Why a Guy like Intersting Ian is a Dangerous Loon

[Aussie Thinker]

I know as a good sceptic we should remain polite but here is why it is hard to do so.

Lets take Interesting Ian as an example.

Initially I read his posts thinking he posts in an intelligent rational manner.

I post in exactly the same way thinking ahhh here is a rational “believer” with whom we can hold a rational discussion.

I ask “why” he believes and he says because of evidence.

The evidence he then provides is non-existent..

I am incredulous.. this guy seems intelligent .. how has the “evidence” he showed (all completely anecdotal) convinced him of anything.

I calmly explain that the normal rule of logic is.. if something is constantly unproven or has no basis of reality the default situation should be scepticism. I show clearly that everything has a materialistic basis.

He insists the world is immaterial in spite of logic and argument. Then starts to repeat his earlier completely unjustified beliefs.. As more and more reason piles up against his arguments he retreats into the completely ridiculous statements like “I refuse to check your link”.. showing he is completely unaligned with reality.

I am afraid at this stage it is time to start calling the guy a loon !

Sadly due to his eloquence and obvious intelligence he is a dangerous loon. He has the ability to somehow make his case seem attractive to the general population who have this great “need” to “believe”.. Thos people who don’t look at substance in an argument or question its basis.

It is people like Ian who manage to keep the general population ignorant .. remember we sceptics fight against the majority opinion of a belief in the supernatural.. we start at a huge disadvantage trying to turn people away from the ridiculous and force them face reality.. Guys like Ian make that job just sooo much harder.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Sadly due to his eloquence and obvious intelligence he is a dangerous loon. He has the ability to somehow make his case seem attractive to the general population who have this great “need” to “believe”. Thos people who don’t look at substance in an argument or question its basis.
I don't agree that this makes Ian "dangerous". The world does not lack for paragons of illogic for those who don't ask questions to believe in.

On the contrary, I think that Ian's irrationality is so extreme that he makes an excellent example of the sort of loopy beliefs that are out there -- a textbook case of navel-gazing gone awry, so to speak. And the fact that he so quickly descends into ad hominem attacks and blatant evasion make it easy to point out his tactics for what they are. He's a useful educational tool, if nothing else.

[Darat]

Aussie Thinker - can't help myself but don't you think this is really more for "Flame Wars" or perhaps just part of a response to Ian in another thread to try to explain to him how he appears to you?

(And I know what I posted just a few posts ago in another thread about not being responsible for other posters actions.)

[Yahweh]

I obviously have nothing personal against Ian, while I doubt I'll ever agree to much of his Philosophy, he has definitely made himself into an Interesting character.

:)

[Keneke]

He should change his name to Interesting Icon or Interesting Avatar.

[Aussie Thinker]

Darat,

Probably .. subliminally it may be partly what this is… but its not what I had in mind.

I wanted to point out that it is the seemingly rational guys like Ian (seemingly until you take the blanket of his lack of argument) that perpetuate the paranormal mythology.

He is clearly intelligent (it sorta hurts me to say it and reiterates that brains has nothing to do with reason) and shows that it is not just idiots who believe in the paranormal.

His type act as a beacon to the vast majority of IDIOTS that do believe in the paranormal. His type tend to add legitimacy to this charlatanism !

THAT is why he (his type) are dangerous.

BTW if we didn’t have Ian here it would get pretty dull.. don’t you think ? So he really is Interesting

[Aussie Thinker]

BTW I did edit the heading to say "Interesting" not Intersting" but for some reason it wont take ??

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
BTW if we didn’t have Ian here it would get pretty dull.. don’t you think ? So he really is Interesting

I disagree. After seeing Ian take an interesting discussion and run it into the ground with semantics more than a few times, I finally decided to put him on ignore. He's truly uninteresting to me.

That, and his bad attitude, tendency to blame embarrasing posts on being drunk (wether true or not) and tendency to insult anyone who doesn't agree with him are the straw that breaks the camel's back.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Aussie, I think you're being too harsh here. You may think that Ian is on a fool's errand, but that doesn't make him dangerous. If he is dangerous, then so is everyone else who has a view of the world you don't agree with, because they are all influencing people to have those different views.

That said, Ian and other people have taught me that one man's logic is another man's, well, something else.

~~ Paul

[Aussie Thinker]

Paul,

The danger is perpetuating the myth of the paranormal.

It probably just depends on wether you thing this is dangerous or not.

I guess most of us think these things are pretty harmless.. I just wonder how far the world could go if EVERYONE’S belief’s was based on reality.

[The Fool]

What exactly is ian dangerous to? Low flying aircraft? shipping?? Could we have a warning light and hooter attached to him?

[Aussie Thinker]

The Fool,

On this forum.. NO-One.. well maybe T’ai Chi ?? and Clancie??

But (sorry to sound a bit elitist) you forget how many idiots there are out there desperate to “believe”…

If everyone who was smart enough to know better showed them the lunacy of their “belief” we could eventually get rid of it…

“Smart” guys like Ian are a “godsend” to believing idiots, he allows them to fly in the face of the rest of intelligent thinking !

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
The Fool,

On this forum.. NO-One.. well maybe T’ai Chi ?? and Clancie??


You rang... ?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by The Fool
What exactly is ian dangerous to? Low flying aircraft? shipping?? Could we have a warning light and hooter attached to him?
Yes, dangerous. Much like Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684834936/qid=1068515043/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/002-4700051-9504839?v=glance&s=books), he presents a line of plausible ********e. Those not trained in philosophy (or in Behe's case, biology) are likely to buy in to completely unsupported theories because they sound like they ought to be right. It is the siren's call to magical thinking and it truly is dangerous, luring unsuspecting minds on to the rocks of intuitive argumentation. It is contrary to everything JREF and critical thinking should stand for, and it is dangerous. Maybe not here, where skepticism is rampant, but in the real world where it is sadly deficient. I can envision Ian lecturing to a group of freshman philosophy students, who hang on his every word, think deep but illogical metaphysical thoughts, and then themselves become ********e philosophers.

We have enough of those. Better to direct their lives to something useful to society.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Tricky

...., and then themselves become ********e philosophers.

We have enough of those. Better to direct their lives to something useful to society.

Are you saying that naturalism, skepticism, humanism, agnosticism, atheism, logicism, rationalim, and others are not useful to society????

[Tricky]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Are you saying that naturalism, skepticism, humanism, agnosticism, atheism, logicism, rationalim, and others are not useful to society????
I think I clearly used the adjective "********e" when describing the kind of philosophy that was dangerous, i.e. the kind supported by no evidence, but only by a "feeling of rightness", such as the feeling that "the mind must be different from the brain".

Truly though, no "philosophy" is of real use, but that does not mean that espousers of various philosophies have not done anything useful. Did their philosophy push them to greatness, or their findings lead them to their philosophy?

But I will not argue that "philosophies" such as "locicism", "rationalism", "empiricism", and "the scientific method" have more use in practical life than metaphysicalism. Atheism and agnosticism, in and of themselves, have no real use as they are more conclusions rather than methodologies.

[The Fool]

In defence of Ian....I'm sure what he writes makes perfect sense to a large number of people with similar life philosophies. He chooses to post on a board where he is in the minority...good on him for occupying the front lines. I would not have the energy to do the reverse on a boad where Ians views would be in the majority.

But I still think the flashing light and hooter would be a good Idea to protect Low flying arcraft and shipping.

I actually think that Ians post on the minced fish pieces was one of the best ever.....None of my posts have come anywhere near it....

[epepke]

I disagree. I think he's great.

Without him, in order to provide evidence points, skeptics would have to go get second-party sources and bring them here. This is indirect, and it also leaves the impression that skeptics spend all their time hunting up minutiae.

But, instead, he frequently comes here and gives completely ingenuous demonstrations. It's a worthwhile service.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

He insists the world is immaterial in spite of logic and argument.
I think he makes some rather strong arguments for his position on this. The materialist stance must begin with the existence of the physical world as axiomatic, meaning that it is accepted without proof. Without help from someone like Ian, I would be likely to avoid this ugly blemish on my worldview rather than try to come to terms with it.
Then starts to repeat his earlier completely unjustified beliefs..
From his perspective it must appear that those who disagree are doing exactly the same thing.
As more and more reason piles up against his arguments he retreats into the completely ridiculous statements like "I refuse to check your link"...
I agree completely. That hideous practice is characteristic of a fundamentalist mindset, and totally unworthy of someone of Ian's capabilities.
I am afraid at this stage it is time to start calling the guy a loon!
Well, there's loons, and then there's loons.
Sadly due to his eloquence and obvious intelligence he is a dangerous loon. He has the ability to somehow make his case seem attractive to the general population who have this great need to believe.. Thos people who don’t look at substance in an argument or question its basis.
Since none of us is perfect, perhaps none of us (especially the more eloquent and intelligent) should express a viewpoint. That would be one way to eliminate any risk of infecting the weak minded among the general popluation, should we be in error.

[Aussie Thinker]

Dynamic,

I think he makes some rather strong arguments for his position on this. The materialist stance must begin with the existence of the physical world as axiomatic, meaning that it is accepted without proof. Without help from someone like Ian, I would be likely to avoid this ugly blemish on my worldview rather than try to come to terms with it.

I don’t think he does. The materialistic viewpoint HAS to be the default as we do ACTUALLY feel things. The logical default is MATERIAL.. other philosophies cannot be afforded the same logical weight !

If the alternative is true then further argument is pointless.. it is impossible to prove one way or the other.

From his perspective it must appear that those who disagree are doing exactly the same thing.

Those who disagree with the guy in the Asylum who insists he is Napoleon must also appear this way from that guys perspective also !

Since none of us is perfect, perhaps none of us (especially the more eloquent and intelligent) should express a viewpoint. That would be one way to eliminate any risk of infecting the weak minded among the general popluation, should we be in error.

Consider me suitably chastised by this comment.

I actually enjoy Ian’s arguments I was merely expressing how dangerous they could be to a public with a belief oriented mindset. It makes the task of convincing them to perceive reality all the more difficult.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Darat,

Probably .. subliminally it may be partly what this is… but its not what I had in mind.

I wanted to point out that it is the seemingly rational guys like Ian (seemingly until you take the blanket of his lack of argument) that perpetuate the paranormal mythology.

He is clearly intelligent (it sorta hurts me to say it and reiterates that brains has nothing to do with reason) and shows that it is not just idiots who believe in the paranormal.

His type act as a beacon to the vast majority of IDIOTS that do believe in the paranormal. His type tend to add legitimacy to this charlatanism !

THAT is why he (his type) are dangerous.

BTW if we didn’t have Ian here it would get pretty dull.. don’t you think ? So he really is Interesting

I agree that many beliefs can be used as justification for what I at least consider horrendous acts and I suppose someone could use Ian's "worldview" to justify some of them, i.e. the person isn't the brain so it doesn't matter what we do to the brain or the bag of meat that carries it.

But is that Ian's fault for expressing that what to him seems to be coherent and self-evident "TRUTHS (TM)"? History has shown that many "worldviews" can be twisted beyond anything their originators had in mind to justify anything.

I certainly do not agree with Ian's views’ as he has expressed them, but that is because he has yet to demonstrate and show the logic proof that he says he has that "proves" "materialism" is illogical. He seems very reluctant to actually put it down so it can be studied, I would have thought that all it would take would be one clear post using a standard logic notation.

I can understand you being frustrated with Ian, especially when he wont even look at counter arguments or other theories but I don't think he needs to singled out as a "dangerous loon", he is just an other example of a "fundamentalist" i.e. someone who can't even consider that he or she may be wrong, and as such I don't find him any more "interesting" then any other fundamentalists.

Interesting people are people who can consider different viewpoints, who can discuss them without going off the deep end and who can change their minds.

Fundamentalist of whatever flavour are just tedious and boring.

[deBergerac]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

I don’t think he does. The materialistic viewpoint HAS to be the default as we do ACTUALLY feel things. The logical default is MATERIAL.. other philosophies cannot be afforded the same logical weight !

I am sorry if I cannot quite follow the logic here, the materialist view of the world must be correct because we can FEEL it? Is this not presuming that our feelings are created from a materialistic response to changes in our surrounding? Thus assuming the world to be materialistic in aim to prove that the world is materialistic. I would say that the only thing you can prove with a feeling is the existence of that feeling.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

If everyone who was smart enough to know better showed them the lunacy of their “belief” we could eventually get rid of it…


Ah. Another self-described "Bright". Glad to hear you are concerned for others who don't agree that all evidence points to the existence of an objective material reality.

Have you actually given thought to the implications of your naturalist/materialist/(atheist) beliefs? If so, you hide that fact well. :)

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by hammegk

Have you actually given thought to the implications of your naturalist/materialist/(atheist) beliefs?

What are the implications?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
...
I am afraid at this stage it is time to start calling the guy a loon !
... Let's face it. What else can motivate the hardcore, but otherwise intelligent, solipsists around here, besides luncacy? I have been giving this some thought lately. These people really have some serious ax to grind, and they've adopted the philosophical equivalent of the crazy uncle in the attic to justify their neuroses.

Just look at how hammy has chimed in about "implications." I'd bet that he's gonna say something about a lack of moral foundation for materialists/atheists/whatnot.

Nothing to do with anything that can be observed. So observation becomes irrelevant and introspection is golden.

[max]

It's rather bold of Aussie Thinker to assume others are so gullible that they will be brainwashed by Interesting Ian types.
I think Ian has many good points and interesting ones. Just because someone does not experience paranormal incidents doesn't mean that paranormal doesn't exist. When one has experienced as many as I have, one wouldn't scoff at any seemingly ridiculous accounts of the 'other side.'
And before anyone asks......no I am not about to relate them here, I've told it all before.

[ceptimus]

Religious people have had to back down at least twice already in the face of science.

The first time was when they had to admit that the Earth was not at the centre of the universe. They fought long and hard over this one, torturing and killing the 'disbelievers' even, but eventually, they revised their stance and carried on as before.

The second time was when it became obvious that humans have animal ancestors. There are still some people fighting this battle, but everyone, except the loons, now agrees that this is the case. This time, there were fewer deaths, but still a long, and possibly ongoing controversy.

Now this is conjecture on my part, but I think the next big upheaval will concern intelligent (conscious) machines. We are not there yet, but I think it will come. The religious types, and guys like Interesting Ian, won't accept that these machines are conscious to begin with, but as the machines become more and more conscious, there will eventually only be a lunatic fringe, the 'flat earthers' if you like, who will deny that the machines are conscious. Most religions will move their position again, and accept the obvious truth. Maybe they will invite the machines to join their church.

[Monketey Ghost]

Will you also start a thread called "Why people who wish to stifle unpleasant ideas are dangerous loons"?

[showme2]

ceptimus:
"Religious people have had to back down at least twice already in the face of science.

The first time was when they had to admit that the Earth was not at the centre of the universe. They fought long and hard over this one, torturing and killing the 'disbelievers' even, but eventually, they revised their stance and carried on as before."

Was this before or after all reputable scientists of the day swore that the earth was flat and therefore one could sail off the edge into oblivion ?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by showme2


Was this before or after all reputable scientists of the day swore that the earth was flat and therefore one could sail off the edge into oblivion ?

That would be after.. The reputable scientists of that day would not be very reputable today, and science has no problem admitting this.


The reputable theologins of that day are almost indistinguishable form the ones of today, along with their inability to validate their claims..

[showme2]

Diogenes:
"That would be after.. The reputable scientists of that day would not be very reputable today, and science has no problem admitting this."

Fine.
But the reputable scientists of that day would surely have been declaring someone like Ian (who was suggesting that the world was round) to be a fool or a "dangerous loon", wouldn't they ?

So now my questions are:
How do you know that the scientists of today have not got it all equally wrong ?
When do you know that they have finally done all of their "correcting" of past scientific beliefs and have finally come to a conclusion that we can rely on ?
In the interval, is science no more or less than just another belief system, that may be right and may be wrong ?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by showme2
Diogenes:
"That would be after.. The reputable scientists of that day would not be very reputable today, and science has no problem admitting this."

Fine.
But the reputable scientists of that day would surely have been declaring someone like Ian (who was suggesting that the world was round) to be a fool or a "dangerous loon", wouldn't they ?

So now my questions are:
How do you know that the scientists of today have not got it all equally wrong ?
When do you know that they have finally done all of their "correcting" of past scientific beliefs and have finally come to a conclusion that we can rely on ?
In the interval, is science no more or less than just another belief system, that may be right and may be wrong ?


You missed addressing the part about " .... ....their inability to validate their claims..


Scientists today can validate some of theirs.. That's why it's not ' just another belief system ' ......

[hgc]

Originally posted by showme2
...

When do you know that they have finally done all of their "correcting" of past scientific beliefs and have finally come to a conclusion that we can rely on ? ... Haven't you heard the big news (sorry, can't find a link): As of 3:00 PM (GMT) yesterday, Science has declared all Current Knowledge correct and retermed it Eternal Knowledge. Scientists the world over are being ordained as high priests of this, the final religion.

:D

[hammegk]

Originally posted by showme2
...So now my questions are:
How do you know that the scientists of today have not got it all equally wrong ?
When do you know that they have finally done all of their "correcting" of past scientific beliefs and have finally come to a conclusion that we can rely on ?
In the interval, is science no more or less than just another belief system, that may be right and may be wrong ?

Scientists will jump in here to explain the epistemological priviledge of the scientific method.

That method looks for repeatable and/or predictable results (math & physics, oh boy!) independent of the person doing the experimentation. The method itself is bulletproof once one accepts on faith that an objective, material world exists. The method is absolutely self-correcting with truth supplanting lesser truth.

Scientists, being human, don't come with the same guaranteed objectivity, although much of the argumentation here revolves around the truth value of their "objective physical reality" axiomatically existing.

[showme2]

Diogenes

"Scientists today can validate some of theirs.. That's why it's not ' just another belief system ' ......"

Yes, they can validate according to their PRESENT knowledge.
But that present knowledge may, and probably will, be superseded and corrected at some time in the future.

Therefore science can NEVER present us with definitive facts.

(I would be very surprised if, in 300 years time, or even much less, they are not looking back with incredulity on what we believe to be facts of scientific knowledge .... just as we we look back on those who believed the world was flat and marvel at their ignorance.)

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk


Scientists will jump in here to explain the epistemological priviledge of the scientific method.

That method looks for repeatable and/or predictable results (math & physics, oh boy!) independent of the person doing the experimentation. <span style="background-color: skyblue">The method itself is bulletproof once one accepts on faith that an objective, material world exists.</span> The method is absolutely self-correcting with truth supplanting lesser truth.

Scientists, being human, don't come with the same guaranteed objectivity, although much of the argumentation here revolves around the truth value of their "objective physical reality" axiomatically existing. See what I mean about those kooky solipsists? This catpuke is used to justify all manner of crazy assertions.

[showme2]

hgc
"When do you know that they have finally done all of their "correcting" of past scientific beliefs and have finally come to a conclusion that we can rely on ? ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haven't you heard the big news (sorry, can't find a link): As of 3:00 PM (GMT) yesterday, Science has declared all Current Knowledge correct and retermed it Eternal Knowledge. Scientists the world over are being ordained as high priests of this, the final religion."

Thanks for that valuable contribution hgc, but we were actually trying to have a constructive debate here. Facetious comments contribute nothing to it.

[showme2]

hammegk
"Scientists will jump in here to explain the epistemological priviledge of the scientific method.

That method looks for repeatable and/or predictable results (math & physics, oh boy!) independent of the person doing the experimentation. The method itself is bulletproof once one accepts on faith that an objective, material world exists. The method is absolutely self-correcting with truth supplanting lesser truth."

OK, so why were those methods not deployed by the bums who assured everyone the world was flat.

And when do we know that we don't have the "lesser truth" (or downright inaccuracy) and have now got the greater truth that we can rely on?

And what was that lesser truth if not an inaccurate proposition of a belief system?

[hgc]

Originally posted by showme2
...
Thanks for that valuable contribution hgc, but we were actually trying to have a constructive debate here. Facetious comments contribute nothing to it. I've seen enough of you ignorami come and go around here to know better than that.

But with perception trumping reality, I'm sure the contribution of facetiousness is in the eye of the beholder. I perceive it to underline the disdain, disgust and all-round slight regard for the assault on rationality represented by solipsism and its kissing cousins.

[Darat]

Originally posted by showme2

...snip...

OK, so why were those methods not deployed by the bums who assured everyone the world was flat.

...snip...

Can you please provide some references for anyone who called themselves a "scientist" or an equivalent who followed what we now call the "scientific method" who thought the earth was flat?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc


See what I mean about those kooky solipsists? This catpuke is used to justify all manner of crazy assertions.

Do you deny that the words you highlighted is an asserted axiom rather than a fact?



Originally posted by showme2

OK, so why were those methods not deployed by the bums who assured everyone the world was flat.
The scientific method was not well understood during the flat earth phase.


And when do we know that we don't have the "lesser truth" (or downright inaccuracy) and have now got the greater truth that we can rely on?

And what was that lesser truth if not an inaccurate proposition of a belief system?
Sorry, you will have to ask a scientist/materialist/naturalist/atheist for those answers. (But (s)he will eventually trot out epistemological privilege ... :D )

[showme2]

hgc
". I perceive it to underline the disdain, disgust and all-round slight regard for the assault on rationality represented by solipsism and its kissing cousins."

You can perceive it how you choose.
But a good sceptic would PROVE it, not perceive it.
Don't you know you can't rely on your perceptions ? !

[showme2]

2110

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by showme2

...snip...

OK, so why were those methods not deployed by the bums who assured everyone the world was flat.

...snip...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you please provide some references for anyone who called themselves a "scientist" or an equivalent who followed what we now call the "scientific method" who thought the earth was flat?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Who do you imagine was putting forward the physics theories of the day if not the physicists of the day ?

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by showme2
So now my questions are:
How do you know that the scientists of today have not got it all equally wrong ?
When do you know that they have finally done all of their "correcting" of past scientific beliefs and have finally come to a conclusion that we can rely on ?They never will. There is always some doubt. Doubt is one of the fundamental requirements for good science. Sometimes scientists are pretty certain about things, with only a slight doubt. Then there is a whole scale of certainty down to, 'We have no idea.'

The whole basis of science is to try and come up with an idea that might explain something, and then test that idea on the universe to see if it is correct. In a nutshell, science comes down to, 'try it, and see'.

This is why scientists are so annoyed with believers. Scientists come up with kooky ideas all the time, but they discard them when they find the universe isn't really like that. Believers, on the other hand, come up with kooky ideas, and then just run with them.

[hgc]

Originally posted by showme2
hgc
". I perceive it to underline the disdain, disgust and all-round slight regard for the assault on rationality represented by solipsism and its kissing cousins."

You can perceive it how you choose.
But a good sceptic would PROVE it, not perceive it.
Don't you know you can't rely on your perceptions ? ! You might want to check out something called sarcasm. It's a close personal friend of facetiousness.

[hgc]

Originally posted by showme2
2110

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by showme2

...snip...

OK, so why were those methods not deployed by the bums who assured everyone the world was flat.

...snip...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you please provide some references for anyone who called themselves a "scientist" or an equivalent who followed what we now call the "scientific method" who thought the earth was flat?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Who do you imagine was putting forward the physics theories of the day if not the physicists of the day ? Tsk tsk. You're the one that said scientists thought the world was flat. Now back it up. When? Who? Perhaps you think that in 15th century Europe, flat Earth was standard knowledge in educated circles, but then you probably got your information from that Bugs Bunny cartoon about Christopher Columbus.

This must be really embarrassing for you, or at least it ought to be. You have displayed a stunning, momumental lack of the most basic information about what is being discussed.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

I actually enjoy Ian’s arguments I was merely expressing how dangerous they could be to a public with a belief oriented mindset. It makes the task of convincing them to perceive reality all the more difficult.
I enjoy them too, and I do understand your frustration.

But as for the task of convincing others to percieve reality, such a goal seems not merely quixotic, but morally insufficient. Convincing others to see reality as I define that is not something I consider to be valid as a primary objective. This is in fact precisely what I find so repulsive in various 'belief systems'. The ideal to which I aspire is a commitment to truth, demonstrated by a willingness to apply an equal standard to all evidence, to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and to be willing at all times to re-evaluate my conclusions. I am painfully aware that my success in reaching this goal has seldom been much better than moderate, and it is partly this awareness that keeps me attentive to the conclusions others have reached, and curious about the evidence (or lack thereof) that led them to those conclusions.

It is perhaps a trivial observation that evidence is most often subject to being doctored -- or even fabricated altogether -- by someone who has placed convincing others above seeking truth. I have encountered many instances of this, but none more disturbing than when I realized I was doing it myself. It is as though I were following some base instinct, a legacy from some ancient ancestor -- a primitive logic which says that the value of friends (or is it fans?) usually has more raw survival value than truth.

But why would one so driven waste his efforts in a place filled with professed skeptics, when he might fill the ranks of his converts so much more easily from the vast hordes of soft thinkers elsewhere? One possible reason is that he wants martyr points; he seeks to legitimize his position by casting himself as the progressive thinker, persecuted because he is too far ahead of his time. Aother is that he is driven by his own doubts, and by arguing his position with others, he hopes to become thoroughly convinced himself. Or maybe it's just that we're the only ones he can find who will devote time to engaging him on this stuff at all?

[showme2]

ceptimus
"They never will. There is always some doubt. Doubt is one of the fundamental requirements for good science. Sometimes scientists are pretty certain about things, with only a slight doubt. Then there is a whole scale of certainty down to, 'We have no idea.'

The whole basis of science is to try and come up with an idea that might explain something, and then test that idea on the universe to see if it is correct. In a nutshell, science comes down to, 'try it, and see'.

This is why scientists are so annoyed with believers. Scientists come up with kooky ideas all the time, but they discard them when they find the universe isn't really like that. Believers, on the other hand, come up with kooky ideas, and then just run with them."

Good answer, ceptimus !
Not sure about your final paragraph, because sensible believers - in their way - test the phenomena they have seen. (Repetition).

There will always be people - sceptics AND believers - who will just pick up what you call a kooky idea and run with it.

I'm not sure you have allayed my qualms about the extent to which sceptics are prepared to put their entire trust in current scientific knowledge at any given time.

But a good answer nonetheless.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by showme2
Diogenes

"Scientists today can validate some of theirs.. That's why it's not ' just another belief system ' ......"

Yes, they can validate according to their PRESENT knowledge.
But that present knowledge may, and probably will, be superseded and corrected at some time in the future.

Therefore science can NEVER present us with definitive facts.

(I would be very surprised if, in 300 years time, or even much less, they are not looking back with incredulity on what we believe to be facts of scientific knowledge .... just as we we look back on those who believed the world was flat and marvel at their ignorance.)

You might be (incredulous ), but I wouldn't..

I might very well be fascinated, since I have seen incredible advances in technology in the last 50 years..

This has nothing to do with the fact that while science has been able to revise there viewpoint and give us incredible advances in the last 500 years, those who would advance the ' para ' have given us zip...

I will be happy to give it equal recognition when it produces the least bit of validation..

[Darat]

Originally posted by showme2
...snip...

Who do you imagine was putting forward the physics theories of the day if not the physicists of the day ?

Sorry you seem to have missed my question which was

"Can you please provide some references for anyone who called themselves a "scientist" or an equivalent who followed what we now call the "scientific method" who thought the earth was flat?"

[hgc]

Originally posted by Darat


Sorry you seem to have missed my question which was

"Can you please provide some references for anyone who called themselves a "scientist" or an equivalent who followed what we now call the "scientific method" who thought the earth was flat?" showme2 is currently posting in other threads. Perhaps he/she prefers not to back up this claim at this or any other time.

[showme2]

I will not waste my time "backing up" that which is self-evident.
Who ELSE would be making pronouncements about physics other than phyicists of the time ?

[hgc]

Originally posted by showme2
I will not waste my time "backing up" that which is self-evident.
Who ELSE would be making pronouncements about physics other than phyicists of the time ? OK, now you're just pretending to be dense, because you make a neutron star look light and fluffy.

1) Who would make pronouncements about physics other than physicists? Look around today. People in all walks of life make pronouncements about physics. Some of them are breathlessly ignorant of the topic.

2) But if your claim that physicists proclaim on physics is the "self evident" part of your claim, you haven't even touched on what the real trouble is -- namely that in and around the time of Gallileo, educated Europeans did not think that the world was flat. As a matter of fact, the general shape of Earth (approx. spherical) was well established for a couple thousand years already. That's why posters have been insisting that you provide links.

3) The presumed purpose of your mention of flat earth was to establish an example of where science was terribly wrong once. Now millions of zeros and ones have been fired about just to joggle you into the realization of your error.

4) All of which was pointless, because, as others have tried to elucidate for you, scientists are pretty well aware that they don't have, and never will have, final answers (trvth). They know that theirs is a discipline of approximation to reality and continuous correction. Of course it's a cooperative endeavor, as is all human civilization, and agreement on there being a reality, or at least on being able to proceed as if there is a reality, is necessary as it provides the template against which to test their theories -- and the results have been astounding.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
.....Of course it's a cooperative endeavor, as is all human civilization, and agreement on there being a reality, or at least on being able to proceed as if there is a reality, is necessary as it provides the template against which to test their theories -- and the results have been astounding.

So true. The problem some of us have is that -- even though the work product papers are all full of weasel words -- when the time for public consumption arrives, the fact that "at least on being able to proceed as if there is a reality" cannot be differentiated from "there is a reality, and, oh by the way, it is Objective, and Physical".


OK, back to flogging the nits you can pick with sm2's terminology. Carry on.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
By the way, I did edit the heading to say "Interesting
not Intersting" but for some reason it wont take ??

Have you tried a Russian name like "Irritating Ivan"? :D

[Aussie Thinker]

Dynamic,

But as for the task of convincing others to percieve reality, such a goal seems not merely quixotic, but morally insufficient. Convincing others to see reality as I define that is not something I consider to be valid as a primary objective. This is in fact precisely what I find so repulsive in various 'belief systems'. The ideal to which I aspire is a commitment to truth, demonstrated by a willingness to apply an equal standard to all evidence, to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and to be willing at all times to re-evaluate my conclusions. I am painfully aware that my success in reaching this goal has seldom been much better than moderate, and it is partly this awareness that keeps me attentive to the conclusions others have reached, and curious about the evidence (or lack thereof) that led them to those conclusions.

That is the "reality" I want them to perceive too !

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk


So true. The problem some of us have is that -- even though the work product papers are all full of weasel words -- when the time for public consumption arrives, the fact that "at least on being able to proceed as if there is a reality" cannot be differentiated from "there is a reality, and, oh by the way, it is Objective, and Physical".Such is the weight of overwhelming evidence. But then all perceptions are equal in the mind of a solipsist.
OK, back to flogging the nits you can pick with sm2's terminology. Carry on. It ain't a fight about terminology. Let me help, since I perceive a lack in your comprehension skills (not the same as an actual lack in your comprehension skills, but the weight of the evidence...). Showme2 made a serious factual error in a premise for his argument. That's more than nitpicking over terminology.

[Aussie Thinker]

DeBergerac,

I am sorry if I cannot quite follow the logic here, the materialist view of the world must be correct because we can FEEL it? Is this not presuming that our feelings are created from a materialistic response to changes in our surrounding? Thus assuming the world to be materialistic in aim to prove that the world is materialistic. I would say that the only thing you can prove with a feeling is the existence of that feeling.

OK I’ll try and make this simple (I ain’t all that eloquent so I hope you get it)

It boils down to a simple dichotomy.

1. We are all physically here and the world is material
2. We are in some “matrix” type non physical world

I guess you could add in a 3rd that is some combination of the 2.

Now you can touch, see, hear, smell etc physical things. Granted these may be just our mind fooling us but they happen with out consciousness being required. The “thought” that we may be in the “Matrix” while potentially correct MUST get less weight that the physical “hit” we get from our senses.

The non-physical idea must be relegated to being just an idea like any other.

Hammegk

Ah. Another self-described "Bright". Glad to hear you are concerned for others who don't agree that all evidence points to the existence of an objective material reality.

Have you actually given thought to the implications of your naturalist/materialist/(atheist) beliefs? If so, you hide that fact well.

Well I am not sure what you mean by implications ?

I know that we are here as physical beings evolved from matter which either always existed or came into existence from some as yet unknown natural process. This implies ???? The trouble you have is the NEED for some implication.. you think that their must be a PURPOSE to blind nature ! I Don’t !

Max

It's rather bold of Aussie Thinker to assume others are so gullible that they will be brainwashed by Interesting Ian types.

I see them everyday.. I just had a discussion with a woman at work who queued overnight to get tickets to John Edwards show.


I think Ian has many good points and interesting ones. Just because someone does not experience paranormal incidents doesn't mean that paranormal doesn't exist.

I don’t have to experience a Nuclear reaction to know it exists.. science can explain it and evidence for it exists. No evidence exist for the paranormal.

When one has experienced as many as I have, one wouldn't scoff at any seemingly ridiculous accounts of the 'other side.'
And before anyone asks......no I am not about to relate them here, I've told it all before.

LOL..Bwahahahah.. there is the rub.. what are you experiences??.. “I aint gunna tell”..
translation..

“if I tell my experiences to you guys you will explain exactly HOW I was fooled or what natural phenomena I mistook for paranormal.. and I don’t want to have my fantasy world destroyed !”

[Darat]

Originally posted by showme2
I will not waste my time "backing up" that which is self-evident.
Who ELSE would be making pronouncements about physics other than phyicists of the time ?

Fair enough under the guidelines of the board if someone states that they won’t answer then it is considered wrong to "hound" them about it.

Since you will not provide any support for your claim I will discount it and assume it was mere hyperbole without any substance or merit.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

It boils down to a simple dichotomy.

1. We are all physically here and the world is material
2. We are in some “matrix” type non physical world

I guess you could add in a 3rd that is some combination of the 2.

It's a dichotomy, but "matrix world" to me doesn't describe the possibility that what we perceive with our perceived bodies may be in the most basic sense immaterial rather than material.


Now you can touch, see, hear, smell etc physical things. Granted these may be just our mind fooling us but they happen with out consciousness being required. The “thought” that we may be in the “Matrix” while potentially correct MUST get less weight that the physical “hit” we get from our senses.
Where does "our" consciousness enter the picture, except in the Atman/Brahman sense.


The non-physical idea must be relegated to being just an idea like any other.
Agreed. The same problem exists for your idea: that an objective physical world exists. I.E. That is your axiom, not a fact.


Well I am not sure what you mean by implications ?
The circularity of your argument to start with.


I know that we are here as physical beings evolved from matter which either always existed or came into existence from some as yet unknown natural process. This implies ???? The trouble you have is the NEED for some implication.. you think that their must be a PURPOSE to blind nature ! I Don’t !
Why would your understanding of purpose, or lack thereof, be relevant?

[hgc]

Aussie Thinker, meet The Riddler.

http://www.sixtiescity.com/Batman/riddler.jpg

[thaiboxerken]

Good answer, ceptimus !
Not sure about your final paragraph, because sensible believers - in their way - test the phenomena they have seen. (Repetition).

Not in any objective way, otherwise they wouldn't be classified as "beliefs".


There will always be people - sceptics AND believers - who will just pick up what you call a kooky idea and run with it.

Believers do it all the time, i don't know of any sceptics though. Can you give examples?


I'm not sure you have allayed my qualms about the extent to which sceptics are prepared to put their entire trust in current scientific knowledge at any given time.

Sceptics place their entire trust in scientific knowledge? Can you give examples?

Sceptics acknowledge that science gives us the most reliable knowledge and discoveries. Trust has nothing to do with it, evidence does.

[Aussie Thinker]

Hammergk

It's a dichotomy, but "matrix world" to me doesn't describe the possibility that what we perceive with our perceived bodies may be in the most basic sense immaterial rather than material.

I guess I will just never understand the mindset that is willing to give the same credence to a philosophy of immaterialism to that of materialism when materialism has the HUGE leg up of our own senses and perceptions.

It like me throwing coins in a tub and concluding that they will always sink.. you on the other hand say.. yes but one day one of them may not !

Where does "our" consciousness enter the picture, except in the Atman/Brahman sense.

You get hung up on the word consciousness. It is just a function of our intelligence which evolved naturally. We are self aware because we have become smart enough to become self aware. Evolution shows us that the smarter the creature the more self aware. My cat knows it is looking at itself when it looks in a mirror !

Why you equate this self awareness with anything beyond the physical world is a mystery .. when ALL evidence shows it does not exist outside of the physical boundaries of a brain.



It is normal to weight ideas according to logic and evidence.. the idea of a material world has way more logic and evidence behind it. Enough in fact to consider it Fact as much as we do anything.

[quote]The circularity of your argument to start with.

Well all arguments are circular if we accept that a “matrix” type existence is a possibility.. you have to revert again to the probable situation.. not the improbable.

Why would your understanding of purpose, or lack thereof, be relevant

Maybe as relevant as my understanding of your point or the relevance of this weird question !

[Interesting Ian]

What is this?? :eek:

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

I know as a good sceptic we should remain polite but here is why it is hard to do so.

Lets take Interesting Ian as an example.

Initially I read his posts thinking he posts in an intelligent rational manner.

I post in exactly the same way thinking ahhh here is a rational “believer” with whom we can hold a rational discussion.

I ask “why” he believes and he says because of evidence.



Where did I state this? It's an interplay between a certain philosophical interpretation of reality and the evidence in its various forms.



The evidence he then provides is non-existent..



Anecdotes throughout human history and across all cultures, and more systematically gathered evidence, tend to suggest quite extraordinary capacities of the human mind, including the capacity of surviving the death of ones body. If we were talking about isolated experiences, or experiences peculiar to a time and place, then appealing to the capacity for the brain to fool itself might seem very plausible. But this is not the case, and I think it's about time that people got to grips with the fact that there is a whole host of commonly experienced phenomena eg NDE's, deathbed apparitions, crisis apparitions, young children between the ages of 2 and 5 remembering previous lives etc which strongly imply survival.

Ignoring this evidence and burying your head in the sand, or simply dogmatically asserting that absolutely all these experiences are hallucinations or delusions, with no real evidence to support such a position, is not the mark of a rational inquiring mind.


I am incredulous.. this guy seems intelligent .. how has the “evidence” he showed (all completely anecdotal) convinced him of anything.

I calmly explain that the normal rule of logic is.. if something is constantly unproven or has no basis of reality the default situation should be scepticism. I show clearly that everything has a materialistic basis.



Asserting it has no basis in reality is simply reiterating your belief. And as for proof, one cannot be absolutely sure that one survives ones body. All we can do is point to all the evidence and explain that the fact that there are correlations between brain events and mental events, does not necessitate that consciousness literally are those brain events (materialism). As I have tirelessly explained elsewhere, the fact that brain events modify mental events doesn't necessitate the latter has its origin in the former.



He insists the world is immaterial in spite of logic and argument.



We are only ever acquainted with qualia. Why suppose there is some wholly mysterious reality lying beyond our qualia which we could never in principle experience?



Then starts to repeat his earlier completely unjustified beliefs.. As more and more reason piles up against his arguments he retreats into the completely ridiculous statements like “I refuse to check your link”.. showing he is completely unaligned with reality.



You fail to understand a philosophical problem when you see one. All neurology can do is explain function or behaviour. It can never explain the raw phenomenological feel of consciousness because science can only in principle deal with the 3rd person objective realm. These links beg the question by presupposing materialism. Basically any scientific endeavour to explain consciousness makes this mistake.



I am afraid at this stage it is time to start calling the guy a loon !

Sadly due to his eloquence and obvious intelligence he is a dangerous loon. He has the ability to somehow make his case seem attractive to the general population who have this great “need” to “believe”.. Those people who don’t look at substance in an argument or question its basis.

It is people like Ian who manage to keep the general population ignorant .. remember we sceptics fight against the majority opinion of a belief in the supernatural.. we start at a huge disadvantage trying to turn people away from the ridiculous and force them face reality.. Guys like Ian make that job just sooo much harder.

I suspect I will neither sway believers nor skeptics in their beliefs in this matter. The only people I am liable to influence are those who are attracted to believing in things like a life after death etc, but feel that the apparent reliance of consciousness upon the brain makes such beliefs impossible to sustain.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

That is the "reality" I want them to perceive too !
In that case, I'm behind you a hundred percent, but I have to count Ian among the contributors to this cause. Hammegk too. This environment is made richer by their presence.

Of course, this is really concerned more with trying to be realistic about how we percieve our reality than to the nature of that reality itself. Being very interested in this is something I have in common with Ian. One conclusion we share is that what we observe is to some extent an artifact of our senses (minds/brains/whatever). As can be easily demonstrated by magician's tricks, optical illusions, and the like, our perceptions often amount to little more than patchwork constructs hastily thrown together based on selections from an internal library of general-purpose default assumptions. (The 'flat-earth' model is not a bad example.)

Much of the work of science, and certainly of philosophy, is concerned with undoing the damage this process causes, by identifying hidden assumptions and eliminating those which are flawed. While I am not ready to include the existence of the physical world among the assumptions that needs eliminating, neither do I find it easy to dismiss such arguments with a wave of the hand. (To my great relief, I do find, however, that I am usually able to dismiss them on the basis of internal inconsistency.)

As long as assumptions are being questioned, I'm happy.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by showme2
Was this before or after all reputable scientists of the day swore that the earth was flat and therefore one could sail off the edge into oblivion ?

Those "reputable scientists" were at the time properly called Natural Philosophers. Rather than using empirical experimentation (which wouldnt make it a Philosophy), Philosophers such as Aristotle used general deductive reasoning to forumate the things he thought about the behavior and nature of objects (i.e. flat earth, earth is at the center of the universe otherwise it would fall out of the heavens, an object twice as heavy will fall twice as fast). To reiterate, those "reputable scientists" were not scientists.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by showme2
The whole basis of science is to try and come up with an idea that might explain something, and then test that idea on the universe to see if it is correct. In a nutshell, science comes down to, 'try it, and see'.
I disagree.

When it comes down to it all, scientists want to come up with explanations of how and why everything works the way it does. When we learn how and why something works, experiment and verify the hypothesis through 1000s of conditions all across indenpendent labs across the world, we call it science.

Casual note: Modern medicine is a science because it is based on empirical data rather than mathematical laws.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Hammergk
It's hammegk.


I guess I will just never understand the mindset that is willing to give the same credence to a philosophy of immaterialism to that of materialism when materialism has the HUGE leg up of our own senses and perceptions.
Only in the 'sense' that that is your belief.


It like me throwing coins in a tub and concluding that they will always sink.. you on the other hand say.. yes but one day one of them may not !
LOL. Why would I do that?


You get hung up on the word consciousness. It is just a function of our intelligence which evolved naturally. We are self aware because we have become smart enough to become self aware. Evolution shows us that the smarter the creature the more self aware. My cat knows it is looking at itself when it looks in a mirror !

Why you equate this self awareness with anything beyond the physical world is a mystery .. when ALL evidence shows it does not exist outside of the physical boundaries of a brain.[quote][b]
Always set up your own strawmen; they are easiest to defend against. Why you equate "animal awareness" with consciousness is the mystery. Are plants "conscious"? A Virus? A prion? The Higgs field (if such exists). How do you know? This is one of the relevant question that immatterialism at least sees a possiblity to answere, unlike materialism's emergent property=goddidit=I dunno.

HPC and qualia are another relevant concern, these being situated at the human consciousness level.

[quote][b]
It is normal to weight ideas according to logic and evidence.. the idea of a material world has way more logic and evidence behind it. Enough in fact to consider it Fact as much as we do anything.
And I'm sure we both find perception equally "factual"; the question is, what is "factually" involved?


Well all arguments are circular if we accept that a “matrix” type existence is a possibility.. you have to revert again to the probable situation.. not the improbable.
And since The Matrix is not part my monistic idealism, then what?


Maybe as relevant as my understanding of your point or the relevance of this weird question !
Not a question; just my comment on the relevance of "purpose of the universe" as you do or don't understand it.

[Aussie Thinker]

Iteresting Ian,

What is this??

A rant about how some intelligent people use their powers for evil instead of goodness !

Where did I state this? It's an interplay between a certain philosophical interpretation of reality and the evidence in its various forms.

I again reiterate the “evidence” is non existent.

Anecdotes throughout human history and across all cultures, and more systematically gathered evidence, tend to suggest quite extraordinary capacities of the human mind, including the capacity of surviving the death of ones body. If we were talking about isolated experiences, or experiences peculiar to a time and place, then appealing to the capacity for the brain to fool itself might seem very plausible. But this is not the case, and I think it's about time that people got to grips with the fact that there is a whole host of commonly experienced phenomena eg NDE's, deathbed apparitions, crisis apparitions, young children between the ages of 2 and 5 remembering previous lives etc which strongly imply survival.

Ignoring this evidence and burying your head in the sand, or simply dogmatically asserting that absolutely all these experiences are hallucinations or delusions, with no real evidence to support such a position, is not the mark of a rational inquiring mind.

What seem incredible is that you give this “evidence” and credence at all ! Anectodal evidence is nothing in science, human experience is generally flawed and misinterpreted. NDE’s always have a cultural bent to them and are made by people still alive and in some way conscious.

You give NO credence to the alternative of the ludicrousness of the behaviour of the “mind” after death. Its stupidity and preoccupation with trivial things and repetitive things. The countless debunking of these very same behaviours as tricks and charlatanism.

We are only ever acquainted with qualia. Why suppose there is some wholly mysterious reality lying beyond our qualia which we could never in principle experience?

I don’t suppose it.. apparently you do !

You fail to understand a philosophical problem when you see one. All neurology can do is explain function or behaviour. It can never explain the raw phenomenological feel of consciousness because science can only in principle deal with the 3rd person objective realm. These links beg the question by presupposing materialism. Basically any scientific endeavour to explain consciousness makes this mistake.

And you fail to see that I consider it VERY strange to give weight to an alternative existence of the mind when ALL evidence points to it being housed in the physical boundaries of the brain ONLY. When physical activity in the brain is shown to be clearly linked to mental activity.. you say it is not necessarily related…that is just being hopeful.. not scientific and not logical at all !

I suspect I will neither sway believers nor skeptics in their beliefs in this matter. The only people I am liable to influence are those who are attracted to believing in things like a life after death etc, but feel that the apparent reliance of consciousness upon the brain makes such beliefs impossible to sustain.

If some of the idiots I talk to who believe John Edwards talks to the dead talk to someone with intelligence who tells them.. “yes this could be true.. there is much evidence that consciousness survives our death.. etc.. they jump on it.”

You are not “swaying” them you are feeding their lunacy.

If I went to a guy in the asylum and ensured him that he very well could be Napoleon would you agree I am dangerous to his mental health ?

[Aussie Thinker]

Hammegk,

Please try a little experiment for me.

Pick up a Pen on your desk.

Look at it.

Turn it around.

Does it have substance ?

Can you see it ?

Can you feel it ?

Now each of these senses will say and your answers to this will be Yes it has material existence.

HOWEVER …Your mind can conceive that this may not actually be reality and the pen may not actually exist.

BUT…. That is not the worldview that should get precedence..

If you give the non material wordview precedence than you have a serious mental problem.

Admit that you DO actually give the material world precedence and merely ALLOW for a non-material world to be a POSSIBILITY.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
....
Admit that you DO actually give the material world precedence and merely ALLOW for a non-material world to be a POSSIBILITY.
LOL. You don't understand my worldview, but be assured I agree perception (using our perceived meat-machines) is "reality" for those meat-machines.

The Question is "are we actually just perceived meat-machines stitched together from the material of objective physical reality?".

[Folly]

hammegk said
That method looks for repeatable and/or predictable results (math & physics, oh boy!) independent of the person doing the experimentation. The method itself is bulletproof once one accepts on faith that an objective, material world exists. The method is absolutely self-correcting with truth supplanting lesser truth."

Scientists, being human, don't come with the same guaranteed objectivity, although much of the argumentation here revolves around the truth value of their "objective physical reality" axiomatically existing.

to which hgc said
See what I mean about those kooky solipsists? This catpuke is used to justify all manner of crazy assertions.

What? This seems pretty reasonable to me. You assume a rational world and science becomes a useful tool. And, of course, even with an objective reality, everyone's personal reality is subjective: what I can see is not what you see. But as long as what we perceive matches reality closely enough (has no systematic flaws) science remains a useful tool.

Or did I just miss a sarcastic comment? :P


showme said
OK, so why were those methods not deployed by the bums who assured everyone the world was flat.

And when do we know that we don't have the "lesser truth" (or downright inaccuracy) and have now got the greater truth that we can rely on?

And what was that lesser truth if not an inaccurate proposition of a belief system?

Who said scientific methods weren't being employed then? Where do you think the current knowledge that the earth isn't flat came from? People observe a number of things that don't fit with a flat earth. Someone figures out that a sphere does work. Now make some new observations based on that idea. It still works? Good, then let's say we're on a sphere. And heck, maybe it wasn't called science, but that's what it was.

Later on, trying to measure the radius, you can note that it's not a sphere either. Time for an oblate spheroid. You're probably not going to notice this immediately after thinking the world is flat. Some simpler approximation will probably come first. You need the ability and inclination to make the right observations.

So we always have the lesser truth. There may always be more detail to be found. New theories supplant the old. BUT NOT THE OBSERVATIONS. Once I've noted that a flat world doesn't work, I can't go back. It may be the case, however, that the conditions it breaks down in are so extreme that I can use this old model as a useful approximation anyway, just like force=mass*acceleration is useful in most day to day situations.

You could call the current scientific knowledge about the world a belief system, but that makes the word belief uselessly broad. Something like "I'm wearing pants" becomes just as much a belief as the body of current scientific knowledge.

[Unas]

Originally posted by showme2
Who do you imagine was putting forward the physics theories of the day if not the physicists of the day ?
We don't have to imagine. The facts of history are there, if you'd get off your self-satisfied rump and look for them. But you prefer to "imagine" that you know who said what several centuries ago. Letting the facts into your little fantasy world would be so upsetting, wouldn't it?

Now answer the question: Can you please provide some references for anyone who called themselves a "scientist" or an equivalent who followed what we now call the "scientific method" who thought the earth was flat?

[Unas]

Originally posted by showme2
I will not waste my time "backing up" that which is self-evident.
Translation: You don't have any facts to back up your claim. You've realized that rather belatedly, and you're going to feign indignation that anyone would dare to question your word, rather than admit you made an argument from ignorance.

Gee, what a surprise...

Who ELSE would be making pronouncements about physics other than phyicists of the time ?
Have you bothered to find out, or are you merely "imagining" that you know what you are talking about?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anecdotes throughout human history and across all cultures, and more systematically gathered evidence, tend to suggest quite extraordinary capacities of the human mind, including the capacity of surviving the death of ones body. If we were talking about isolated experiences, or experiences peculiar to a time and place, then appealing to the capacity for the brain to fool itself might seem very plausible. But this is not the case, and I think it's about time that people got to grips with the fact that there is a whole host of commonly experienced phenomena eg NDE's, deathbed apparitions, crisis apparitions, young children between the ages of 2 and 5 remembering previous lives etc which strongly imply survival.

Ignoring this evidence and burying your head in the sand, or simply dogmatically asserting that absolutely all these experiences are hallucinations or delusions, with no real evidence to support such a position, is not the mark of a rational inquiring mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AT
What seem incredible is that you give this “evidence” and credence at all ! Anectodal evidence is nothing in science, human experience is generally flawed and misinterpreted. NDE’s always have a cultural bent to them and are made by people still alive and in some way conscious.



That's right, ignore what I just said. And as I explained before, it would be most strange if ones beliefs didn't have any effect on the NDE. Even in our empirical reality people from different cultures do not literally see the same thing. All our perceptions are shaped by implicit low level theories abut the world.



You give NO credence to the alternative of the ludicrousness of the behaviour of the “mind” after death. Its stupidity and preoccupation with trivial things and repetitive things. The countless debunking of these very same behaviours as tricks and charlatanism.



The self is occupied with trivial things after death? This coming from a person who vehemently denies there is any self after death? :eek: I wonder if you could let me know how you know that the incorporeal self (even though it doesn't exist!) is so preoccupied with trivial things? Even if it were, could you explain why people should suddenly become so interesting after their deaths?




II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are only ever acquainted with qualia. Why suppose there is some wholly mysterious reality lying beyond our qualia which we could never in principle experience?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don’t suppose it.. apparently you do !



No, that is what you do.




II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You fail to understand a philosophical problem when you see one. All neurology can do is explain function or behaviour. It can never explain the raw phenomenological feel of consciousness because science can only in principle deal with the 3rd person objective realm. These links beg the question by presupposing materialism. Basically any scientific endeavour to explain consciousness makes this mistake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And you fail to see that I consider it VERY strange to give weight to an alternative existence of the mind when ALL evidence points to it being housed in the physical boundaries of the brain ONLY. When physical activity in the brain is shown to be clearly linked to mental activity.. you say it is not necessarily related…that is just being hopeful.. not scientific and not logical at all !



I have not denied it is related. The brain limits the self otherwise the self would simultaneously experience all realities. The brain is necessary for the self to be able to focus on this empirical reality and function proficiently within it.




II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect I will neither sway believers nor skeptics in their beliefs in this matter. The only people I am liable to influence are those who are attracted to believing in things like a life after death etc, but feel that the apparent reliance of consciousness upon the brain makes such beliefs impossible to sustain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AT
If some of the idiots I talk to who believe John Edwards talks to the dead talk to someone with intelligence who tells them.. “yes this could be true.. there is much evidence that consciousness survives our death.. etc.. they jump on it.”

You are not “swaying” them you are feeding their lunacy.

If I went to a guy in the asylum and ensured him that he very well could be Napoleon would you agree I am dangerous to his mental health ?



I'm pleased you think I might be able to reinforce peoples beliefs. This can be no bad thing. The sooner that people realise that there is very little reason whatsoever to believe in materialism, together with the implied consequence that we are all just robots living out our purposeless lives in a purposeless Universe, and in fact every reason to think otherwise, the better as far as I am concerned.

[Aussie Thinker]

Interesting Ian,

That's right, ignore what I just said. And as I explained before, it would be most strange if ones beliefs didn't have any effect on the NDE. Even in our empirical reality people from different cultures do not literally see the same thing. All our perceptions are shaped by implicit low level theories abut the world.

I hadn’t ignored it I discounted it.

If people have NDE’s that are based on what they already perceive and believe it implies it is their OWN fantasy or dream.

If a Hindu had NDE’s that included Christ then I might pay attention.

The self is occupied with trivial things after death? This coming from a person who vehemently denies there is any self after death? I wonder if you could let me know how you know that the incorporeal self (even though it doesn't exist!) is so preoccupied with trivial things? Even if it were, could you explain why people should suddenly become so interesting after their deaths?

Now Ian…

You KNOW I don’t think there is any self after death I was showing the irrationality of thinking of a self after death that acts so stupidly. It is the “trivial” behaviour like being VERY unclear and moving around objects etc that is attributed to the dead souls that shows how ridiculous the notion is.

You yourself say… “could you explain why people should suddenly become so interesting after their deaths”.. No I can’t but it makes no sense that they should become so vague and uncommunicative either. In fact they only have enough cognitive powers to give a vague anectodal evidence of their existence… curious that isn’t it ???

No, that is what you do.

I think you better re-read that bit.

I have not denied it is related. The brain limits the self otherwise the self would simultaneously experience all realities. The brain is necessary for the self to be able to focus on this empirical reality and function proficiently within it.

Yet NOTHING except the poorest of anectodal evidence has ever shown this to you. The same sort of evidence that exists for alien abduction.. do you believe in it too ?

I'm pleased you think I might be able to reinforce peoples beliefs. This can be no bad thing. The sooner that people realise that there is very little reason whatsoever to believe in materialism, together with the implied consequence that we are all just robots living out our purposeless lives in a purposeless Universe, and in fact every reason to think otherwise, the better as far as I am concerned.

Ah ha.. “Bad beliefs don’t die”… I think you have just showed us why you WANT to believe so badly. Why you are allowing your belief system to override your natural intelligence and scepticism !

You DONT want to be a robot and live a purposeless life.. The philosophical part of t of you is appalled that your logic has informed it that this is all there is.. there is NO purpose.. just blind nature and its vagaries !

At least I see now why you are locked in to your Bad Belief… if you delve into bad beliefs for long enough you usually find the cause and you usually discover how hard it is to shatter.

Will being purposeless really plunge you into a fog of depression or something ? I can assure you I happily live out a purposeless life..

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I disagree.

When it comes down to it all, scientists want to come up with explanations of how and why everything works the way it does. When we learn how and why something works, experiment and verify the hypothesis through 1000s of conditions all across indenpendent labs across the world, we call it science.

Casual note: Modern medicine is a science because it is based on empirical data rather than mathematical laws. Well you say you disagree, and then you seem to say exactly the same thing that I did. :confused:

What is your disagreement?

[Garrette]

Interesting Ian:

The sooner that people realise that there is very little reason whatsoever to believe in materialism, together with the implied consequence that we are all just robots living out our purposeless lives in a purposeless Universe, and in fact every reason to think otherwise, the better as far as I am concerned.


Setting aside for the moment that I am among the others who see no validity to your argument in general, I find this specific statement quite questionable.

If immaterialism is correct, why does it follow that existence has purpose? This is akin to the christian fundamentalist false dichotomy: If evolution is wrong, then biblical literalism must be right and there is a god.

Even if you prove universe x doesn't exist and that universe y does, you have not proven that universe y has any more meaning than universe x.

[deBergerac]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
DeBergerac,



OK I’ll try and make this simple (I ain’t all that eloquent so I hope you get it)

It boils down to a simple dichotomy.

1. We are all physically here and the world is material
2. We are in some “matrix” type non physical world

I guess you could add in a 3rd that is some combination of the 2.

Now you can touch, see, hear, smell etc physical things. Granted these may be just our mind fooling us but they happen with out consciousness being required. The “thought” that we may be in the “Matrix” while potentially correct MUST get less weight that the physical “hit” we get from our senses.

The non-physical idea must be relegated to being just an idea like any other.



Before I get all philosophical I just want to say that I am of the opinion that the physical materialistic world exist. If also a non-materialistic “dimension” of the world exists I do not know.

I do not see a simple dichotomy and apparently since a possible third, a combination, is given neither do you. But let us assume for the sake of the argument that the world is either material as perceived or immaterial where sensations are giving to us by either a “matrix” or a demon as in Descartes time.
How then can it be that the materialist view of the world must be the default option because we feel things? As both possible worlds give us the same feelings, the pen will be seen and felt and apparently have substance in either world, why would these sensations give precedence to the materialistic view of the world?
If you had said that the rational option is to assume that the world is materialistic I would have agreed with you so far as it is based on avoiding superfluous ideas. To explain the sensations we have of a physical world it is more rational to assume that there is a materialistic world than to invent something outside what we sense to give us the impressions we have.
The immaterial and the material worldview are both just ideas and no one is true beyond doubt though the materialistic would be the simpler “model” and thus the preferred one. But this has nothing to do with the fact that we feel things.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by showme2

Yes, they can validate according to their PRESENT knowledge.
But that present knowledge may, and probably will, be superseded and corrected at some time in the future.

I see. So let's abandon all of the discoveries that have been made in the fields of physics, chemestry and biology shall we? Let's discard all of the advances made by science just in case the laws of physics cahnge in the future.

Instead we can put our 'faith' in those concepts which have never been verified.

I guess we can throw out the advances in medical science and use the power of prayer instead.

Don't bother with astro physics, astrology will do just fine.

As for chemestry, don't bother we can use Voodoo incantations instead.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette



Setting aside for the moment that I am among the others who see no validity to your argument in general, I find this specific statement quite questionable.

If immaterialism is correct, why does it follow that existence has purpose?

Where did I state this? If materialism is correct then existence has no purpose. That is what I said.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Keneke
He should change his name to Interesting Icon
Ah, no thanks.

[Garrette]

Ian, you said this:

The sooner that people realise that there is very little reason whatsoever to believe in materialism, together with the implied consequence that we are all just robots living out our purposeless lives in a purposeless Universe, and in fact every reason to think otherwise, the better as far as I am concerned.

To which I said this:

Setting aside for the moment that I am among the others who see no validity to your argument in general, I find this specific statement quite questionable.

And now you ask this:

Where did I state this? If materialism is correct then existence has no purpose. That is what I said.

You said the last statement in the context of belittling the argument for it and with the clear implication that immaterialism means existence has a purpose.

If you did not intend to imply that, then you had no reason to bring up purpose in the first place.

However, I'll be willing to drop the point if you are willing to state plainly that immaterialism does not imply purpose.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by deBergerac
To explain the sensations we have of a physical world it is more rational to assume that there is a materialistic world than to invent something outside what we sense to give us the impressions we have.



The materialist world is that which is outside what we sense. This is why we should reject its existence.

And it certainly is not more rational to hypothesis a material world. If physical world and material world are synonymous, you simply beg the question by saying "sensations we have of a physical world".



The immaterial and the material worldview are both just ideas and no one is true beyond doubt though the materialistic would be the simpler “model”


You really are clueless :rolleyes: Care to explain how hypothesising a whole material Universe is somehow more simple?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette
Ian, you said this:



To which I said this:



And now you ask this:



You said the last statement in the context of belittling the argument for it and with the clear implication that immaterialism means existence has a purpose.

If you did not intend to imply that, then you had no reason to bring up purpose in the first place.

However, I'll be willing to drop the point if you are willing to state plainly that immaterialism does not imply purpose.

There is nothing in immaterialism that necessitates purpose. But we have a colossal amount of evidence that there is a purpose, and no reasons to think there is no purpose.

Evidence incidentally, which is incompatible with materialism. That is principally why materialists reject it. Makes them quite irrational actually when we consider they have no good reasons to subscribe to materialism in the first place.

[Starrman]

Anecdotes throughout human history and across all cultures, and more systematically gathered evidence, tend to suggest...

Ian,

Do you then believe that extraterrestrials are visiting the Earth on a regular basis? The evidences you describe are nearly identical to those for the alien hypothesis - lots of anecdotes and a few iffy 'hard' cases (supposed implants and whatnot. If this is truly what leads you to believe in ESP, then you must also believe in alien visitation and abduction.

Just curious.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Starrman


Ian,

Do you then believe that extraterrestrials are visiting the Earth on a regular basis? The evidences you describe are nearly identical to those for the alien hypothesis - lots of anecdotes and a few iffy 'hard' cases (supposed implants and whatnot. If this is truly what leads you to believe in ESP, then you must also believe in alien visitation and abduction.

Just curious.

No I don't feel that aliens are visiting the earth. I confess I know virtually nothing about the subject, but I haven't heard of any systematic research which suggests this, I have not experienced such alleged visitations myself, and are they not limited to a specific culture and epoch? Maybe something unusual is going on which people interpret as an alien visitation, but which people in the past interpreted as being something else.

What good evidence is there that aliens are visiting us?

[Starrman]

Maybe something unusual is going on which people interpret as an alien visitation, but which people in the past interpreted as being something else.

The problem with the alien hypothesis, in my opinion, is just this. The jump is made from 'unknown' to 'it must be aliens' too quickly.

As for systematic testing for aliens, that may be where my analogy falters, as I can't think of a good way to prove it scientifically other than just finding something which is indisputably alien.

What good evidence is there that aliens are visiting us?

None, as far as I am concerned. My point was that some of the same type of evidence you use for ESP is also used for aliens. Your reply leads me to guess that it is more of the 'systematic research' that leads you toward believing in ESP (I'm using this generically, I'm not sure specifically what you believe in). I think the argument you are coming up against is the validity of said systematic research.

Is there one set of experiments that you think is the best?

[Garrette]

Interesting Ian:

There is nothing in immaterialism that necessitates purpose. But we have a colossal amount of evidence that there is a purpose, and no reasons to think there is no purpose

The best this deserves is "Pish tosh, poppycock, and codswallop."

Immaterialism itself hasn't the evidence you claim it does. Even if, for the sake of fun argument, we presuppose immaterialism, there's not an iota of evidence for purpose.

You are too fond of your own verbal gymnastics, and your hypothesis is too divorced from reality.

[deBergerac]

What is purpose? Would an immaterial world imply that there is a purpose with "life, the universe, and everything" and would that purpose be 42?

This discussion is getting way out of hand if someone does not soon define what kind of purpose we are talking about here. It is true that in the scientific models there is no purpose to why a marble moves the way it does, it is no purpose to why a lizard evolves to a bird. But there are reasons explained in theories for mechanics and evolution. Would the existence of a purpose prove that the materialistic point of view is wrong?

A sunny day in the forest watching the flight of a former-lizard-turned-bird feeling the warmth of the sun I feel like my life has purpose. A late night dancing in a club (Prague has some great ones) exhausted but happy, I feel that life has purpose. Why make it more complicated than that?

Sorry for getting so emotional, point is if you want to use purpose as a tool in discussing the materialistic/immaterialistic nature of the world you need to explain what purpose is.

[Titus Rivas]

Materialism is sheer nonsense. What could be more dangerous for rationality than saying it is rational or "scientific"?
See my contributions on this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25726), started by "dangerous" Interesting Ian.

By the way, I won't respond to anything but rational arguments to my points. So far this type of response has been shockingly absent on this forum most of the time.

Apart from its blatant irrationality, materialism also has horrific consequences for one's world view. Another reason to expose it.

Titus

[Darat]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Materialism is sheer nonsense. What could be more dangerous for rationality than saying it is rational or "scientific"?
See my contributions on this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25726), started by "dangerous" Interesting Ian.

By the way, I won't respond to anything but rational arguments to my points. So far this type of response has been shockingly absent on this forum most of the time.

Apart from its blatant irrationality, materialism also has horrific consequences for one's world view. Another reason to expose it.

Titus

Can you summarise here why materialism is irrational? And do you equate naturalism with materialism?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette


The best this deserves is "Pish tosh, poppycock, and codswallop."

Immaterialism itself hasn't the evidence you claim it does. Even if, for the sake of fun argument, we presuppose immaterialism, there's not an iota of evidence for purpose.

You are too fond of your own verbal gymnastics, and your hypothesis is too divorced from reality.

What do you mean immaterialism doesn't have any evidence? It's just a metaphysical interpretation of reality like materialism! :confused:

We learn that there is an ultimate purpose to our lives in mystical experiences like NDE's.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
...snip...

Apart from its blatant irrationality, materialism also has horrific consequences for one's world view. Another reason to expose it.

Titus

(For the purpose of this response please note that I am not saying materialism is right, wrong, incoherent or coherent, I'm merely examining the implications of your statement.)

You say ""Another reason to expose it."

If materialism was the "truth" of how reality "is" then whether that has horrendous implications or not doesn't matter. It seems from your comment even if it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that materialism is "the philosophy that describes our reality" you would still be opposed to it on purely emotional grounds.

I do have to question therefore if you are really willing to debate the issue with an open mind (and constructively) because you have an emotional abhorrence of finding that materialism is "right".

[Titus Rivas]

If materialism was the "truth" of how reality "is" then whether that has horrendous implications or not doesn't matter. It seems from your comment even if it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that materialism is "the philosophy that describes our reality" you would still be opposed to it on purely emotional grounds. Or course not, Darat. What I was trying to say is that materialism is not only irrational, but also horrendous. If it were only irrational, that would be awful enough intellectually speaking. But now it is also horrendous in other than a purely intellectual sense.

Titus

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by deBergerac
What is purpose? Would an immaterial world imply that there is a purpose with "life, the universe, and everything" and would that purpose be 42?



No, but materialism implies there is no purpose.



This discussion is getting way out of hand if someone does not soon define what kind of purpose we are talking about here. It is true that in the scientific models there is no purpose to why a marble moves the way it does, it is no purpose to why a lizard evolves to a bird.



No teleology no.




But there are reasons explained in theories for mechanics and evolution. Would the existence of a purpose prove that the materialistic point of view is wrong?



I was talking about purpose for sentient beings. If we cease to exist at some time in the future it is not clear to me how it could be said our lives have a purpose. I mean if we are all soon shortly going to exist, what is the difference between having such a purpose and not having a purpose?



A sunny day in the forest watching the flight of a former-lizard-turned-bird feeling the warmth of the sun I feel like my life has purpose. A late night dancing in a club (Prague has some great ones) exhausted but happy, I feel that life has purpose. Why make it more complicated than that?



Seems to me that no-one understands what the word purpose means. Purpose doesn't mean feeling happy or content. It means that there is some ultimate end, some ultimate goal for your being. That the purpose of life is maybe to make some progress towards that goal.

[Titus Rivas]

Darat said: Can you summarise here why materialism is irrational?

Here's what I said about materialism on the other thread, i.e. in the sense of identity theory and eliminative materialism:

First argument against identity theory

1) Identity theory implicitly claims that we can know that there are two perspectives towards the conscious mind. One would be the first person, subjective perspective. The other one the third person, objective perspective. The first person perspective amounts to what conscious mind appears to be (irreducible subjectivity). The third person perspective amounts to what the conscious mind really is (brain processes).
(2) Identity theory is right in claiming that only real entities can have a real impact on the real world.
(3) As (according to identity theory) consciousness as seen from the first person perspective is not real, but only apparent, it cannot have a real, but exclusively an apparent impact on the real world.
(4) Thus, Identity theory holds that we can really (rather than just apparently) know that there is a first person perspective, while it implies that we cannot really (rather than just apparently) know that there is a first person perspective.
(4a) Therefore, identity theory is an incoherent position.

Second argument against identity theory:

(1) Identity theory holds that consciousness as seen from the first person perspective is only apparent, rather than a real part of the real world, which can only be approached through the third person perspective.
(2) However, the first person perspective (which delivers a picture of consciousness as it appears to be) must be a real part of the real world, as otherwise Identity Theory would not claim that consciousness can be seen from a first person perspective as well as a third person perspective.
(3) If the first person perspective is a real part of the real world, then consciousness as it appears to be must be a real part of the real world as well, as the first person perspective really leads to a picture of consciousness as it appears to be.
(3a) In other words, there really is a way we experience consciousness from the first person perspective, not just apparently.
(3b) This means, the way we experience consciousness from the inside is a real part of the real world.
(4) If consciousness as seen from the first person perspective is a real part of the real world, it cannot be merely apparent.
(5) Therefore, Identity Theory is incoherent.

My main argument against Eliminative Materialism is not an analytical argument, but based on introspection. Everything we learn from introspection contradicts Eliminative Materialism. We can see that our experiences are subjective and qualitative. They cannot be reduced to anything non-subjective and non-qualitative. For me, as well as for epiphenomenalists, parallellists and identity theorists, that's quite enough to accept that there are subjective experiences, or "a first person perspective" as Identity Theory would put it.

We can think of analytical arguments against Eliminative Materialism though they may be more complex than against the other positions I've tried to tackle. For example, most rational minds would accept that all the evidence we have about reality reaches us through subjectivity. We have no way of passing by our subjectivity and reach out for some kind of sources of information about the physical world without the use of our subjectivity. Any result from 'objective' physical measurements by any physical apparatus still needs to appear in our subjective minds in order for us to accept that we've taken notice of it. So, in this sense all our knowledge is based in consciousness (not in the sense that everything we know is conscious for example, but in the sense that for us to accept that we know some physical fact, it first must have passed through our conscious minds). Now, if you deny consciousness, you thereby deny our capacity to know anything at all. However, eliminative materialism implicitly claims it knows (in the normal sense) that there is a physical world.

More formally:
(1) Eliminative Materialism denies that we (really) have qualitative, subjective experiences
(1a) According to Eliminative Materialism (we can know that) there really is a physical world.
(2). For conscious, rationally acceptable knowledge we need subjective awareness.
(3) If we delete consciousness from our world view, we imply that we can have no conscious, rationally acceptable knowledge as commonly understood.
(4) Thus, Eliminative Materialism either has to accept that we can know nothing whatsoever, which would make it an incoherent position.
(5) Or it has delete to conscious knowledge from its world view as well, which would mean it has to come up with a completely new definition of knowledge.

That pretty much sums up my problems with Eliminative Materialism. Problems which are more than enough reason to discard the position without second thoughts.

I hope that will do. If not, I will also add my arguments against emergent materialism and soft materialism or epiphenomenalism (which is really a form of property dualism).

And do you equate naturalism with materialism? No, as there are also naturalists who are epiphenomenalists (epiphenomenalism being a 'moderate" form of dualism) and even naturalists like Sir Karl Popper who are full-blown dualists and interactionists. Then there are anti-ontological naturalists who refuse to take any ontological stance, and who therefore are outsiders to the ontological discussion we're dealing with.

Titus

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


...snip...

We learn that there is an ultimate person to our lives in mystical experiences like NDE's.

Ian - believe it or not I'm not tied to materialism being right, and in trying to engage in an open debate you’d probably classify me more of a pragmatist if anything. (But not in any formal manner.)

I am quite willing to hear why “materialism is stupid” but I do find your reasoning incredibly hard to follow. You apparently go from "logically materialism is incoherent” to “logically immaterialism is coherent therefore the world is immaterial” to “that means there is a purpose”, to now talking about "ultimate person".

Is there any chance we can start at the beginning of this chain and for you to supply the "proof" in the form of logic that materialism is incoherent? I’ve asked before but you’ve not provided it.

And to lay my cards on the table my intent would be to try to get you to show all the steps that you have made to get to your currently held viewpoint so that would mean, if you show the materialism is illogic step I’ll then be interested in the “proof” of the next step.

[Garrette]

Interesting Ian:

What do you mean immaterialism doesn't have any evidence? It's just a metaphysical interpretation of reality like materialism!

We learn that there is an ultimate person to our lives in mystical experiences like NDE's.

Ian, I am not going to get drawn into a repeat of the discussions you have had with many other posters here. I will only ask with something amounting to incredulity: "You aren't really stating, are you, that from an objective standpoint the immaterial view deserves the same status as the material one?"

I suspect your answer will be something along the lines of stating that everything is subjective and there is no such thing as an objective viewpoint.

---

I assume by "ultimate person" you actually meant "ultimate purpose?"

What we learn from reported NDEs is that they do not hold up under scrutiny.

Even if an NDE held up under scrutiny, the descriptions would not indicate a purpose.

Are you intentionally trolling?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat


Ian - believe it or not I'm not tied to materialism being right, and in trying to engage in an open debate you’d probably classify me more of a pragmatist if anything. (But not in any formal manner.)

I am quite willing to hear why “materialism is stupid” but I do find your reasoning incredibly hard to follow. You apparently go from "logically materialism is incoherent” to “logically immaterialism is coherent therefore the world is immaterial” to “that means there is a purpose”, to now talking about "ultimate person".

Is there any chance we can start at the beginning of this chain and for you to supply the "proof" in the form of logic that materialism is incoherent? I’ve asked before but you’ve not provided it.

And to lay my cards on the table my intent would be to try to get you to show all the steps that you have made to get to your currently held viewpoint so that would mean, if you show the materialism is illogic step I’ll then be interested in the “proof” of the next step.

Darat, I meant to say ultimate purpose, not ultimate person.

Anyway, this is what I've said in a previous post. BTW the following argument doesn't refute eliminative materialism, but that is a crazy position which no sane person would hold.

What we need to do is take a look at materialism to see if it is internally consistant. Now the particular question I would like to address is why should we suppose that other peoples bodies are "inhabited" by conscious minds (or why phenomenal consciousness is associated with brains). Your argument no doubt will be that materialism stipulates this to be so; it is an axiomatic premise of materialism. But this makes your definition of materialism an arbitrary one. A metaphysic which glosses over awkward facts. Allow me to explain.

It seems to me that materialism should stipulate that the physical exhausts reality. That once we have completely described the Universe in physical terms then we have said all that can be said about the Universe or reality.

But what is the physical? It seems to me that it should be everything, that, at least in principle, can be observed by anyone with appropriate faculties and suitable instruments. In other words all that is objective exists, or to put it another way, all that is discernable from the third person perspective exists. This will also include things which can only be indirectly seen (although strictly speaking I reject the direct/indirect dichotomy). This then includes such entities as electrons, because although they can only be "indirectly" seen they nevertheless play fruitful roles in our theories describing the world ie we need to hypothesise electrons in order to explain certain aspects of reality.

Now there is something peculiar about conscious experience which marks it off from all other existents. It is simply this. It cannot be observed or detected by anyone with appropriate faculties and/or suitable instruments! Thus according to my prior definition of the physical it is not a physical existent. Thus I may have toothache to take an arbitrary example. But you cannot observe that toothache, all you can obseve is the effects of the toothache, the grimace of pain for example. Conscious experiences in other words are irreducibly private.

Now you will no doubt say that by observing the grimace, or at least by observing the neurons fire, then you are observing the toothache since materialism holds that the toothache and its neural correlates are one and the same thing, or at least aspects of the same thing. But an objective examination of this toothache will necessarily leave out the subjective irreducibly sensation of pain. The actually sensation of pain does not figure into the physical facts about the pain according to our prior definition of the physical. Nor can we infer the sensation of pain since, unlike an electron, the (phenomenological) pain does not play a part in any
description of our behaviour. The pain per se cannot play a part because pain per se is not part of the objective publically accessible realm. Only the neural correlates of the pain can play any fruitful role in our theories.

In short then either a materialist has to concede his metaphysic is internally inconsistent, or he must arbitrarily include phenomenological consciousness within his world picture. But if he opts for the latter then the whole prima facie plausibility of his world view crumbles away. No longer can he say that for something to exist it must be in principle be directly observable or play a fruitful role in some theory about the world, because this then necessarily precludes phenomenological consciousness. He
has to expand the notion of the physical to even include things that cannot be directly or even indirectly detected, even in principle! :eek:

This is what materialism entails and is just one of many reasons why we should reject this metaphysic.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette
[B]

Ian, I am not going to get drawn into a repeat of the discussions you have had with many other posters here. I will only ask with something amounting to incredulity: "You aren't really stating, are you, that from an objective standpoint the immaterial view deserves the same status as the material one?"



If by objective you mean rational, then of course not. After-all, immaterialism is coherent and materialism is incoherent.



I assume by "ultimate person" you actually meant "ultimate purpose?"



yes



What we learn from reported NDEs is that they do not hold up under scrutiny.



Could you elaborate? My understanding is that they do, and I've read a hell of a lot about them.



Even if an NDE held up under scrutiny, the descriptions would not indicate a purpose.



They most certainly do. You need to learn something about NDEs it seems.



Are you intentionally trolling?

If this is how you feel then be so good as to put me on ignore. I'm not wasting time responding to people who think I'm trolling.

[deBergerac]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Seems to me that no-one understands what the word purpose means. Purpose doesn't mean feeling happy or content. It means that there is some ultimate end, some ultimate goal for your being. That the purpose of life is maybe to make some progress towards that goal.

I did not think that you defined purpose as feeling happy and content so I am glad to have that confirmed. But I would like to point out that for people with a more Epicurean view of life this can be regarded as the purpose although it lacks a bit of ambition. It is not like there is a big plan with it all or a goal to strive towards yet for some life itself can be seen as a purpose.

If I have understood you correctly you do not say that an immaterial world implies a purpose but you are saying that a material world can have no purpose. As there according to you, is some purpose that means the material worldview cannot be correct.

We seem to agree that there exist no teleological aspects in current scientific theories and you seem to me to say that the question is about the existence of conscious beings and their purpose not the purpose of the universe and every atom in itself.

What I am curious to know is if it is your opinion that no material world exists or that there is a material world and also an immaterial world? You have probably explained your point of view on this matter earlier but remember that I am new here.

[Garrette]

Interesting Ian:

If this is how you feel then be so good as to put me on ignore. I'm not wasting time responding to people who think I'm trolling.

I have never put anyone on ignore. I doubt I will ever do so. If you feel you are wasting your time with me and choose to put me on ignore, I will not be offended.

Interesting Ian:

They most certainly do. You need to learn something about NDEs it seems.

You are incorrect. While I am not by a longshot the foremost expert on NDEs on this board, I know enough to stand by my statement. Until you or someone else produce some that do not whither when examined, that stance will continue. You are making two claims: (1) NDEs really are what they are claimed to be, and (2) they imply a purpose.

Neither is shown to have any validity.

[Interesting Ian]

OK my very last post for today, I've got some work to do.

Originally posted by deBergerac


I did not think that you defined purpose as feeling happy and content so I am glad to have that confirmed. But I would like to point out that for people with a more Epicurean view of life this can be regarded as the purpose although it lacks a bit of ambition. It is not like there is a big plan with it all or a goal to strive towards yet for some life itself can be seen as a purpose.



I think you're talking about meaning that one imposes on life. Not purpose. The purpose of a hammer is to bash things. The purpose of a stone isn't, even if you can still use it in that way.



If I have understood you correctly you do not say that an immaterial world implies a purpose but you are saying that a material world can have no purpose. As there according to you, is some purpose that means the material worldview cannot be correct.



No, my argument against materialism doesn't mention purpose. See my argument above starting with the sentence "what we need to do is take a look at materialism to see if it is internally consistant". My argument is purely philosophical without considering experiences such as NDE's which suggest a purpose to our lives.



We seem to agree that there exist no teleological aspects in current scientific theories and you seem to me to say that the question is about the existence of conscious beings and their purpose not the purpose of the universe and every atom in itself.

What I am curious to know is if it is your opinion that no material world exists or that there is a material world and also an immaterial world? You have probably explained your point of view on this matter earlier but remember that I am new here.

Immaterialism means that there is no material world. It does not mean any position which denies materialism. An epiphenomenalist would be puzzled to find people describing him as an immaterialist! :eek: LOL

[thaiboxerken]

Why a guy like Intersting Ian is dangerous:

With a solipsist attitude, one can justify murder simply because everyone else is a figment of his imagination.

Scared yet? You should be.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Why a guy like Intersting Ian is dangerous:

With a solipsist attitude, one can justify murder simply because everyone else is a figment of his imagination.

Scared yet? You should be.

TBK,

You're a waste of space who doesn't understand anything. Worse still, it appears that you do not even attempt to. Why don't you or anyone else address my refutation of materialism?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette

You are incorrect. While I am not by a longshot the foremost expert on NDEs on this board, I know enough to stand by my statement. Until you or someone else produce some that do not whither when examined, that stance will continue. You are making two claims: (1) NDEs really are what they are claimed to be, and (2) they imply a purpose.

Neither is shown to have any validity. [/B]

First of all I am not interested in particular anecdotes.

Secondly, if you stand by your statement then you need to justify it. So do so.

[Darat]

Ian - thanks for the response.

Sorry to do this but for me to follow this there are a few points I need to clarify.

"Materialism", when you use this are you defining it as something like:

encarta.com

Materialism, in philosophy, doctrine that all existence is resolvable into matter or into an attribute or effect of matter.




And that by the "matter" in the above we are not necessarily talking about something like a little billiard ball, but be something that has no analogue in our "macro world" like the strings from String theory.

Next what do you mean by "consciousness"?

(These may seem like silly questions but I want to make sure I don't get myself tied into knots only to find later on we were using different definitions!)

[hammegk]

Current physics indicates strongly that whatever an "objective material reality" consists of, it's not little billiard balls.

But even here we can cut to the first problem materialists must face; namely, what is this material-stuff embedded in that "separates" one piece of it from the next? Strings fare no better.

Consciousness? The fact -- objective & irrefutable to me -- that *I* think/will/exist.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


TBK,

You're a waste of space who doesn't understand anything. Worse still, it appears that you do not even attempt to. Why don't you or anyone else address my refutation of materialism?

What refutation? Your "arguments" are as immaterial as your philosophy. You offer no science or logic, just philosophical BS.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why don't you or anyone else address my refutation of materialism?

Ian, I'm going to say this one last time. Afterwards, please acknowledge the fact that you understand what I'm telling you for the hundredth time:

You offer nothing testable, refutable, or falsifiable. We can't refute you because you... offer... nothing!

Get it?

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk
Current physics indicates strongly that whatever an "objective material reality" consists of, it's not little billiard balls.

But even here we can cut to the first problem materialists must face; namely, what is this material-stuff embedded in that "separates" one piece of it from the next? Strings fare no better.

Consciousness? The fact -- objective & irrefutable to me -- that *I* think/will/exist. And the magic *I* makes its regularly scheduled appearance. Irrefutable to you alone is of little value to anyone else.

And why do you bother telling us about what's indicated by "current physics," since that's just *Your* own perception anyway?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
Ian, I'm going to say this one last time. Afterwards, please acknowledge the fact that you understand what I'm telling you for the hundredth time:

You offer nothing testable, refutable, or falsifiable. We can't refute you because you... offer... nothing!

Get it?

I think we can solve this very easily.

Ian, please show that what you claim is testable, refutable and falsifiable.

If you do not think it is either, then please explain how something can be "refuted" without being refutable (to pick one).

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I think we can solve this very easily.

Yeah... you'd think so...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
Yeah... you'd think so...

Yeah. This is what people refer to as "calling the bluff".

Either Ian can show this, or he cannot.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
And the magic *I* makes its regularly scheduled appearance. Irrefutable to you alone is of little value to anyone else.

And why do you bother telling us about what's indicated by "current physics," since that's just *Your* own perception anyway?

Speaking of little value, when is the last time you made an actual post rather than a personal attack on someone you disagree with?

Do you care to stand with a proviso that current physics is definitely seeking little, material, billiard balls? Maybe you/Upchurch/etal can post a "link"? And I'm sorry you apparently don't have an "I" that you can recognize as "you".

Finally, why not follow someone else around like a small puppy dog (who makes a mess on the floor from time to time but adds nothing).

[thaiboxerken]

Speaking of little value, when is the last time you made an actual post rather than a personal attack on someone you disagree with?

I saw no personal attack in HGC's last post. Attacking your silly beliefs is not the same as a personal attack, but you believers have a hard time making that distinction.

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk

Speaking of little value, when is the last time you made an actual post rather than a personal attack on someone you disagree with?Nothing personal hammy. I don't even know anything about you. How could I make a personal attack? Everything I've said to you addresses the assertions you make as part of your solipsistic attack on reality.Do you care to stand with a proviso that current physics is definitely seeking little, material, billiard balls? Maybe you/Upchurch/etal can post a "link"? I don't stand by the proviso, because it's a strawman argument. The point I was making is that you use or dismiss current science as it suits your argument.And I'm sorry you apparently don't have an "I" that you can recognize as "you".Oh, I use the word "I" in dialog, but I am not crazy enough to think it's something other than a syntactical construct. (Now that's a personal attack.)Finally, why not follow someone else around like a small puppy dog (who makes a mess on the floor from time to time but adds nothing). Mommy! hammy called me names!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Ian, please show that what you claim is testable, refutable and falsifiable.


After Ian is done, could you do the same with string theory?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
After Ian is done, could you do the same with string theory?

Where have I claimed that string theory is testable, refutable and falsifiable?

Show me where I claim this. Put up or shut up.

[hgc]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Where have I claimed that string theory is testable, refutable and falsifiable?

Show me where I claim this. Put up or shut up. More to the point, he should show where you've used string theory to bolster your argument on any topic.

[TLN]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
After Ian is done, could you do the same with string theory?

No one is claiming that string theory is unequivocally true and that your inability to "refute" it makes it real.

Please tell me you see what's wrong with Ian's method of “you can’t refute it so it’s right.”

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by hgc
More to the point, he should show where you've used string theory to bolster your argument on any topic.

Absolutely.

T'ai Chi, I am waiting.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat
Sorry to do this but for me to follow this there are a few points I need to clarify.

"Materialism", when you use this are you defining it as something like:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
encarta.com

Materialism, in philosophy, doctrine that all existence is resolvable into matter or into an attribute or effect of matter.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




And that by the "matter" in the above we are not necessarily talking about something like a little billiard ball, but be something that has no analogue in our "macro world" like the strings from String theory.

Next what do you mean by "consciousness"?

(These may seem like silly questions but I want to make sure I don't get myself tied into knots only to find later on we were using different definitions!)



Darat, I feel it's a bad idea me defining materialism. Surely it would be better for a materialist to define it? Your task here is 2 fold

a) What does it mean to say that a material world exists. That is to say, in asserting a material world exists, what exactly are you asserting?

b) What does it mean to say that consciousness is really physical?

I of course define consciousness as the raw feel of experience. What it is like to experience redness, or love or whatever.

If you cannot define materialism I will have a shot tomorrow.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


Ian, I'm going to say this one last time. Afterwards, please acknowledge the fact that you understand what I'm telling you for the hundredth time:

You offer nothing testable, refutable, or falsifiable. We can't refute you because you... offer... nothing!

Get it?

You just don't understand do you. I have not offered a scientific hypothesis, therefore there is nothing to test or falsify! I have offered a philosophical argument; a logical argument if you will.

I agree that my argument is not refutable, that is because I believe it is sound. I assume that you disagree though, so show me where my argument is in error.

BTW I'll say for the umpteenth time that the criteria of falsifiability was one introduced by Karl Popper. Apart from the fact that I am not talking about science, it is a highly questionable that falsifiability determines that which is scientific. But besides this, Karl Popper certainly never intended for people to apply it to ontological arguments in any case!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I think we can solve this very easily.

Ian, please show that what you claim is testable, refutable and falsifiable.

If you do not think it is either, then please explain how something can be "refuted" without being refutable (to pick one).

The idiocy displayed amongst a significant percentage of people on this board almost defies belief! :eek:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Originally posted by T'ai Chi
After Ian is done, could you do the same with string theory?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Where have I claimed that string theory is testable, refutable and falsifiable?

Show me where I claim this. Put up or shut up. [/B]

Then according to you, and TLN, and the vast majority of people on this board, string theory is therefore not scientific.

And I certainly have not declared that my refutation of materialism is falsifiable and testable, for the simple reason that it is a logical argument, not a scientific theory or hypothesis!

I an wasting my time here :rolleyes:

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You just don't understand do you. I have not offered a scientific hypothesis, therefore there is nothing to test or falsify! I have offered a philosophical argument; a logical argument if you will.

Then please stop strutting over imaginary victories and saying no one can refute you. Of course we can't as there's nothing to refute.

Can I expect now that you'll stop being such a pompous ass?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


No one is claiming that string theory is unequivocally true and that your inability to "refute" it makes it real.

Please tell me you see what's wrong with Ian's method of “you can’t refute it so it’s right.”

You're stark raving bonkers! You really are. Your idiocy and delusions really truly do know no limits. Where on earth have I ever declared that I must be right because someone can't refute my position!

You're crazy.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


Then please stop strutting over imaginary victories and saying no one can refute you. Of course we can't as there's nothing to refute.

Can I expect now that you'll stop being such a pompous ass?

No, I have given an argument demonstrating materialism is incoherent. You're saying you cannot find any fault with it?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You just don't understand do you. I have not offered a scientific hypothesis, therefore there is nothing to test or falsify! I have offered a philosophical argument; a logical argument if you will.

But a philosophical argument as well as a logical argument can be tested, as well as falsified.

If you are talking about a logical argument, it has to be falsifiable. Otherwise, it wouldn't be logical.

If you disagree, I would love to see an example of a logical argument that is not falsifiable or testable.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I agree that my argument is not refutable, that is because I believe it is sound. I assume that you disagree though, so show me where my argument is in error.

How on earth can you claim that nobody has refuted you, then?

A "sound" argument does not have to be irrefutable.

The onus is on you, Ian.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
BTW I'll say for the umpteenth time that the criteria of falsifiability was one introduced by Karl Popper. Apart from the fact that I am not talking about science, it is a highly questionable that falsifiability determines that which is scientific. But besides this, Karl Popper certainly never intended for people to apply it to ontological arguments in any case!

I'm sure. Now, if something is not refutable, how can it be refuted?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The idiocy displayed amongst a significant percentage of people on this board almost defies belief!

Back to name calling again? If something is not refutable, how can it be refuted?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Then according to you, and TLN, and the vast majority of people on this board, string theory is therefore not scientific.

Not at all. I, for one, have made no claims regarding string theory. Please show me where I have.

Put up or shut up.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And I certainly have not declared that my refutation of materialism is falsifiable and testable, for the simple reason that it is a logical argument, not a scientific theory or hypothesis!

Please show me a logical argument that cannot be tested.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I an wasting my time here

Then, why are you here at all?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You're stark raving bonkers! You really are. Your idiocy and delusions really truly do know no limits. Where on earth have I ever declared that I must be right because someone can't refute my position!

You're crazy.

And the insults go on and on and on and on....

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, I have given an argument demonstrating materialism is incoherent. You're saying you cannot find any fault with it?

No, you have not. It is not up to others to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove yourself right.

Oh, well. Let's recap:


Please give an example of a logical argument that is not falsifiable or testable.
If something is not refutable, how can it be refuted?
Why is it impossible for a "sound" argument to be irrefutable?
Where have I made any claims about string theory?
If you are wasting your time here, why are you here at all?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Darat, I feel it's a bad idea me defining materialism. Surely it would be better for a materialist to define it? Your task here is 2 fold ...snip...


It might be but it’s your reasoning I want to try and understand and before I can do that I have to understand your definition for materialism.

Otherwise, to take the point to absurdity, I could be thinking "Ian means "the world is made of blue cheese", when he says materialism"!

I do appreciate that I am probably asking questions and for definitions that to you are obviously and you're probably thinking "is he thick or what?" but they are genuine questions that I need answered so that I can start to follow your reasoning. Learning for me is always about asking questions whenever I am unsure about something and alongside that I try to assume as little as possible because “assumption is the mother of foul-ups".


Originally posted by Interesting Ian

a) What does it mean to say that a material world exists. That is to say, in asserting a material world exists, what exactly are you asserting?


Isn't it rather what are you asserting that means?


Originally posted by Interesting Ian

b) What does it mean to say that consciousness is really physical?


Not to be glib but... Isn't it rather what you mean?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I of course define consciousness as the raw feel of experience. What it is like to experience redness, or love or whatever.


I'll try to run with this definition from now on when you say "consciousness" - but leave me the right to ask you to expand on it, as I suspect it forms a critical function in your reasoning.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian

If you cannot define materialism I will have a shot tomorrow. [b]

Bah - didn't notice this when I clicked on "Quote" - look forward to seeing your definition tomorrow. (I may not get online until later afternoon tomorrow.)

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You're stark raving bonkers! You really are. Your idiocy and delusions really truly do know no limits. Where on earth have I ever declared that I must be right because someone can't refute my position!

Everywhere!! Go look at any random Ian post.

Yeah... I'm crazy.

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Please give an example of a logical argument that is not falsifiable or testable.
If something is not refutable, how can it be refuted?

I'd settle for these top two. But we all know you'll never address them, Ian.

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you cannot define materialism I will have a shot tomorrow. Don't believe that 'tomorrow' gambit! Ian has used that in the 'summarising for Interesting Ian thread', and then failed to deliver!

To be fair, he's probably just forgotten about it, what with all the work on his new web page.

[Aussie Thinker]

Ian,

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the difference is as follows ?

1. Materialism = That everything physically exists mostly as we perceive it regardless of our perception
2. Immaterialism = That everything only exists in our perception

Now immaterialism is an interesting concept and has merit in that sometimes things do only exist as we perceive them.

Light and colour are good examples as we see them as our brain interpret them and in reality may be actually different !

BUT.. What is the likelihood that everything is immaterial (which I assume is your take on things).

While possible (and anything is) how PROBABLE is immaterialism.

This is where I rail at you Ian.. you are accepting the improbable answer as your philosophy. This borders on insane as it is exactly what insane people do.

Do you REALLY give more weight to the improbable idea of immaterialism than to the probable idea of materialism ?

I asked the same question of a couple of other here who give immaterialism credence and they admitted that that it is a far less likely reality than materialism !

[ceptimus]

True believers don't attach probabilities to their beliefs. They know that what they believe is true with complete certainty. This is an alien concept for skeptics to understand. If you can get a believer to change their stance from complete certainty to 99.9% sure, you are well on the way to curing them of their belief. Once they have accepted the slightest doubt, they will often slide gracefuly down the scale to where us 'normal' people live. ;)

Ian does sometimes admit that he is unsure, but he also frequently says that the alternative, materialism, is totally incomprehensible, ludicrous, logically inconsistent and so on. That's what makes him so interesting. :)

[gnome]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Back to name calling again? If something is not refutable, how can it be refuted?

I think the problem here is that someone is confusing "refutable" with "flawed".

I think I'll start a thread about this...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by ceptimus
True believers don't attach probabilities to their beliefs. They know that what they believe is true with complete certainty. This is an alien concept for skeptics to understand. ...

That's my take on materialists/atheists. If one could just get them to 1. understand, and 2. admit, that their certainty in the existence of an "objective material reality" is less than 100%, they would become logically coherent agnostics.

Aussie Thinker; your thought on immaterialism is as wrong as your understanding of materialism.


And for you strictly logical scientists, would someone comment on the "problem" of GR supposing space to be infinitely divisible, when QM shows that idea to be absurd? First, did any of you even understand what I just said?

TBK & hgc need not reply; I know their answers are "Huh?".

[TLN]

Originally posted by hammegk
That's my take on materialists/atheists. If one could just get them to 1. understand, and 2. admit, that their certainty in the existence of an "objective material reality" is less than 100%, they would become logically coherent agnostics.

I admit it.

Happy now?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Aussie said:. Materialism = That everything physically exists mostly as we perceive it regardless of our perception
2. Immaterialism = That everything only exists in our perception.
This kind of ontological argument will go nowhere. Since we cannot know whether the world is made of material stuff or made of mindstuff or made of furious green cheese, the question of "what really exists" cannot distinguish two metaphysics. If everything else about the two metaphysics is the same, then they are indistinguishable.

To decide whether materialism or idealism is correct, we need some other distinguishing feature. Does anyone have one?

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally posted by TLN


I admit it.

Happy now?

Sure! I'm OK & you're OK. Capische?




And by gosh, Paul get's it! "To decide whether materialism or idealism is correct, we need some other distinguishing feature. Does anyone have one?"

Logic. Which approach leaves the person doing the thinking with the least number of unsolvable inconsistencies.

[Aussie Thinker]

Hammegk

Aussie Thinker; your thought on immaterialism is as wrong as your understanding of materialism.

Yes and that’s it folks.. I ask to be corrected if I was wrong .. instead I am TOLD I am wrong and.. NOTHING else…

Geez Hammegk cough up WHERE I am wrong. !!!

BTW ANY Normal person will admit there is a slight possibility of an immaterialistic world…

I also entertain a slight possibility that God exists etc…

“Slight” though can be mostly ignored !

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

...
BTW ANY Normal person will admit there is a slight possibility of an immaterialistic world…
You will discover that few normal people are materialists/atheists and are posting here.


I also entertain a slight possibility that God exists etc…

“Slight” though can be mostly ignored !

Agreed. Agnosticism makes perfect sense. Congratulations on your choice.


As to an explanation of you being "wrong", I wouldn't know how to begin. Read some; lot's of good stuff on the net. Correct me if my statement of your mis-understanding is really what's wrong.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Ian,

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the difference is as follows ?

1. Materialism = That everything physically exists mostly as we perceive it regardless of our perception
2. Immaterialism = That everything only exists in our perception

Now immaterialism is an interesting concept and has merit in that sometimes things do only exist as we perceive them.

Light and colour are good examples as we see them as our brain interpret them and in reality may be actually different !

BUT.. What is the likelihood that everything is immaterial (which I assume is your take on things).

While possible (and anything is) how PROBABLE is immaterialism.

This is where I rail at you Ian.. you are accepting the improbable answer as your philosophy. This borders on insane as it is exactly what insane people do.

Do you REALLY give more weight to the improbable idea of immaterialism than to the probable idea of materialism ?

I asked the same question of a couple of other here who give immaterialism credence and they admitted that that it is a far less likely reality than materialism !

*sniff* *sniff* Why does this argument smell of socks? *sniff*

[Aussie Thinker]

Hammegk,

I just attempted to simplify the definition but here is one I looked up.

Materialism - The view that everything that actually exists is material, or physical. Many philosophers and scientists now use the terms `material' and `physical' interchangeably (for a version of physicalism distinct from materialism, see physicalism). Characterized in this way, as a doctrine about what exists, materialism is an ontological, or a metaphysical, view; it is not just an epistemological view about how we know or just a semantic view about the meaning of terms.

Compared to my

1. Materialism = That everything physically exists mostly as we perceive it regardless of our perception

HMMM.. Sounds pretty damn close to me..

Now

Immaterialism or Idealism - A brand of monism, first forwarded by Berkeley, in which everything is mental, as contrasted to materialism.

2. Immaterialism = That everything only exists in our perception

Pretty damn close also I would say.

Hammegk you really should show me where I am wrong.. and not just in semantics.. in the broad concept.. Your statement that I was wrong is looking pretty pathetic in light of the above definitions.

Bill,

Socks.. you are obviously too deep for me ..care to illuminate us a bit more ?

[thaiboxerken]

That's my take on materialists/atheists. If one could just get them to 1. understand, and 2. admit, that their certainty in the existence of an "objective material reality" is less than 100%, they would become logically coherent agnostics.

Hardly, I understand the immaterialist position, I just don't agree with it because it is not supported by ANY evidence.


And for you strictly logical scientists, would someone comment on the "problem" of GR supposing space to be infinitely divisible, when QM shows that idea to be absurd?

YOu say that QM shows that it's absurd, but you haven't supported this claim. Does GR suppose space to be infinitely divisible? How does QM show that the idea is absurd?

Agnosticism makes perfect sense.

Perfect sense in reference to which god? I don't believe in any "gods" so I'm an atheist.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You just don't understand do you. I have not offered a scientific hypothesis, therefore there is nothing to test or falsify! I have offered a philosophical argument; a logical argument if you will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larsen
But a philosophical argument as well as a logical argument can be tested, as well as falsified.



Ummm . .God . .you really are clueless {sighs} :rolleyes:



If you are talking about a logical argument, it has to be falsifiable. Otherwise, it wouldn't be logical.



Nope, quite the converse. If it could be shown to be false (falsifiable) then it wouldn't be logical!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I agree that my argument is not refutable, that is because I believe it is sound. I assume that you disagree though, so show me where my argument is in error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How on earth can you claim that nobody has refuted you, then?



Ummm . .because no-one has refuted my argument?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Then according to you, and TLN, and the vast majority of people on this board, string theory is therefore not scientific.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not at all. I, for one, have made no claims regarding string theory. Please show me where I have.


Right, so long as you agree that string theory is not "scientific" (I disagree by the way).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And I certainly have not declared that my refutation of materialism is falsifiable and testable, for the simple reason that it is a logical argument, not a scientific theory or hypothesis!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Please show me a logical argument that cannot be tested.



Any logical argument whatsoever.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, I have given an argument demonstrating materialism is incoherent. You're saying you cannot find any fault with it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, you have not. It is not up to others to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove yourself right.



I have done so; what is wrong with my proof?



Oh, well. Let's recap:

Please give an example of a logical argument that is not falsifiable or testable.



All logical arguments. Take your pick.



If something is not refutable, how can it be refuted?



Obviously it can't be by definition :rolleyes:



Why is it impossible for a "sound" argument to be irrefutable?



By virtue of the meaning of sound.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

Bill,

Socks.. you are obviously too deep for me ..care to illuminate us a bit more ?

Your arguments are not founded in science. They more closely resemble inversions of philosophical arguments we have all been "treated to" a zillion times before. Neither skepticism nor science presume a materialistic metaphysic. Neither claims things are more or less how we perceive them to be.

[thaiboxerken]

Nope, quite the converse. If it could be shown to be false (falsifiable) then it wouldn't be logical!

Not true. Take this perfectly logical argument as an example.

1. All trolls are green.
2. Ian is a troll.
3. Ian must be green.

Now, this is a perfectly logical argument. The argument is falsifiable, however, because the premises could be shown to be false. If one troll is shown as being any color than green, then the argument is falsified. It's still a sound argument though.


Ummm . .because no-one has refuted my argument?

Only in your insanity.


Right, so long as you agree that string theory is not "scientific" (I disagree by the way).

Why do believers go into talking about abstract scientific theories that many people don't understand? Oh, I know, it's because then they can try to feed others BS about such theories.



I have done so; what is wrong with my proof?

Your premise haven't been shown to be true at all, you assume that you are right because.... you know you are right. You are circular in your assumptions.

[Aussie Thinker]

Bill,

Your arguments are not founded in science. They more closely resemble inversions of philosophical arguments we have all been "treated to" a zillion times before. Neither skepticism nor science presume a materialistic metaphysic. Neither claims things are more or less how we perceive them to be.

Are you sure you are addressing this to me ??

You seem to misunderstand what I said about materialis... I said things are MOSTLY what we perceive them to be REGARDLESS of how we perceive them !

My main argument boils down to the probability for a physical existence is far more probable than for a non-physical existence ?

And this is not founded by science???

So science supports Ian’s world ?

You must be kidding !

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Darat, I feel it's a bad idea me defining materialism. Surely it would be better for a materialist to define it? Your task here is 2 fold ...snip...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It might be but it’s your reasoning I want to try and understand and before I can do that I have to understand your definition for materialism.



But my definition is of course wholly irrelevant.

If I were to say I believe in "God", it would not be up to you to define what "God" means, but rather me. The same principle applies. You assert some existent has being. You must clarify what you are asserting.



Otherwise, to take the point to absurdity, I could be thinking "Ian means "the world is made of blue cheese", when he says materialism"!



{shrugs}

In this case enlighten me as to what you mean in asserting the existence of a material world and asserting that it exhausts reality? It is not clear to me what you mean. You feel I should play guessing games?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

a) What does it mean to say that a material world exists. That is to say, in asserting a material world exists, what exactly are you asserting?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Isn't it rather what are you asserting that means?



No, I'm not asserting anything. I merely require clarification on what you mean.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

b) What does it mean to say that consciousness is really physical?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not to be glib but... Isn't it rather what you mean?



Scarcely. This is your assertion. I want to know what you mean.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

If you cannot define materialism I will have a shot tomorrow. [b]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Bah - didn't notice this when I clicked on "Quote" - look forward to seeing your definition tomorrow. (I may not get online until later afternoon tomorrow.)



Well I could do. However the onus is upon you. It is not upon me to define what it means to say that X exists if I do not subscribe to its existence. It is up to the person proposing the existence of X.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ceptimus
Don't believe that 'tomorrow' gambit! Ian has used that in the 'summarising for Interesting Ian thread', and then failed to deliver!

To be fair, he's probably just forgotten about it, what with all the work on his new web page.

Ceptimus, I'm really going to be busy over next couple of weeks. I have already fully explained my position on this. OK, you don't understand. I will get round to it, but be patient. I just find it tediously boring I'm afraid. Yopu keep presupposing a material reality in all your arguments.

[thaiboxerken]

Ian is rather insane, the thread demonstrates the extent of his insanity. I just hope he doesn't get a hold of any firearms.

[Aussie Thinker]

Ian,

I have asked you about the probability of the material world vs the probability of the immaterial world.

Is the question too difficult ?

It is fundamental to you understanding OUR position of the acceptance of the material world as a fait accompli.

We see your non-acceptance of it similar to the lunatic in the asylum who is annoyed that everyone else can’t see he is God !

He possibly is but it would be lunacy to go along with it !

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Ian,

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the difference is as follows ?

1. Materialism = That everything physically exists mostly as we perceive it regardless of our perception
2. Immaterialism = That everything only exists in our perception



Oh for God's sake please get a clue! I think you are confusing materialism with the assertion that a material world exists for a kick off. And quite clearly the material world does not exist as we perceive it! For a start consider perceptual illusions. And do colours as perceived literally constitute the furniture of reality? Think man! :mad:



Now immaterialism is an interesting concept and has merit in that sometimes things do only exist as we perceive them.

Light and colour are good examples as we see them as our brain interpret them and in reality may be actually different !

BUT.. What is the likelihood that everything is immaterial (which I assume is your take on things).

While possible (and anything is) how PROBABLE is immaterialism.



I don't know. Enlighten me as to how you work out these probabilities.


I asked the same question of a couple of other here who give immaterialism credence and they admitted that that it is a far less likely reality than materialism !

OK, so who were these people?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I just find it tediously boring I'm afraid.
Yopu keep presupposing a material reality in all your arguments.
That makes at least two us , for different reasons, I'm afraid. And who the hell is Yopu?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by gnome


I think the problem here is that someone is confusing "refutable" with "flawed".

I think I'll start a thread about this...

Yup, seen my response yet? {sighs}

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
I just attempted to simplify the definition but here is one I looked up.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Materialism - The view that everything that actually exists is material, or physical. Many philosophers and scientists now use the terms `material' and `physical' interchangeably (for a version of physicalism distinct from materialism, see physicalism). Characterized in this way, as a doctrine about what exists, materialism is an ontological, or a metaphysical, view; it is not just an epistemological view about how we know or just a semantic view about the meaning of terms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hmmm . .that's fine as far as it goes. Inadequate of course.



Compared to my


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Materialism = That everything physically exists mostly as we perceive it regardless of our perception
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Bears no relationship to the definition you quoted.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Your arguments are not founded in science. They more closely resemble inversions of philosophical arguments we have all been "treated to" a zillion times before. Neither skepticism nor science presume a materialistic metaphysic. Neither claims things are more or less how we perceive them to be.

You say this (as well as Victor Danilchenko, and Stimpson J Cat), because you fail to understand what ontology and metaphysics mean. Materialism by definition is a metaphysical position.

Materialism stipulates the physical world is all that exists. Any existential assertion is by definition an ontological assertion. Therefore materialism is an ontological position.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Not true. Take this perfectly logical argument as an example.

1. All trolls are green.
2. Ian is a troll.
3. Ian must be green.

Now, this is a perfectly logical argument. The argument is falsifiable, however, because the premises could be shown to be false. If one troll is shown as being any color than green, then the argument is falsified. It's still a sound argument though.



No, it is not a sound argument. It is merely a valid argument.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Bill,



Are you sure you are addressing this to me ??

You seem to misunderstand what I said about materialis... I said things are MOSTLY what we perceive them to be REGARDLESS of how we perceive them !

My main argument boils down to the probability for a physical existence is far more probable than for a non-physical existence ?

And this is not founded by science???

So science supports Ian’s world ?

You must be kidding !

AT,

He thinks you're a sock puppet. Possibly he thinks that you are really me LOL BillHoyt is a bit of a loon I'm afraid :)

[Aussie Thinker]

Ian,

Oh for God's sake please get a clue! I think you are confusing materialism with the assertion that a material world exists for a kick off. And quite clearly the material world does not exist as we perceive it! For a start consider perceptual illusions. And do colours as perceived literally constitute the furniture of reality? Think man

You inanity seems to be growing. Sometimes you seem quite lucid but this ramble has me worried !

I called materialism the existence of everything physically.. I merely added MOSTLY as we perceive it because we (us Humans) are the ones discussing it.

Of course it has as its basis a material world. I am sure your whacky philosophy has anon material world as its basis !

The perception of colour was an example to show how sometimes our perception may not be the same as reality ( I though you were smart enough to get that)

The talk about probability is the relevant point I was trying to make.

Lets take the Lunatic in the asylum who declares he is God.

Is this possible… YES
Is it probable… NO
How do we calculate that probability.. DAMN HARD.. But we apply a certain amount of our own logic.. there are Billion of humans so why would he be the God one.. he shows no extraordinary powers.. is the existence of a God likely anyway.. etc etc..

Now when it comes to your lunatic worldview

Is it Possible… YES
Is it Probable… NO
How do we calculate that probability.. DAMN HARD.. But we apply a certain amount of our own logic.. we have senses that see feel hear and touch and everthing seems physical.. we have never seen ANY evidence that the world is NOT physical.. is the existence of a immaterial world likely anyway.. etc etc..

Conclusion.. Ian.. You think like a LOON as the title of this thread suggested.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Ian,

I have asked you about the probability of the material world vs the probability of the immaterial world.

Is the question too difficult ?
Not difficult; without meaning in Ian's context and my own.

Science works equally well under either metaphysic. The certainty regarding the conclusions drawn may differ. A place where this becomes most obvious is the discussion is Darwinian et al evolution a Theory or a Fact.



As an aside, TBK must receive many more kicks to head than he metes out. And he needs to do his own homework on the GR/QM incompatibility; as I said: "Huh?".

[Aussie Thinker]

Hammegk,

Ok so if a question is unpalatable you can declare it “without meaning”.. nice one.. I have to remember that next time I am getting my pants taken off in an argument.

At least try my lunatic example..

Do YOU think he is GOD or give his world view any credence or do you think he is a lunatic ?

Do you see OUR equating your philosophy to the same sort of unjustified lunacy ?

[hammegk]

What I think is that you are hopelessly out of your depth. You certainly have balls jumping into a discussion that's been running for months in your absence.

If you've been reading (philosophy) threads for a while you hide it well.

[Aussie Thinker]

Hammegk,

You think that was ballsy.. try this..

What I think is that you are hopelessly out of your depth.

Translation : I cannot answer you reasonable questions so I will declare you inconsequential and leave it at that.

You certainly have balls jumping into a discussion that's been running for months in your absence.

Ahhh.. I see.. so only those who have been discussing this for months are relevant.

If you've been reading (philosophy) threads for a while you hide it well.

And yet you have yet to show me were what I say is wrong, irrelevant or illogical. Just declaring seems rather pathetic.

It must be pleasant when confronted with something you don’t like to retreat into just declaring.. “You are wrong” or better you.. “You haven’t earned your stripes yet so we aren’t gunna let you play”

[Aussie Thinker]

Hammegk…

BTW In spite of my spelling mistake.. I STARTED THE THREAD !

[Aussie Thinker]

Hammegk,

In regard to you comment about Philosophy

Philosophy Shmofesy…

Philosophy is fine but REALITY is what we are talking about here.

Plenty of philosophers have marvellously philosophised about reality.

Immaterialism is a marvellous exercise in Philosophy and thought..

However when you equate it to be reality .. in fact when you equate it to being more likely than materialism you approach the same thought processes as a lunatic.

Even the vaunted philosophers who put forward the ideas would say

“Well yes it is a great exercise of the mind but.. well.. erm… I would be loath to say I believe it to be reality.. I just wanted to show people what alternatives to reality MIGHT exist”

and perhaps even..

“What are you suggesting some lunatics have replaced what we know to be reality with my invention of the mind.. flattering I guess but then the world abounds with looneys”

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But my definition is of course wholly irrelevant.

If I were to say I believe in "God", it would not be up to you to define what "God" means, but rather me. The same principle applies. You assert some existent has being. You must clarify what you are asserting.

{shrugs}

In this case enlighten me as to what you mean in asserting the existence of a material world and asserting that it exhausts reality? It is not clear to me what you mean. You feel I should play guessing games?

No, I'm not asserting anything. I merely require clarification on what you mean.

Scarcely. This is your assertion. I want to know what you mean.

Well I could do. However the onus is upon you. It is not upon me to define what it means to say that X exists if I do not subscribe to its existence. It is up to the person proposing the existence of X.

Ian it seems you are under a misunderstanding that I hoped my first post would avoid and that is I am not stating any claims or opinions at all (yet)!

I haven't.

You have stated that "materialism" is logically incoherent, now no matter ( ;) ) what anyone else may define materialism as you must have a definition in mind when you make that statement – otherwise it would be totally meaningless.

I am being totally sincere in trying to understand your reasoning. But for that to happen we have to cooperate, and as I said it means right at the start making as few assumptions as possible. And as I said before I know this can be frustrating but it is the only way I know of trying to understand something.

In case I'm not being clear, this is what I understood you have stated (to paraphrase and trying to be concise.):


Materialism is logically unsound/incoherent/wrong.
Immaterialism is not logically unsound/incoherent/wrong.
There is a purpose to life.


So for me to understand your reasoning I have to know exactly what you mean when you say "Materialism is logically unsound etc." to just get my foot on the first rung.

And to re-iterate one point, for the basis of this little discussion you should consider that I have no view on either materialism or immaterialism or to put it anther way I am student trying to understand what you are teaching.

(Edited for a not and a sate to a state.)

[CFLarsen]

Ian,

I have not made any claims regarding string theory, so it is completely dishonest of you to demand that I have to "agree" that string theory is not scientific before you answer me. You grab this straw(man) in order to get out of the mess you've gotten yourself into.

You have also not proved yourself right. You may repeat that you have, but it doesn't make it true.

Now, try to be honest and answer these:


Where have I made any claims regarding string theory?
You show me a logical argument that cannot be tested.
Please tell me what "sound" means.
How can you claim that nobody has refuted you (which means you are right), if what you claim cannot be refuted?


For someone who claims to be very busy explaining his own points and even are wasting his time here, you sure seem to have a lot of time telling people they are stupid. Isn't that what all your posts are about? Claiming victory, never showing evidence or proof, never explaining yourself, and ridiculing others for being to stupid to understand you.

TLN is right: You have nothing to offer. Absolutely nothing.

[deBergerac]

Interesting Ian
So far I do find you interesting but that might be because I am new here. ;)
I hope that you do not find it too boring to discuss with me since I am interested in learning your point of view instead of fighting with words. You have one great advantage over me since I do not know if you use the philosophical terms in a correct way or if I understand them correctly you only have to worry about the later. That is why I will probably continue to ask stupid questions to make certain that I understand.

One thing I am wondering over is your view on objects. Is your view that different objects exist and are responsible for our sensation of them although the objects are not material or is it that objects do not exist and the only things that exist is our sensation of the objects? Maybe you think that dividing the world into objects is in itself not acceptable?

The second thing I wonder about is your view on conscious beings you seem to assume that there is more than one. I also have the idea that people I meet are self-conscious and have existence independent of myself. Is that what you think as well?

I also want to comment on the hammer you talked about previously. You say that the hammer has a purpose and the rock does not although they can both be used to drive a nail through a board. In my view the hammer have no more purpose than the rock in itself. Purpose, as beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder. If you look at the atoms making up the hammer and the rock you will not find one piece of purpose or of justice. But in my knowledge of what a hammer is I recognise the purpose of a hammer and the non-purpose of a rock. That would place purpose in me and not in the outside world.

[Garrette]

Interesting Ian:

First of all I am not interested in particular anecdotes.

Secondly, if you stand by your statement then you need to justify it. So do so.


Oh, for pity's sake, Ian.

First, you claim that NDEs are both (a) legitimate and (b) indicative of purpose.

Second, I say that NDEs do not stand up to scrutiny and even if they did (for the sake of argument) they do not indicate purpose.

Third, you say I don't know anything about NDEs.

Fourth, I say that I do and that I stand by my statement that NDEs do not stand up to scrutiny and even if they did (for the sake of argument) they would not indicate purpose.

Fifth, you say I have to support my statement that NDEs do not stand up to scrutiny.

I will be generous for the moment and assume you have simply made an error because you are posting in response to so many others. Surely, you cannot think it is incumbent on me to disprove all NDEs. You realize it is your burden to prove them, do you not?

If not, and if you still think it is my burden to disprove all NDEs, then I will have to conclude you have no conception of science, and only a semantic understanding of logic.

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Ceptimus, I'm really going to be busy over next couple of weeks. I have already fully explained my position on this. OK, you don't understand. I will get round to it, but be patient. I just find it tediously boring I'm afraid. Yopu keep presupposing a material reality in all your arguments.

* I know you're busy.

* You have not explained your position on the 'moving' optical illusions. What comments you have given seem inconsistent with your detailed explanation of the 'different coloured' optical illusions.

* I don't presuppose a material reality. It seems the most intellectually compelling explanation to me, but I am open to others. Your own view seems to be that a material reality is wrong, but that everything that appears material behaves exactly as it would if material reality were true. This seems a pointless distinction to me, and gets us nowhere.

* I am still waiting for you to post your argument explaining why materialism is logically inconsistent. You keep making this claim, but the only supporting argument I've ever read from you is that it couldn't be otherwise, and we are too stupid to see the reasons.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat


Ian it seems you are under a misunderstanding that I hoped my first post would avoid and that is I am sating any claims or opinions at all (yet)!

I haven't.

You have stated that "materialism" is logically incoherent, now no matter ( ;) ) what anyone else may define materialism as you must have a definition in mind when you make that statement – otherwise it would be totally meaningless.



Ah! I see. Actually I didn't have a definition of materialism in mind when I said that. But materialists must hold that the totality of reality can in principle be described using physics, right? Not just our sensory experiences can be described by physics, but the self which has those sensory experiences. Now I know you'll probably deny the existence of the self, but just take it that I'm referring to phenomenal consciousness, ok? If you deny the existence of phenomenal consciousness as well (ie you are an eliminitivist materialist), my argument doesn't work.

Basically materialists at a minimum hold that consciousness (in as much as it exists) is just like any other object in the world. It is not special in any way. Should it exist it thus can be described by physical laws. For example, to take one popular type of materialist, the identity materialist. They say that consciousness is the very same thing as neural processes in the brain. Obviously neural processes can be scientifically described, therefore by definition so can consciousness.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ian,

I have not made any claims regarding string theory, so it is completely dishonest of you to demand that I have to "agree" that string theory is not scientific before you answer me. You grab this straw(man) in order to get out of the mess you've gotten yourself into.



You're mistaken, It wasn't me who asked you, it was T'ai Chi. I have no interest whether you do or not.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by deBergerac
Interesting Ian
So far I do find you interesting but that might be because I am new here. ;)
I hope that you do not find it too boring to discuss with me since I am interested in learning your point of view instead of fighting with words. You have one great advantage over me since I do not know if you use the philosophical terms in a correct way or if I understand them correctly you only have to worry about the later. That is why I will probably continue to ask stupid questions to make certain that I understand.

One thing I am wondering over is your view on objects. Is your view that different objects exist and are responsible for our sensation of them although the objects are not material or is it that objects do not exist and the only things that exist is our sensation of the objects? Maybe you think that dividing the world into objects is in itself not acceptable?

The second thing I wonder about is your view on conscious beings you seem to assume that there is more than one. I also have the idea that people I meet are self-conscious and have existence independent of myself. Is that what you think as well?

I also want to comment on the hammer you talked about previously. You say that the hammer has a purpose and the rock does not although they can both be used to drive a nail through a board. In my view the hammer have no more purpose than the rock in itself. Purpose, as beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder. If you look at the atoms making up the hammer and the rock you will not find one piece of purpose or of justice. But in my knowledge of what a hammer is I recognise the purpose of a hammer and the non-purpose of a rock. That would place purpose in me and not in the outside world.

I'll get round to responding to you, maybe later on today.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You're mistaken, It wasn't me who asked you, it was T'ai Chi. I have no interest whether you do or not.

Then let me remind you of this little sentence of yours:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Right, so long as you agree that string theory is not "scientific" (I disagree by the way).

Here, you make it a condition: If I agree that string theory is not "scientific", then you agree that I did not make any claims about string theory.

I did not make any claims about string theory, Ian. That's it. No conditions.

I am waiting for the rest:


You show me a logical argument that cannot be tested.
Please tell me what "sound" means.
How can you claim that nobody has refuted you (which means you are right), if what you claim cannot be refuted?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette
[B]

Oh, for pity's sake, Ian.

First, you claim that NDEs are both (a) legitimate and (b) indicative of purpose.



Where did I say (a)? I didn't. I don't know what you mean by it. If you're saying that I'm saying that most probably the NDE is what it appears to be, then yes.



Second, I say that NDEs do not stand up to scrutiny and even if they did (for the sake of argument) they do not indicate purpose.



YES YES YES, you keep saying this! :mad: When are you going to justify it??? Or do you not intend to?? If not please stop wasting my time.



Third, you say I don't know anything about NDEs.



I wasn't going to respond any further to your post, but I have to nail your lies. I never said this!



Fourth, I say that I do and that I stand by my statement that NDEs do not stand up to scrutiny and even if they did (for the sake of argument) they would not indicate purpose.



:mad:

So give me your argument!!



Fifth, you say I have to support my statement that NDEs do not stand up to scrutiny.

I will be generous for the moment and assume you have simply made an error because you are posting in response to so many others. Surely, you cannot think it is incumbent on me to disprove all NDEs. You realize it is your burden to prove them, do you not?



No, I absolutely deny this. The burden is upon you.

And even if the burden were upon me, it wouldn't be in this particular instance since you have said that NDE's are not what they appear to be. Are you saying you cannot justify your assertion?? In that case why are you wasting my time?? :rolleyes:

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, I absolutely deny this. The burden is upon you.
The burden, as always, is with the person making the claim contrary to the body of knowledge known as science.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You say this (as well as Victor Danilchenko, and Stimpson J Cat), because you fail to understand what ontology and metaphysics mean. Materialism by definition is a metaphysical position.

Materialism stipulates the physical world is all that exists. Any existential assertion is by definition an ontological assertion. Therefore materialism is an ontological position.
Please read what I wrote. We have been through this countless times. Science takes no such ontological positions. There is a small set of axioms, upon which all else is established epistemologically.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ceptimus
[B]

* I know you're busy.

* You have not explained your position on the 'moving' optical illusions. What comments you have given seem inconsistent with your detailed explanation of the 'different coloured' optical illusions.



Well I can't help that. I do not intend wasting my life explaining the most boring subjects imaginable. Optical illusions are very revealing, but no-one has ever suggested it proves the existence of a material world (apart from people on this board that is!). I mean how the hell could it?? You're just presupposing your position that there exists a world independent of all our perceptions. It doesn't matter if you define the damn circles as moving or not. But you need to distinguish between the 2 images that you presented, because they look different.



* I don't presuppose a material reality.


I believe that's precisely what you're doing.



It seems the most intellectually compelling explanation to me, but I am open to others. Your own view seems to be that a material reality is wrong, but that everything that appears material behaves exactly as it would if material reality were true. This seems a pointless distinction to me, and gets us nowhere.



How do you know what a material reality would be like if it existed?? Might be a good idea for you to define what it means first.

[Interesting Ian]

Ceptimus
* I am still waiting for you to post your argument explaining why materialism is logically inconsistent. You keep making this claim, but the only supporting argument I've ever read from you is that it couldn't be otherwise, and we are too stupid to see the reasons. [/B]

I posted it yesterday so you're clearly not paying attention. Right, it's pasted in below.


BTW the following argument doesn't refute eliminative materialism, but that is a crazy position which no sane person would hold.

What we need to do is take a look at materialism to see if it is internally consistant. Now the particular question I would like to address is why should we suppose that other peoples bodies are "inhabited" by conscious minds (or why phenomenal consciousness is associated with brains). Your argument no doubt will be that materialism stipulates this to be so; it is an axiomatic premise of materialism. But this makes your definition of materialism an arbitrary one. A metaphysic which glosses over awkward facts. Allow me to explain.

It seems to me that materialism should stipulate that the physical exhausts reality. That once we have completely described the Universe in physical terms then we have said all that can be said about the Universe or reality.

But what is the physical? It seems to me that it should be everything, that, at least in principle, can be observed by anyone with appropriate faculties and suitable instruments. In other words all that is objective exists, or to put it another way, all that is discernable from the third person perspective exists. This will also include things which can only be indirectly seen (although strictly speaking I reject the direct/indirect dichotomy). This then includes such entities as electrons, because although they can only be "indirectly" seen they nevertheless play fruitful roles in our theories describing the world ie we need to hypothesise electrons in order to explain certain aspects of reality.

Now there is something peculiar about conscious experience which marks it off from all other existents. It is simply this. It cannot be observed or detected by anyone with appropriate faculties and/or suitable instruments! Thus according to my prior definition of the physical it is not a physical existent. Thus I may have toothache to take an arbitrary example. But you cannot observe that toothache, all you can obseve is the effects of the toothache, the grimace of pain for example. Conscious experiences in other words are irreducibly private.

Now you will no doubt say that by observing the grimace, or at least by observing the neurons fire, then you are observing the toothache since materialism holds that the toothache and its neural correlates are one and the same thing, or at least aspects of the same thing. But an objective examination of this toothache will necessarily leave out the subjective irreducibly sensation of pain. The actually sensation of pain does not figure into the physical facts about the pain according to our prior definition of the physical. Nor can we infer the sensation of pain since, unlike an electron, the (phenomenological) pain does not play a part in any
description of our behaviour. The pain per se cannot play a part because pain per se is not part of the objective publically accessible realm. Only the neural correlates of the pain can play any fruitful role in our theories.

In short then either a materialist has to concede his metaphysic is internally inconsistent, or he must arbitrarily include phenomenological consciousness within his world picture. But if he opts for the latter then the whole prima facie plausibility of his world view crumbles away. No longer can he say that for something to exist it must be in principle be directly observable or play a fruitful role in some theory about the world, because this then necessarily precludes phenomenological consciousness. He
has to expand the notion of the physical to even include things that cannot be directly or even indirectly detected, even in principle! :eek:

This is what materialism entails and is just one of many reasons why we should reject this metaphysic.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Then let me remind you of this little sentence of yours:



Here, you make it a condition: If I agree that string theory is not "scientific", then you agree that I did not make any claims about string theory.

I did not make any claims about string theory, Ian. That's it. No conditions.

I am waiting for the rest:


You show me a logical argument that cannot be tested.
Please tell me what "sound" means.
How can you claim that nobody has refuted you (which means you are right), if what you claim cannot be refuted?


It was a point started by Tai Chi. It isn't really relevant to our discussion.

And I believe I've already answered your questions.

Logic arguments cannot be tested. Sound means that the premises are correct and it is a valid argument. I can claim that no-one has refuted me because as of yet no-one in this thread has actually addressed my argument. One does not refute an argument simply by ignoring it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
The burden, as always, is with the person making the claim contrary to the body of knowledge known as science.
[/B]

But there is one slight problem. The idea that NDE's are what they seem are not contrary to science. Contrary to materialism yes, not contrary to science.

Edited to correct the post I was actually responding to.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Bill,

Are you sure you are addressing this to me ??

You seem to misunderstand what I said about materialis... I said things are MOSTLY what we perceive them to be REGARDLESS of how we perceive them !

My main argument boils down to the probability for a physical existence is far more probable than for a non-physical existence ?

And this is not founded by science???

So science supports Ian’s world ?

You must be kidding !

Science absolutely does not find things to be mostly what we perceive them to be. Science does not presuppose materialism. There is a small set of axioms upon which all else has been built. Many of those conclusions dispute what things appear to be.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Please read what I wrote. We have been through this countless times. Science takes no such ontological positions. There is a small set of axioms, upon which all else is established epistemologically.

Nor have I ever claimed otherwise. I said materialism does.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Nor have I ever claimed otherwise. I said materialism does.

I direct you back to your previous post in this thread and your many posts on countless threads. Stop being disingenuous.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Nor have I ever claimed otherwise. I said materialism does.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I direct you back to your previous post in this thread and your many posts on countless threads. Stop being disingenuous.

I repeat, I have never asserted that science involves metaphysics or ontology. Indeed I have always maintained otherwise. You will not be able to find one instance in my 5000+ posts to back up your allegation.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I repeat, I have never asserted that science involves metaphysics or ontology. Indeed I have always maintained otherwise. You will not be able to find one instance in my 5000+ posts to back up your allegation.

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Your arguments are not founded in science. They more closely resemble inversions of philosophical arguments we have all been "treated to" a zillion times before. Neither skepticism nor science presume a materialistic metaphysic. Neither claims things are more or less how we perceive them to be.

You say this (as well as Victor Danilchenko, and Stimpson J Cat), because you fail to understand what ontology and metaphysics mean. Materialism by definition is a metaphysical position.

Materialism stipulates the physical world is all that exists. Any existential assertion is by definition an ontological assertion. Therefore materialism is an ontological position.[/b]

It is friday pm, your time. You usually claim to be drunk at this time. Further discussion with you is, of course, useless.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But there is one slight problem. The idea that NDE's are what they seem are not contrary to science. Contrary to materialism yes, not contrary to science.

How many pints, Ian? That wasn't my post.

Holy bovine, folks, he's responding to his own posts and attributing them to me.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I repeat, I have never asserted that science involves metaphysics or ontology. Indeed I have always maintained otherwise. You will not be able to find one instance in my 5000+ posts to back up your allegation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillHoyt
Your arguments are not founded in science. They more closely resemble inversions of philosophical arguments we have all been "treated to" a zillion times before. Neither skepticism nor science presume a materialistic metaphysic. Neither claims things are more or less how we perceive them to be.

II
You say this (as well as Victor Danilchenko, and Stimpson J Cat), because you fail to understand what ontology and metaphysics mean. Materialism by definition is a metaphysical position.

Materialism stipulates the physical world is all that exists. Any existential assertion is by definition an ontological assertion. Therefore materialism is an ontological position.[/b]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Billy
It is friday pm, your time. You usually claim to be drunk at this time. Further discussion with you is, of course, useless.[/B]

Skepticism presumes the correctness of the materialist metaphysic is what I was referring to. Obviously science doesn't. I have stated this many many times. Most scientists do of course.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


How many pints, Ian? That wasn't my post.

Holy bovine, folks, he's responding to his own posts and attributing them to me.

Huh?? I don't understand what's happened. I was responding to you. God knows how my own post has appeared there instead of yours :confused:

OK, don't understand what happened there. Here is the post I was responding to:


Billy
The burden, as always, is with the person making the claim contrary to the body of knowledge known as science.



And this was my response:

But there is one slight problem. The idea that NDE's are what they seem are not contrary to science. Contrary to materialism yes, not contrary to science.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Huh?? I don't understand what's happened. I was responding to you. God knows how my own post has appeared there instead of yours :confused:

OK, don't understand what happened there. Here is the post I was responding to:



And this was my response:

But there is one slight problem. The idea that NDE's are what they seem are not contrary to science. Contrary to materialism yes, not contrary to science.
Evidence, please?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

But there is one slight problem. The idea that NDE's are what they seem are not contrary to science. Contrary to materialism yes, not contrary to science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Evidence, please?

If you dispute this then you need to explain why.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by hammegk

As an aside, TBK must receive many more kicks to head than he metes out. And he needs to do his own homework on the GR/QM incompatibility; as I said: "Huh?".

So you can't show us why or how GR and QM contradict in the way you stated it does, you just want us to believe you at your word? Put up or shut up.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


If you dispute this then you need to explain why.

I have done so, repeatedly, on several threads.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


If you dispute this then you need to explain why.

No, Ian, you've made the claim and now you need to support it. Your claim that NDE's are not contrary to science is the same as saying invisible unicorns are not. There is nothing in science that supports NDE's, no scientific evidence at all. In fact, the idea of a soul and afterlife is contrary to science because there is NO evidence of such things. Science only deals with what there is evidence for, not what you wish to be true.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


So you can't show us why or how GR and QM contradict in the way you stated it does, you just want us to believe you at your word? Put up or shut up.

Bubby, whether you take my word for it or ignore it -- same to me. You want to learn something, do so; or stay ignorant.

[Splurge]

Ian,

I found this to be an absolutely fascinating theory. Many thanks for posting it.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What we need to do is take a look at materialism to see if it is internally consistant.

(huge theory snipped by Splurge)



I hope you will forgive me if I have misunderstood it, as I am new here, but would I be right in thinking that what you are saying, essentially, is this?:

1. A true materialist reality could be described, entirely, by physical laws.
2. These physical laws could be validated only if they were entirely observable, or at least theoretically observable - e.g. the electron - through the behaviour of other observable phenomena.
3. There exist (speaking logically, not materially) phenomena which are not physically observable - e.g. the pain of a toothache.
4. Therefore there can be no true materialist reality.

Excuse me for trying to put words into your mouth - I just want to check that I have understood you correctly before I decide whether I agree with the theory or not.

Cheers!

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by hammegk


Bubby, whether you take my word for it or ignore it -- same to me. You want to learn something, do so; or stay ignorant.

Or you could provide evidence for your assertions.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Splurge
Ian,

I found this to be an absolutely fascinating theory. Many thanks for posting it.



I hope you will forgive me if I have misunderstood it, as I am new here, but would I be right in thinking that what you are saying, essentially, is this?:

1. A true materialist reality could be described, entirely, by physical laws.
2. These physical laws could be validated only if they were entirely observable, or at least theoretically observable - e.g. the electron - through the behaviour of other observable phenomena.
3. There exist (speaking logically, not materially) phenomena which are not physically observable - e.g. the pain of a toothache.
4. Therefore there can be no true materialist reality.

Excuse me for trying to put words into your mouth - I just want to check that I have understood you correctly before I decide whether I agree with the theory or not.

Cheers!

It is not an argument for immaterialism, but rather an argument against materialism. There are many non-materialist position such as various dualist positions, as well as idealist (immaterialist)positions.

Anyway, you've got the gist of it, although I would prefer it if people read my version. You see, reading your version people will be tempted to either say you can observe toothache because it is one and the very same thing as certain neural processes. Or they might be tempted to say that they can indirectly observe toothache by the expression of pain on ones face. But my version explains why this can't be done.

Basically materialism cannot be true unless you arbitrarily tack on conscious experiences. But, as I have explained, such conscious experiences cannot be explained by science. So it wouldn't really be materialism because materialism presupposes the truth of naturalism.

Ummm . . probably made that as clear as mud. Never mind! I think you've largely got it :)

[hgc]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Or you could provide evidence for your assertions. pssst. I'll give you a hint: hammy read something on the back of a cereal box once about the Higgs Boson. Now he thinks it disproves materialism. The product of a deseased mind.

Well hammy? In your usual riddling mode? Are you actually going to try to make your disjointed ramblings relevant to anything, or will you just drop little turds, and mock those who don't care to lap them up?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It was a point started by Tai Chi. It isn't really relevant to our discussion.

T'ai Chi brought it up, but you made it a condition that you answer my question.

Sheeesh....just admit when you've made a mistake, Ian.....

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And I believe I've already answered your questions.

Really?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Logic arguments cannot be tested.

I asked you for an example, Ian. Do you have one, yes or no?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Sound means that the premises are correct and it is a valid argument.

Thank you. That does not rule out that it is illogical.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I can claim that no-one has refuted me because as of yet no-one in this thread has actually addressed my argument. One does not refute an argument simply by ignoring it.

But when people ask you about your argument (e.g. to explain it), you merely begin throwing insults around.

A claim is not refuted simply by claiming that it is.

Try again, Ian:


You show me a logical argument that cannot be tested.
How can you claim that nobody has refuted you (which means you are right), if what you claim cannot be refuted?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
.... Are you actually going to try to make your disjointed ramblings relevant to anything, or will you just drop little turds, and mock those who don't care to lap them up?

If you believe my statement false, you (or the dummy) should say so, and be prepared to defend your Unified Field Theorem to that good 'ole peer review process. Indeed, put up or shut up.

Or you could both go play in the sandbox; wouldn't want you hurt yourselves on something difficult like swings, slides, or teeter-totters.

(Or continue to waste your time throwing mud at me -- or something else you don't understand; whatever. :D )

Anyway, enough pleasant chit-chat with you two for this thread. Who wants The Last Word?

[thaiboxerken]

If you believe my statement false, you (or the dummy) should say so, and be prepared to defend your Unified Field Theorem to that good 'ole peer review process. Indeed, put up or shut up.

I think you are making up BS just because you know many people haven't studied QM or GR. Now you won't provide the evidence for your claim. This fallacy won't work on me, simply because I am not an expert in physics, I will not accept whatever BS you throw out there. You are appealing to ignorance.

Here is another example of what you are going.

Nuke Operator: Nuclear plants are really just run by conductors connected to wheels turned by hamsters.

Non Nuke person: I doubt that.

Nuke Operator: Then tell me how nuclear plants work.

Non nuke person: I don't know.

Nuke operator: Then you don't know how nuclear plants work, so I must be correct.



Quit playing Nuke Operator and just provide the evidence for your claims.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by deBergerac

One thing I am wondering over is your view on objects. Is your view that different objects exist and are responsible for our sensation of them although the objects are not material or is it that objects do not exist and the only things that exist is our sensation of the objects? Maybe you think that dividing the world into objects is in itself not acceptable?



All that exists in their own right are minds. That which we call the physical world only exists by virtue of being perceived. The notion of an unperceived object is analogically akin to a grin without a cat. The visual sensation and the sense of touch constitute objects. There are no objects behind what we see and touch which causes those sensations. Rather all our sensory perceptions are immediately impressed on us by the infinite consciousness ("God"). What we call an apple for example, is a certain family of sensory perceptions ie a certain visual appearance, a certain feel when stretching our hand, and a certain taste when eating it. The apple is not given to us immediately by God, but rather our minds create the apple through the an implicit recognition that certain visual, tactile (touch), auditory, olfactory (smell) and gustatory (taste) perceptions occur in certain characteristic patterns. Basically reality is a construction by the mind moulding and interpreting the raw ideas impressed on us by God (low level theory).



The second thing I wonder about is your view on conscious beings you seem to assume that there is more than one. I also have the idea that people I meet are self-conscious and have existence independent of myself. Is that what you think as well?



Indeed other people are conscious. I infer that they are from their bodily behaviour and I believe that also anomalous cognition (esp) plays a role in our implicit certainty that other people are conscious.

Note that the materialist cannot infer conscious from peoples behaviour, as according to the materialist, peoples behaviour follows physical laws just as much as any other physical process in the Universe. A materialist has to define consciousness as being literally identical (ie one and the very same thing) to brain processes. Therefore if we have certain brain processes then by definition we also have consciousness.



I also want to comment on the hammer you talked about previously. You say that the hammer has a purpose and the rock does not although they can both be used to drive a nail through a board. In my view the hammer have no more purpose than the rock in itself. Purpose, as beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder. If you look at the atoms making up the hammer and the rock you will not find one piece of purpose or of justice. But in my knowledge of what a hammer is I recognise the purpose of a hammer and the non-purpose of a rock. That would place purpose in me and not in the outside world. [/B]

The hammer was created for a purpose. The stone wasn't. The very reason for the hammers existence is to bash things. The stone has no reason for its existence. But it can still be used to bash things. Analogically applying this to our own lives, then if our lives have no purpose, they might still have meaning which we create for ourselves.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:There are no objects behind what we see and touch which causes those sensations.
...
Indeed other people are conscious. I infer that they are from their bodily behaviour ...
But those other peoples' bodies are just figments of your imagination.

~~ Paul

[thaiboxerken]

All that exists in their own right are minds. That which we call the physical world only exists by virtue of being perceived.

You have no evidence to support this insanity. None at all.

[Garrette]

Interesting Ian:

Where did I say [that NDEs are legitimate]? I didn't. I don't know what you mean by it. If you're saying that I'm saying that most probably the NDE is what it appears to be, then yes.

First, you’re saying it at the end of the statement above, 14 November at 11:44 pm (according to my board time).

Second, you said this on 13 November at 11:42 am

Ian:

We learn that there is an ultimate purpose to our lives in mystical experiences like NDE's.

Which quite clearly and unmistakably implies that NDEs are legitimate, else how could we learn there is an ultimate purpose from them?

---

Interesting Ian:

YES YES YES, you keep saying this! [that NDEs do not stand up to scrutiny and even if they did they do not indicate purpose]. When are you going to justify it??? Or do you not intend to?? If not please stop wasting my time.

You are asking me to disprove all NDEs. The burden, as others have pointed out to you, is on you to produce a defensible NDE.

When I challenged you to do so, your response on 13 November ad 5:21 pm was this:

Ian:
First of all I am not interested in particular anecdotes.
Secondly, if you stand by your statement then you need to justify it. So do so.

I’ll indulge you. I justify it with the simple fact that you have produced no NDEs, legitimate or otherwise, for me to discuss.

You brought up NDEs. You said they are legitimate. You said they indicate purpose.

Justify it.

---

In response to this statement of mine:

Garrette:

Third, you say I don't know anything about NDEs.

You said this:

Ian:

I wasn't going to respond any further to your post, but I have to nail your lies. I never said this!

In you 13 November post at 12:35 pm, you said this:

Ian:

They most certainly do. You need to learn something about NDEs it seems.

Am I misinterpreting this post? I see it as rather patronizing and implicating quite strongly and intentionally that I know nothing about NDEs. Feel free to say that this was not your intent.

---

Ian:

So give me your argument!! [that NDEs don’t stand up to scrutiny and are not indicative of purpose.]

You’re still insisting I disprove all NDEs. Show me your argument first, please. I’m not sure how you can, though, since you are “not interested in particular anecdotes.”

---

In response to this statement of mine:

Garrette:

Fifth, you say I have to support my statement that NDEs do not stand up to scrutiny.

I will be generous for the moment and assume you have simply made an error because you are posting in response to so many others. Surely, you cannot think it is incumbent on me to disprove all NDEs. You realize it is your burden to prove them, do you not?

You said this:

Ian:

No, I absolutely deny this. The burden is upon you.
And even if the burden were upon me, it wouldn't be in this particular instance since you have said that NDE's are not what they appear to be. Are you saying you cannot justify your assertion?? In that case why are you wasting my time??


Ceptimus and others have responded better than I can to this.
I will simply reiterate the final sentence (unquoted) of my last post. It is now my conclusion.

Garrette:

If not, and if you still think it is my burden to disprove all NDEs, then I will have to conclude you have no conception of science, and only a semantic understanding of logic.

Your position is interesting, Ian, but that is not the same as being defensible. You obviously possess a hefty intellect, but that is not the same as being right.

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by Splurge
Ian,

I found this to be an absolutely fascinating theory. Many thanks for posting it.



I hope you will forgive me if I have misunderstood it, as I am new here, but would I be right in thinking that what you are saying, essentially, is this?:

1. A true materialist reality could be described, entirely, by physical laws.
2. These physical laws could be validated only if they were entirely observable, or at least theoretically observable - e.g. the electron - through the behaviour of other observable phenomena.
3. There exist (speaking logically, not materially) phenomena which are not physically observable - e.g. the pain of a toothache.
4. Therefore there can be no true materialist reality.

Excuse me for trying to put words into your mouth - I just want to check that I have understood you correctly before I decide whether I agree with the theory or not.

Cheers! My arguments against this summary.

I don't see how (4) follows from the others. Just because a physical law hasn't been validated (2), doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Most people believe that the universe and the earth got along fine for billions of years before there was anyone around to observe it.

We may not be able to observe the pain of a toothache now, but who is to say we will not discover a way of doing it in the future? We could not observe radio waves coming from stars until we invented radio receivers. We could not observe the electrical brain activity of a person until we invented machines to do it, and so on.

Since you are new to the forum, let me introduce you to an old argument, posted by a famous (notorious?) member here:

1. Atoms obey the laws of physics.
2. Your brain is made of atoms.
3. Therefore, your brain obeys the laws of physics.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette

II
Where did I say [that NDEs are legitimate]? I didn't. I don't know what you mean by it. If you're saying that I'm saying that most probably the NDE is what it appears to be, then yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



First, you’re saying it at the end of the statement above, 14 November at 11:44 pm (according to my board time).

Second, you said this on 13 November at 11:42 am


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian:

We learn that there is an ultimate purpose to our lives in mystical experiences like NDE's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Which quite clearly and unmistakably implies that NDEs are legitimate, else how could we learn there is an ultimate purpose from them?



I don't know for sure that an NDE is "legitimate". It is conceivable that they are some sort of bizarre hallucination. This does not of course mean to say that those who have undergone deep NDEs (which I haven't) don't know that their experience wasn't "legitimate". Generally they are as sure as they can be about anything that the experience is what it seems to be.

---



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting Ian:

YES YES YES, you keep saying this! [that NDEs do not stand up to scrutiny and even if they did they do not indicate purpose]. When are you going to justify it??? Or do you not intend to?? If not please stop wasting my time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are asking me to disprove all NDEs. The burden, as others have pointed out to you, is on you to produce a defensible NDE.



And I'm telling you that they hold this stance because they are committed to materialism, and therefore anything which is incompatible with materialism, they are psychologically disposed to demand that those proposing the existence of said phenomenon should prove it is for real. In reality though we have these experiences, and there is no good reason to suppose they are not what they appear to be since materialism is absurd. Therefore you need to provide reasons why you think they are hallucinations.

But besides this you originally claimed you have reasons/evidence to suppose NDEs are not "legitimate". Why do you refuse to provide such reasons or evidence?



In response to this statement of mine:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garrette:

Third, you say I don't know anything about NDEs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You said this:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian:

I wasn't going to respond any further to your post, but I have to nail your lies. I never said this!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In you 13 November post at 12:35 pm, you said this:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian:

They most certainly do. You need to learn something about NDEs it seems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Am I misinterpreting this post? I see it as rather patronizing and implicating quite strongly and intentionally that I know nothing about NDEs. Feel free to say that this was not your intent.



I said it seems you need to learn something about NDEs. This emphatically does not mean to say that you have a complete lack of knowledge of NDEs. Just that it seems your knowledge is somewhat deficient.

---



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian:

So give me your argument!! [that NDEs don’t stand up to scrutiny and are not indicative of purpose.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You’re still insisting I disprove all NDEs. Show me your argument first, please. I’m not sure how you can, though, since you are “not interested in particular anecdotes.”

---

In response to this statement of mine:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garrette:

Fifth, you say I have to support my statement that NDEs do not stand up to scrutiny.

I will be generous for the moment and assume you have simply made an error because you are posting in response to so many others. Surely, you cannot think it is incumbent on me to disprove all NDEs. You realize it is your burden to prove them, do you not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You said this:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian:

No, I absolutely deny this. The burden is upon you.
And even if the burden were upon me, it wouldn't be in this particular instance since you have said that NDE's are not what they appear to be. Are you saying you cannot justify your assertion?? In that case why are you wasting my time??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ceptimus and others have responded better than I can to this.
I will simply reiterate the final sentence (unquoted) of my last post. It is now my conclusion.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garrette:

If not, and if you still think it is my burden to disprove all NDEs, then I will have to conclude you have no conception of science, and only a semantic understanding of logic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Right, so contradicting what you said earlier on in this thread, you admit you don't have any reasons or evidence. Nothing more to be said. I will not be responding any further to you on this particular subject. Not unless you come up with any reasons or evidence that is.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ceptimus
[B]My arguments against this summary.

. . . .

We may not be able to observe the pain of a toothache now, but who is to say we will not discover a way of doing it in the future?

I do. You need to read my original argument. Not Spluge's intepretation and summary of it. Clearly you have either not read my original argument or have not understood it. I repeat it for your convenience (yet again!)

BTW the following argument doesn't refute eliminative materialism, but that is a crazy position which no sane person would hold.

What we need to do is take a look at materialism to see if it is internally consistant. Now the particular question I would like to address is why should we suppose that other peoples bodies are "inhabited" by conscious minds (or why phenomenal consciousness is associated with brains). Your argument no doubt will be that materialism stipulates this to be so; it is an axiomatic premise of materialism. But this makes your definition of materialism an arbitrary one. A metaphysic which glosses over awkward facts. Allow me to explain.

It seems to me that materialism should stipulate that the physical exhausts reality. That once we have completely described the Universe in physical terms then we have said all that can be said about the Universe or reality.

But what is the physical? It seems to me that it should be everything, that, at least in principle, can be observed by anyone with appropriate faculties and suitable instruments. In other words all that is objective exists, or to put it another way, all that is discernable from the third person perspective exists. This will also include things which can only be indirectly seen (although strictly speaking I reject the direct/indirect dichotomy). This then includes such entities as electrons, because although they can only be "indirectly" seen they nevertheless play fruitful roles in our theories describing the world ie we need to hypothesise electrons in order to explain certain aspects of reality.

Now there is something peculiar about conscious experience which marks it off from all other existents. It is simply this. It cannot be observed or detected by anyone with appropriate faculties and/or suitable instruments! Thus according to my prior definition of the physical it is not a physical existent. Thus I may have toothache to take an arbitrary example. But you cannot observe that toothache, all you can obseve is the effects of the toothache, the grimace of pain for example. Conscious experiences in other words are irreducibly private.

Now you will no doubt say that by observing the grimace, or at least by observing the neurons fire, then you are observing the toothache since materialism holds that the toothache and its neural correlates are one and the same thing, or at least aspects of the same thing. But an objective examination of this toothache will necessarily leave out the subjective irreducibly sensation of pain. The actually sensation of pain does not figure into the physical facts about the pain according to our prior definition of the physical. Nor can we infer the sensation of pain since, unlike an electron, the (phenomenological) pain does not play a part in any
description of our behaviour. The pain per se cannot play a part because pain per se is not part of the objective publically accessible realm. Only the neural correlates of the pain can play any fruitful role in our theories.

In short then either a materialist has to concede his metaphysic is internally inconsistent, or he must arbitrarily include phenomenological consciousness within his world picture. But if he opts for the latter then the whole prima facie plausibility of his world view crumbles away. No longer can he say that for something to exist it must be in principle be directly observable or play a fruitful role in some theory about the world, because this then necessarily precludes phenomenological consciousness. He
has to expand the notion of the physical to even include things that cannot be directly or even indirectly detected, even in principle!

This is what materialism entails and is just one of many reasons why we should reject this metaphysic.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The hammer was created for a purpose. The stone wasn't. The very reason for the hammers existence is to bash things. The stone has no reason for its existence. But it can still be used to bash things. Analogically applying this to our own lives, then if our lives have no purpose, they might still have meaning which we create for ourselves.

I actually like this suggestion. It's a good answer to those that suppose that life is purposeless if we had no creator.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by gnome


I actually like this suggestion. It's a good answer to those that suppose that life is purposeless if we had no creator.

Life probably doesn't have any purpose under atheism and materialism. But we can impose our own meaning on life. I don't think anyone denies this.

[hammegk]

Understanding, Purpose, Speech, Conduct, Vocation, Effort, Mindfulness, Meditation ....

Those rules have been codified for thousands of years ... see # 1, Understanding -- that's where you are on the path, or not. :)

[thaiboxerken]

You should realize, Cept, that Ian will contradict himself and change his positions often. He really doesn't know what he believes, just that he knows it's true. NDE's are real, and that's final... according to Ian. Anecdotes and philosophy are all the evidence he needs.

[Interesting Ian]

Mr Larsen,

I hope you are following the debate in the "Definition of falsifiable? (for non-materialists)" thread.

[Garrette]

Interesting Ian:

Right, so contradicting what you said earlier on in this thread, you admit you don't have any reasons or evidence. Nothing more to be said. I will not be responding any further to you on this particular subject. Not unless you come up with any reasons or evidence that is.

No such thing. You're losing it, Ian.

You are still insisting I disprove all NDEs when all you have said is (paraphrased and taking into account your recent clarifications): 'NDEs have been reported by people who believe they are real; they may, in fact, not be real or legitimate but in either case they indicate purpose. Oh, btw, I will not discuss any specific NDEs; I will merely state that I have read about many of them and claim that is enough for me; you must now disprove my case.'

Retreat from this summary, too, if you like, but it is nonetheless an accurate depiction of what you have said so far.


{Edited to replace double quotes with single quotes}

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Mr Larsen,

I hope you are following the debate in the "Definition of falsifiable? (for non-materialists)" thread.

Mr. Ian,

I am indeed. That does not mean you can avoid these:


You show me a logical argument that cannot be tested.
How can you claim that nobody has refuted you (which means you are right), if what you claim cannot be refuted?

[Yahweh]

*Peeks in*

Is this thread still going on...

I guess so...

*Ponders*

[Aussie Thinker]

Yep Yaweh..

It still is..

So far the following updates from my perspective.

1. The thread has gone completely off topic (but I don’t care)
2. Interesting Ian REFUSES to answer my question about probability
3. Hammegk has deemed me a newcomer and even though I started the thread I don’t deserve a response
4. Immaterialism as a worldview can be equated to the lunatic ion the asylum declaring he is God
5. Billhoyt railed at me for being on the same side he is.
6. CFLARSEN, THK, HGC etc keep making pertinent comments and asking pertinent question that are ignored with aplomb by the resident loonies !

Other than that .. everything seems fine…

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette
[B]

No such thing. You're losing it, Ian.

You are still insisting I disprove all NDEs



I insist on no such thing. I simply ask that you justify your original assertion that there is good evidence or reasons to suppose NDE's are hallucinations. I'm not interested in you attacking particular anecdotes.



when all you have said is (paraphrased and taking into account your recent clarifications): "NDEs have been reported by people who believe they are real; they may, in fact, not be real or legitimate but in either case they indicate purpose.



With an attempted paraphrase you shouldn't use double quotes! Use single quotes!

And it's lousy paraphrasing. How can they conceivably indicate purpose to our lives if they are hallucinations!?? :eek: :confused:


As I said, justify your original claim, otherwise we have nothing to discuss.

[Aussie Thinker]

II,

I insist on no such thing. I simply ask that you justify your original assertion that there is good evidence or reasons to suppose NDE's are hallucinations. I'm not interested in you attacking particular anecdotes.

ALL NDE experiences are reported by people who did NOT die.

This means they still had and always had consciousness.

When someone who has died comes back and tells me what happened then I’ll pay attention.

Accepting dreams as evidence borders on the insane !

[Garrette]

Interesting Ian:

With an attempted paraphrase you shouldn't use double quotes! Use single quotes!

And it's lousy paraphrasing. How can they conceivably indicate purpose to our lives if they are hallucinations!??

Agreed on the double quotes. My mistake. I'll edit it to singles.

Disagreed on the paraphrasing. It's excellent for your stance at one time. I'll agree you've changed, though, including in this one.

In fact, the last sentence indicates quite clearly that you've come around to my point of view. They can't conceivably indicate purpose if they are hallucinations. Since you have not demonstrated (nor has anyone else) that they are legitimate NDEs (in the paranormal sense), then there is no reason to assume purpose.

Finally, we agree.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
....I believe that also anomalous cognition (esp) plays a role in our implicit certainty that other people are conscious.

Gospell according to Ian...

I can't see toothache, so therefore the material world doesn't exist.

However physical laws exist.

The existence of Physical laws proves that God exists.

I know that other people exist because of esp.

NDE's indicate that life has a purpose.



Oh boy.:rolleyes:

[showme2]

Because abuse is the last resort of one with an exhausted argument.

[Aussie Thinker]

Showme2,

Why anyone who calls Interesting Ian a Dangerous Loon is a Dangerous Loon
Because abuse is the last resort of one with an exhausted argument.

Ironic that you would abuse me then comment that abuse is an argument for one bereft of anything relevant.

Pot to Kettle : “YOU ARE BLACK”

For a start I called Ian a loon from the start.. it was not a last resort.

I called him a loon because he does EXACTLY what lunatics in asylums do.

They hold to “theories” or “ideas” that cannot be disproved but are so improbable and so unlikely that they are considered mad by the rest of the rational population.

Ian’s support for his theory is EXACTLY the same support as man who declares he is Napoleon in the Sunnydale Lunatic Asylum.