I have already looked at these.

Really in order to discuss materialism with a materialist, surely it would be more precise for said materialist to state their position more precisely.
Otherwise I am faced with a moving target which keeps hiding behind science .

 

[punshhh]

I guess sooner or later, making crap up was bound to get old.

Thankyou, I remember the point you made about bananas near the beginning of the thread*.

So do you agree with me that materialists (not scientists) see existence through monkey tinted glasses?


*it may have been the 'there is no God thread'.

 

[Robin]

Thankyou, I remember the point you made about bananas near the beginning of the thread*.

So do you agree with me that materialists (not scientists) see existence through monkey tinted glasses?


*it may have been the 'there is no God thread'.

We all see everything through monkey tinted glasses.

Materialists, on the whole, try not to be in denial about the fact.

 

[punshhh]

We all see everything through monkey tinted glasses.

Materialists, on the whole, try not to be in denial about the fact.

If this is the case there may be a full spectrum of shades of which "monkey" is just one.

Another might be "organelle", another "computer".

 

[PixyMisa]

The thing about science is that ultimately, what glasses you wear doesn't matter, because science is about testing hypotheses against reality.

Any other approach means that your results are inevitably coloured by your beliefs; with science, in the end, your results are coloured only by what is real.

 

[dlorde]

So materialism is the sidekick of science, right?

In what sense? Like justice and the law?

If not, how can I distinguish materialism from science?

Using commonsense and their semantics.

I say this because I am often not sure if I am debating with scientists or "materialists".

Have you considered that they are not mutually exclusive?

 

[punshhh]

The thing about science is that ultimately, what glasses you wear doesn't matter, because science is about testing hypotheses against reality.

Any other approach means that your results are inevitably coloured by your beliefs; with science, in the end, your results are coloured only by what is real.

On the whole I agree with this, I would point out that science can only test what is conceivable by humans.

Also I try not to hold any beliefs, I do consider beliefs and may on occasion affiliate myself with them.

If one is considering what cannot be tested by science, one must use glasses or mirrors and be aware of ones limitations.

 

[dlorde]

If one is considering what cannot be tested by science, one must use glasses or mirrors and be aware of ones limitations.

Interesting. Can you provide an example of using glasses in such a consideration, and an example of using mirrors?

 

[punshhh]

In what sense? Like justice and the law?

In that what breakthroughs are made by science, materialism will surely follow.

Using commonsense and their semantics.


Have you considered that they are not mutually exclusive?

Yes, they are distinguishable aren't they?

 

[Robin]

Can you give me the unifying theory of materialism, or give me a reference?

I didn't make any reference to any unifying theory of materialism so I don't understand the question.

 

[Belz...]

So materialism is the sidekick of science, right?

If not, how can I distinguish materialism from science?

I say this because I am often not sure if I am debating with scientists or "materialists".

Considering what you've been told here, your ignorance is unjustified.

 

[Robin]

On the whole I agree with this, I would point out that science can only test what is conceivable by humans.

I wouldn't say that is necessarily true. For about a hundred years or so physics has gone slightly beyond that which humans can conceive.

If one is considering what cannot be tested by science, one must use glasses or mirrors and be aware of ones limitations.

The question is, if something is not testable by science - by what is it testable?

 

[tsig]

Interesting. Can you provide an example of using glasses in such a consideration, and an example of using mirrors?

Those are the mirrored glasses that you wear when policing the horizon of the formless.

 

[punshhh]

Interesting. Can you provide an example of using glasses in such a consideration, and an example of using mirrors?

For example, humanity tends to assume that reality is what can be detected by experience. This is not necessarily so, the reality we perceive may be a reflection of a peculiarity of our own nature.

I sometimes adopt the position that other entities may perceive reality in a very different way to us. While coexisting and interacting as in a common understanding of experience.

 

[punshhh]

I wouldn't say that is necessarily true. For about a hundred years or so physics has gone slightly beyond that which humans can conceive.

The question is, if something is not testable by science - by what is it testable?

If one is going to "know thyself", one is required to establish a position of understanding of reality and one's position therein, one's own nature and limitations* and a system of reasoning which can be tested through personal experience. Thus establishing a personal philosophy which is continually added to and refined by experience.

*By limitations I refer to the necessity to tackle the peculiarities of one's own personality and emotions and metaphorically rise above one's personal psyche into an intellectual state of clear (relatively) thought.

 

[tsig]

If one is going to "know thyself", one is required to establish a position of understanding of reality and one's position therein, one's own nature and limitations* and a system of reasoning which can be tested through personal experience. Thus establishing a personal philosophy which is continually added to and refined by experience.

*By limitations I refer to the necessity to tackle the peculiarities of one's own personality and emotions and metaphorically rise above one's personal psyche into an intellectual state of clear (relatively) thought.

Sounds like you're trying to lift yourself by your own bootstraps.

 

[dafydd]

An idea.

Well until the thought police get their hands on it.

You never did explain what the phrase means to you. Do you admit that it is meaningless?

 

[dafydd]

Thanks, I'm disappointed I missed the part about stuff in this thread.

So materialism is concerned with the activity of the stuff, right?

The stuff acts and interacts with itself to form existence as can be tested and verified by science?

Does materialism include any philosophy of stuff?

No,I don't think so. I will ask the Emeritus Of Professor Pure And Applied Stuff at Oxford,he's a mate of mine.

 

[dafydd]

Yes, although it's very much a hands-on force.

A pulled out of the nether regions force.