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.

[No Answers]

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 ?

[Diogenes]

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 ?

[Diogenes]

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.

[Diogenes]

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