What materialism is

[pmurray]

A poster elsewhere ststed that no on would tell him what a materialist is. Ok, I'll have a go:

The world is not made up of two kinds of substance (material and spiritual), but only one. This substance is not primarily "like" an idea, not like a mental object: happy, sad, right, wrong, friend, enemy. The substance of which the world is made can be described mathematically. (Maths exists independent of minds to know it - the truths of mathematics are discoveries, not inventions.)

I suppose that we might equivalently state that the universe is not primarily made up of verbal concepts. People who are verbal like to think that it is - Gods, relationships, purposes - but it ain't.

Having said this, so far the world appears to be made of two kinds of substance. Space/time, described by general relativity; and matter/energy, described by quantum mechanics. However, it is an ongoing research project to unify the two.

So:
* the world is the physical reality we see
* it exists independent of our conciousness
* it is material, not ideal
* equivalently: it is mathematical, not verbal

And:
* conciousness exists in the world, not apart from it.
* being a person is something that our bodies do

 

[UndercoverElephant]

A poster elsewhere ststed that no on would tell him what a materialist is. Ok, I'll have a go:

The world is not made up of two kinds of substance (material and spiritual), but only one. This substance is not primarily "like" an idea, not like a mental object: happy, sad, right, wrong, friend, enemy. The substance of which the world is made can be described mathematically. (Maths exists independent of minds to know it - the truths of mathematics are discoveries, not inventions.)

Whooooah!

That's not materialism. That is mathematical realism. Plenty of idealists and other non-materialists believe that mathematical truths are somehow independent of reality or mind. If you take pure subjective Berkeleyanism as an example of idealism then "the substance of the world" can still be described mathematically. The fact that it happens to be a mathematical object in "the mind of an eternal spirit" makes no difference whatsoever.

Whatever you are describing, it certainly isn't materialism. "Materialism" is the belief that the physical world is a self-existing "material substrate".

I suppose that we might equivalently state that the universe is not primarily made up of verbal concepts. People who are verbal like to think that it is - Gods, relationships, purposes - but it ain't.

And no, idealists don't believe that the world is made of "verbal concepts" either.

So:
* the world is the physical reality we see

True regardless of whether you are an idealist or a materialist because of the way you used "we see". The idealist simply states that "everything we see" is in our minds anyway. Reality remains reality.

* it exists independent of our conciousness

Again, for an idealist this is also true (apart from lifegazer). Since the "physical world" exists in the mind of God, it is independent of our conciousness.

* it is material, not ideal

Correct

* equivalently: it is mathematical, not verbal

Not correct, and don't know where you got this idea from. "Idealism" in the western tradition starts with Plato. Plato's "world of ideas" are primarily mathematical, not verbal.

And:
* conciousness exists in the world, not apart from it.

Yeah, well we could argue about that one for a long time. I think you are a bit confused about what idealism is. Idealists don't think that "consciousness exists apart from the world". They think that "the world exists within consciousness".

* being a person is something that our bodies do [/B]

The definition of what makes a person a person is much trickier than this. Personally, I rather like Heidegger's definition of "person" as something which must face the consequences of death and mortality from "the inside".

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: What materialism is

Whooooah!

That's not materialism. That is mathematical realism.

Geoff,

Do you agree that mathematical realism is necessary for materialism?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Re: Re: Re: What materialism is

Geoff,

Do you agree that mathematical realism is necessary for materialism?

No. Although I am open to being persuaded. What's the reasoning behind the claim?

From my POV the physical world is a mathematical object. It's not made of material - it's made of information.

Why should a materialist need mathematical realism?

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What materialism is

No. Although I am open to being persuaded. What's the reasoning behind the claim?

From my POV the physical world is a mathematical object. It's not made of material - it's made of information.

Why should a materialist need mathematical realism?

My resoning is that materialists posit a reality that is independent of experience (I presume that is what you mean by self existing). This means that such existence cannot have qualitativeness. If it had qualitativeness then such existence would be experiential and thus not be independent of experience. So if a materialist is to posit a "substance" that this reality is made of then I see no option but for quantitativeness to be its fundamental nature. If quantitativeness is not its fundamental nature then I see no way for a materialist to say anthing about this reality other than "it is indepednent of experience". Which brings me onto epistemology. I have heard some here say that its possible for epistemological philosophy to make no ontological statements about reality. I don't agree for the above reason. Epistemology must make the ontological statement that objective reality is mathematical in nature. Otherwise I see no way for epistemology to work.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here's a pile of definitions of materialism. Note how they are all circular.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&biw=1094&q=define:+materialism&btnG=Search

Here are a crop of definition of idealism. Note how they are all circular.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=define:+idealism

~~ Paul

 

[Z]

Generally, in my own special little world (where 'special' is all too often meant in the 'short bus' sense), materialism is a catch-term that is used instead of the clunkier and less aesthetic 'ultimately describable through logical relationships and symbolic languages, ultimately-knowable by science, and non-dependent upon subjective experience'. As such, what we currently refer to as 'material' - matter and, more recently of course, energy - is just a sub-class of the 'material' in a broader sense. Certainly, as we analyze deeper into the structure of 'stuff', we are learning that matter is less solid than we've ever believed, and indeed may be little more than waves of probability, at their very core.

Nevertheless, ultimately all things are comprised of these same 'whatevers' - ripples in spacetime, probably - and ultimately are all knowable, describably by logical relationships and symbolic languages, etc. etc.

Immaterial things are epiphenominal; non-observable; non-interactive; indeed, non-existent. Those who wax poetic about the 'immaterial soul' are spouting gibberish. Either souls exist, and are comprised of (for example) ripples in spacetime; or they don't exist at all. The same goes for all things we can imagine: either it exists, and is just like everything else, or it doesn't exist at all.

One difference that seems prevalent between idealism as such and materialism, is that idealists tend to believe that science can never and will never fully understand the core nature of 'stuff'... but somehow, their own reasoning can?

Dualism, on the other hand, is almost completely senseless, and I can rarely understand the common dualist point of view. My own form of dualism is really no better, at its core: that the All-That-Is is comprised of the real (material) world and the unreal (spiritual/immaterial/imaginative) world.

*sigh*

Anyway, these arguments don't really get anywhere, do they? Science, based in a relatively materialist foundation, manages to progress and develop, so it must at least be useful if not completely accurate. Why argue against it so vehemently?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Here's a pile of definitions of materialism. Note how they are all circular.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&biw=1094&q=define:+materialism&btnG=Search

Here are a crop of definition of idealism. Note how they are all circular.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=define:+idealism

~~ Paul

Paul,

I may be wasting my time here, but since you appear to have reached the point of rejecting both materialism and idealism, have you considered simply coming to the conclusion that they are both wrong?

Do you consider neutral monism to be circular too?

In it's more elaborate form it becomes Dialectical Monism

In layman's terms, the basic idea is to outline a point of view which recognizes that all is one, but this oneness can only be experienced in terms of duality and creative opposition. Adherents maintain that by understanding this viewpoint and its implications, one learns that "ultimate reality" and "everyday reality" are one and the same....

Boom boom!

Geoff

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What materialism is

My resoning is that materialists posit a reality that is independent of experience (I presume that is what you mean by self existing). This means that such existence cannot have qualitativeness. If it had qualitativeness then such existence would be experiential and thus not be independent of experience. So if a materialist is to posit a "substance" that this reality is made of then I see no option but for quantitativeness to be its fundamental nature.

OK, I see where you are going. I kind of agree with this, since it's not too distant from my own position.

If quantitativeness is not its fundamental nature then I see no way for a materialist to say anthing about this reality other than "it is indepednent of experience".

OK, yes. But even to get a materialist to this point is to get that materialist quite close to rejecting materialism. "Material" has already become "information".

Which brings me onto epistemology. I have heard some here say that its possible for epistemological philosophy to make no ontological statements about reality. I don't agree for the above reason. Epistemology must make the ontological statement that objective reality is mathematical in nature. Otherwise I see no way for epistemology to work.

I don't agree with this. I think if it is done carefully that epistemolgy can avoid ontology alltogether. I don't see it happening very often around here though. What I usually see here is implied materialism dressed up as epistemology. I see epistemology being used as a fig leaf for a metaphysical position which is impossible to defend but believed in anyway. People should probably use the term "naturalist" instead of "materialist", since what they are really concerned about are the claims about non-physical/non-natural causality.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Geoff said:
I may be wasting my time here, but since you appear to have reached the point of rejecting both materialism and idealism, have you considered simply coming to the conclusion that they are both wrong?

If we are talking about ontology, then I think they are both incoherent. However, if forced, I would say they were equivalent. Since both material and mental are undefined, they might as well be two names for the same thing.

"Neutral monism is the philosophical view that mental events and physical events can both be reduced to aspects of some neutral substance, which considered by itself is neither physical nor mental."

This seems content-free. How is it different from "mental and physical events are both things"?

"Dialectical monism is an ontological position which holds that reality is ultimately a unified whole, distinguishing itself from plain monism by asserting that this whole necessarily expresses itself in dualistic terms. For the dialectical monist, the essential unity is that of complementary polarities which, while opposed in the realm of experience and perception, are co-substantial in a transcendent sense."

Oh Lordy. For starters, why dualistic? Why not 13-istic? Sounds like "We can't decide whether stuff is material or mental, so we'll call them aspects of the same uber-stuff."

You can't decide because there is no way to decide! And what is the point of trying so hard to decide?

~~ Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

What I usually see here is implied materialism dressed up as epistemology. I see epistemology being used as a fig leaf for a metaphysical position which is impossible to defend but believed in anyway.

What is see here is implied belief that pigs fly. I see philosophy being used as a fig leaf for a position on flying pigs which is impossible to defend but believed in anyway.

Isn't it lucky that you have me here to explain what JG's words imply, and what they're a "fig leaf" for. Otherwise, you'd never have guessed that he was such a moron as to cling to his dogmatic belief in flying pigs.[/shameful, worthless debating technique beloved of liars and fools]

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If we are talking about ontology, then I think they are both incoherent. However, if forced, I would say they were equivalent. Since both material and mental are undefined, they might as well be two names for the same thing.

Why can't you take the step from "incoherent" to "wrong"? Can something be "incoherent" and "right"? I don't see how. So why do you resist concluding that they aren't right?

"Neutral monism is the philosophical view that mental events and physical events can both be reduced to aspects of some neutral substance, which considered by itself is neither physical nor mental."

This seems content-free. How is it different from "mental and physical events are both things"?

Because at a fundamental level they are both the same thing, but it remains false to claim that either one of them "is the other one" - which is the mistake that both materialism and idealism make, IMO.

If you're interested, this was the subject of the first thread I ever started at philosophyforums, and it was this thread which seriously made me reconsider whether I was an idealist.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?id=2826

This reply came from Paul, who runs that site:

Idealism is just the other side of physicalism. Physicalism is correct in pointing out how hopelessly wrong idealism is to deny the reality of non-mind things. Idealism is correct in pointing out how hopelessly wrong physicalism is to deny the reality of minds. And dualism, well, it makes the mistakes of both the physicalists and idealists by denying that minds and non-minds have anything to do with each other.

If you're still considering idealism, I'd have to say physicalism isn't quite dead for you. Physicalism and idealism are both dualistic metaphysics, which simply block out one of the halves of dualism.

This is the critical point. Ultimately, physicalism and idealism aren't proper monisms. They are just dualism with one half of the dualism crudely chopped off.

"Dialectical monism is an ontological position which holds that reality is ultimately a unified whole, distinguishing itself from plain monism by asserting that this whole necessarily expresses itself in dualistic terms. For the dialectical monist, the essential unity is that of complementary polarities which, while opposed in the realm of experience and perception, are co-substantial in a transcendent sense."

Oh Lordy. For starters, why dualistic? Why not 13-istic?

I am genuinely surprised you have to ask. I may have to start quoting the 2nd verse of the Tao Te Ching again. Mind-Body is not the only dualism we experience. It's everywhere - I don't really understand how this can be denied - even by the hardest-headed scientistic nerd on the planet.

Sounds like "We can't decide whether stuff is material or mental, so we'll call them aspects of the same uber-stuff."

And that sounds like you belittling an idea you don't know very much about by trying to present the adherents to that idea as simplistic fools.

You can't decide because there is no way to decide! And what is the point of trying so hard to decide?

Sometimes I wonder if you actually read anything I post, Paul.

So I will repeat some of it:

I may be wasting my time here, but since you appear to have reached the point of rejecting both materialism and idealism, have you considered simply coming to the conclusion that they are both wrong?

How did you manage to turn that into:

You can't decide because there is no way to decide! And what is the point of trying so hard to decide?

You're right! There is no way to decide. But the neutral monism is not just pointlessly flapping around failing to decide between materialism and idealism. It is saying something completely and utterly different. It is offering an alternative way of resolving the problem instead of doing what you do, which is to give up, claim the problem is insoluble, and go back to being a de facto materialist.

As for "And what is the point of trying so hard to decide?" - there may be none, but that does not mean that there is no point in trying to find a solution to the mind-body problem. Unless, of course, you'd rather not find one, for some reason.......

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Geoff said:
I don't agree with this. I think if it is done carefully that epistemolgy can avoid ontology alltogether. I don't see it happening very often around here though. What I usually see here is implied materialism dressed up as epistemology. I see epistemology being used as a fig leaf for a metaphysical position which is impossible to defend but believed in anyway. People should probably use the term "naturalist" instead of "materialist", since what they are really concerned about are the claims about non-physical/non-natural causality.

I disagree. My concern may be claims about supernatural causality, but it is not a metaphysical concern. My concerns are (a) what is the definition of supernatural; and (b) is the evidence for some sort of supernatural causility (whatever that is) really solid?

You have no reason to take these concerns of mine as metaphysical.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What is see here is implied belief that pigs fly.

Hello Dr Adequate. Since this is not the first time you have responded to one of my posts in such a way as I cannot tell whether you are being serious or not, and since on the previous occasion you eventually claimed you were being both (and justified this by explaining you were English), I shall assume that this comment is of a similar nature.

What do you actually mean?

I see philosophy being used as a fig leaf for a position on flying pigs which is impossible to defend but believed in anyway.

And I see sarcastic wit, but in the end a comment which cannot be responded to, because I have no idea what you are actually trying to say.

Isn't it lucky that you have me here to explain what JG's words imply, and what they're a "fig leaf" for. Otherwise, you'd never have guessed that he was such a moron as to cling to his dogmatic belief in flying pigs.[/shameful, worthless debating technique beloved of liars and fools]

And straight to an explicit ad hominem (three, actually: liar, fool, moron). I'll give you one chance to respond with an apology, or put you on ignore.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Geoff said:
Why can't you take the step from "incoherent" to "wrong"? Can something be "incoherent" and "right"? I don't see how. So why do you resist concluding that they aren't right?

Incoherent ideas are neither right nor wrong, but simply incoherent. If someone could define materialism and idealism in a noncircular fashion, I might be able to say they are wrong.

Because at a fundamental level they are both the same thing, but it remains false to claim that either one of them "is the other one" - which is the mistake that both materialism and idealism make, IMO.

I am not saying that one is the other, but that they might as well be taken as names for the same (undefined) thing.

This is the critical point. Ultimately, physicalism and idealism aren't proper monisms. They are just dualism with one half of the dualism crudely chopped off.

That does seem to be the case when some people speak about them, yes.

I am genuinely surprised you have to ask. I may have to start quoting the 2nd verse of the Tao Te Ching again. Mind-Body is not the only dualism we experience. It's everywhere - I don't really understand how this can be denied - even by the hardest-headed scientistic nerd on the planet.

What I asked was why 2-ism and not 3-ism or 13-ism. How about material, mind, and information?

And that sounds like you belittling an idea you don't know very much about by trying to present the adherents to that idea as simplistic fools.

I just stated what it sounds like to me.

I may be wasting my time here, but since you appear to have reached the point of rejecting both materialism and idealism, have you considered simply coming to the conclusion that they are both wrong?

How did you manage to turn that into:

You can't decide because there is no way to decide! And what is the point of trying so hard to decide?

By you I did not mean you personally. I meant that there is fundamentally no way to decide.

You're right! There is no way to decide. But the neutral monism is not just pointlessly flapping around failing to decide between materialism and idealism. It is saying something completely and utterly different. It is offering an alternative way of resolving the problem instead of doing what you do, which is to give up, claim the problem is insoluble, and go back to being a de facto materialist.

I don't have a problem. But anyhoo, how does neutral monism resolve this problem, other than by not deciding?

As for "And what is the point of trying so hard to decide?" - there may be none, but that does not mean that there is no point in trying to find a solution to the mind-body problem. Unless, of course, you'd rather not find one, for some reason.......

I don't think the solution is going to be found through metaphysics.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Paul,

I disagree. My concern may be claims about supernatural causality, but it is not a metaphysical concern. My concerns are (a) what is the definition of supernatural; and (b) is the evidence for some sort of supernatural causility (whatever that is) really solid?

I think it was established quite some time ago that if there is any evidence of supernatural causality, it isn't "solid" and it is hard to see how it ever could be. It is the realm of mysticism, and the realm of "solid evidence" is physical science. So your question amounts to "could there ever be a mystical science"? I think the answer is a resounding NO. If you are seeking evidence of supernatural causality then you are going to either have to expand your concept of "evidence" to include things which are neccesarily subjective or you are going to have to accept that you aren't going to find any evidence which meets your standards.

As for "what supernatural causality is"? I think, from your perspective at least, it can only be defined in terms of what it isn't. It isn't randomness and it isn't physical causality, but it since it is still a form of causality it must involve some sort of metaphysical connection between event A and event B. It is impossible for me to define it any better than that because of the way you use the rest of your definitions and arguments. You don't allow me to define any of the language I need to explain it any better, and even if you did[i/], you would challenge me to provide empirical evidence that my definitions are "correct" - which I cannot do.

You have no reason to take these concerns of mine as metaphysical.

They sound pretty metaphysical to me.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Hello Dr Adequate. Since this is not the first time you have responded to one of my posts in such a way as I cannot tell whether you are being serious or not, and since on the previous occasion you eventually claimed you were being both (and justified this by explaining you were English), I shall assume that this comment is of a similar nature.

What do you actually mean?

And I see sarcastic wit, but in the end a comment which cannot be responded to, because I have no idea what you are actually trying to say.

I mean that your substitute for real argument which you have chosen to employ is a shameful, worthless debating technique beloved of liars and fools. If you're unable to understand sarcasm, that was plain enough, was it not?

And straight to an explicit ad hominem (three, actually: liar, fool, moron).

Learn what the phrase "ad hominem argument" means, stop using the phrase, or look pretentious and semieducated. The choice is yours.

I'll give you one chance to respond with an apology, or put you on ignore.

It's so much easier to fight straw men (with the label "empiricist" tied round their neck with string) than to argue with the real opinions of a real empiricist, isn't it? Well, you have fun playing with your straw dolls.

Of course, putting me on ignore will not prevent me from pointing out your fatuous errors and egregious distortions. But hey, you can pretend it will. You're good at pretending.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Paul

Incoherent ideas are neither right nor wrong, but simply incoherent. If someone could define materialism and idealism in a noncircular fashion, I might be able to say they are wrong.

Yeah, but isn't the whole problem the fact that nobody can define them and defend them in "non-circular" ways (as you put it)? This sounds like a cop-out to me. You see that all the current formulations are incoherent, but you leave to the door open to the claim that somehow somebody is going to be able to come along in the future and fix them? Do you really believe that?

Most people, IMO, who get to the sort of point that you have got to in this debate, also accept that the problems with materialism and idealism are unfixable - ever, by anyone.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because at a fundamental level they are both the same thing, but it remains false to claim that either one of them "is the other one" - which is the mistake that both materialism and idealism make, IMO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not saying that one is the other, but that they might as well be taken as names for the same (undefined) thing.

I disagree emphatically. There are loads of metaphysical implications that come along with physicalism and idealism, and the implications in each case are very different to each other. So whether you state you are a materialist or state you are an idealist has an enormous effect on what else you are likely to believe is possible. This is true to the extent that an idealist is capable of believing in creation by fiat - that the world could simply come into being fully-formed as an act of will, yet to the materialist such things are unthinkable absurdities.

Neutral monism and dual aspect theory are more sophisticated than simply claiming that "mind" and "matter" are just different names for the same thing. I think that is a complete misunderstanding of what neutral monism actually claims, and also fails to take account of the widely differing metaphysical implications of materialism and idealism.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am genuinely surprised you have to ask. I may have to start quoting the 2nd verse of the Tao Te Ching again. Mind-Body is not the only dualism we experience. It's everywhere - I don't really understand how this can be denied - even by the hardest-headed scientistic nerd on the planet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I asked was why 2-ism and not 3-ism or 13-ism. How about material, mind, and information?

We don't experience any "information" - not in the sense we experience mind and matter. I think the best way of answering your question here is to point to mathematics and zero again. Your question translates to: "Why to we have positive numbers and negative numbers but not xxxxxxative numberx?" Why is our number scale dualistically symmetrical around 0 instead of triplicateley symmetrical? Seems like an absurd question to me. 0 = 1 + -1. That is a dualism. Why not "0 = 1 + -1 + %1"? I don't know how to answer you question except to say that most people don't ask it. What would the %1 represent?

By you I did not mean you personally. I meant that there is fundamentally no way to decide.

If there is fundamentally no way to decide then this seems to close the door you left open at the start of this post. If this is true, then nobody can ever "fix" materialism and idealism. And it then follows that you can safely reject them both, yes?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right! There is no way to decide. But the neutral monism is not just pointlessly flapping around failing to decide between materialism and idealism. It is saying something completely and utterly different. It is offering an alternative way of resolving the problem instead of doing what you do, which is to give up, claim the problem is insoluble, and go back to being a de facto materialist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have a problem. But anyhoo, how does neutral monism resolve this problem, other than by not deciding?

It doesn't "not decide" because it offers an entirely different explanation. It "decides" that they are both wrong, which you also ought to do if you were being consistent.

Neutral monism:

Materialism is wrong. The world is not "made from matter". Idealism is wrong. The world is not "made from mind". "The material world" and "the mental world" are human constructions/conceptions with different associated language games. There are information structures refered to in "the language of the material world" which map directly onto information structures which are refered to in "the language of the mental world". Hence brain processes and subjective experiences can said to be dual aspects of the same set of information. They are "both the same thing", but only if you accept that they are neither mind nor matter. Some people naively respond at this point by asking "well, what is it then?". This is a rather stupid question since it is obvious that there is no word currently in existence for this thing, and it doesn't actually make any difference what anybody chooses to call it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for "And what is the point of trying so hard to decide?" - there may be none, but that does not mean that there is no point in trying to find a solution to the mind-body problem. Unless, of course, you'd rather not find one, for some reason.......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think the solution is going to be found through metaphysics.

For what reason is that then?

Are you implying that the solution is going to be found through physics. If you are, then my suggestion that you are a de facto materialist is supported, regardless of what a certain troll scrawled in an earlier post.

 

[Dr Adequate]

And straight to an explicit ad hominem (three, actually: liar, fool, moron). I'll give you one chance to respond with an apology, or put you on ignore.

Let's have a look at who can dish it out but can't take it, shall we?

What I usually see here is implied materialism dressed up as epistemology. I see epistemology being used as a fig leaf for a metaphysical position which is impossible to defend but believed in anyway.

Well, well. JG's whole critique of empiricists is that we don't believe what we're saying, but are using it as a "fig leaf" for other opinions which we explicitly say we do not hold --- that is, we must be liars. And these opinions which we (secretly, in JG's imagination) hold are "impossible to defend but believed anyway" --- that is, we are fools.

But of course this is mere raving on his part. It should be quite obvious that we believe exactly what we say --- which has, it seems, no faults in it that JG can identify --- rather than believing a doctrine which we say is stupid and worthless. Therefore, JG is either a fool, and believes his own fatuous conspiracy theory, or he is a liar who comes out with this drivel in order to give offense.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I mean that your substitute for real argument which you have chosen to employ is a shameful, worthless debating technique beloved of liars and fools.

If you think I have not provided a real argument then you haven't actually been reading my posts, Dr Adequate. I have supplied plenty. I also mentioned the fact that some of the people around here seem to be accepting that materialism can't be defended, but continuing to find some way to be materialists anyway. I will stand by that claim.

What I did NOT do was pile in with a load of sarcastic cr*p and ad hominems.

If you're unable to understand sarcasm, that was plain enough, was it not? Learn what the phrase "ad hominem argument" means, stop using the phrase, or look pretentious and semieducated.

You called me a moron. With little or no justification.

The choice is yours. It's so much easier to fight straw men (with the label "empiricist" tied round their neck with string) than to argue with the real opinions of a real empiricist, isn't it? Well, you have fun playing with your straw dolls.

Whose the "real empiricist"? YOU, Dr Adequate?

Then why don't you try supplying some actual arguments instead of trying to derail the thread with sarcasm and insults?

Of course, putting me on ignore will not prevent me from pointing out your fatuous errors and egregious distortions. But hey, you can pretend it will. You're good at pretending.

You haven't pointed out an "fatuous errors". In fact, you have contributed nothing to this thread apart from sarcasm and insults. Kind of like the Lee Bowyer of randi.org.

I gave you one chance to apologise. You didn't take it. Neither did you supply any empiricist arguments. Although I rather suspect you don't actually know what empiricism is or where it ended up, or you wouldn't claim you were an empiricist.

Bye bye.