Ian Ignore this First [Archive]

Hexxenhammer

10th September 2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by reprise
Think of something which has had a powerful emotional impact on you - the birth of your child, the bombing of the WTC, for instance. Now imagine someone telling you that your feelings in response to those events are simply a function of the matter in your brain; nothing special. In strict materialism, that's precisely what your emotions, your thoughts, your hopes, etc are - no more "significant" or "special" than the digestive process which is the result of physical and chemical interactions which take place in your gut. I think you hit the nail on the head. Immaterialists don't like this idea. They think it takes the "specialness" out of life to think that we're just little insignificant meat puppets running around doing what our hormones tell us too. I myself don't have a problem with the idea. So what if love is a chemical reaction? Doesn't change the fact that I love. So what if the smell of a flower doesn't exist outside my head? It still smells pretty. Why should anything change because of this? Immaterialists just think it does and they can't really explain why. "There must be something more because this can't be it."

Edited to correct stupid spelling mistake.

scribble

11th September 2003, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
I really have tried to understand the POV of the immaterialists, but they are poor at explaining it. Some seem more inetersted in name calling than they do explaining thier POV.

Welcome to the club. I've been there for the last two years.

So what is the big objection to materialism?

It's no *fun*, see...

There are a number of interesting notions thats seem to be related to neoplatonism and aristotelian logic.

But we all are here, by power of the organic mechanism. there may be an immaterial world, but since we can't acsess it why would it even matter?

Brilliant question.

I'm going to paraphrase Mr. Stimpy, because I can't be bothered to look up the exact wording he's used a million times... if you can interact with it, it's physical and materialism has got it. If you can't interact with it, who gives a flying f***?

Good luck with the immaterialists. I gave up on them.

-Chris

UnrepentantSinner

11th September 2003, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
I think you hit the nail on the head. Immaterialists don't like this idea. They think it takes the "specialness" out of life to think that we're just little insignificant meat puppets running around doing what our hormones tell us too. I myself don't have a problem with the idea. So what if love is a chemical reaction? Doesn't change the fact that I love. So what if the smell of a flower doesn't exist outside my head? It still smells pretty. Why should anything change because of this? Immaterialists just think it does and they can't really explain why. "Their must be something more because this can't be it."

Great response Hexxx, basically what I have been saying for as long as I've been dealing with this idiotic objection to the physical being all that there is. The pain I feel over a lost love or the euphoria I feel when I see my special woman is in no way lessened or degraded because it's a chemical reaction.

Dancing David

11th September 2003, 08:05 AM

I agree, life is a damn wonder in the first place, we are the detrius of the film on this speck of a planet. Pretty darn cool!

From what I can tell the immaterialist argument seems to have a number of lines.

a. It is possible that there could be immaterial things.

b. science can not give a detailed explanation for all of reality

c. there are transcendant things like qualia, therefore there are immaterial things.

d. the brain could not contain all the sensory impressions or memeories that it does, therefore there is immaterial consiousness.

e. anolamouse cognition: there is vauge evidence for spiritual beliefs.

f. I define materialism to be this, and therefore it is wrong.

g. You must logicaly prove that the material gives rise to consiousness.(ian)

Interesting Ian

11th September 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by abiogenesis
From what I've read of Ian's and Q-Source's arguments, they spend a lot of effort defending the mind/brain separation. It is vitally important to them that the conscious mind's existence is not dependent on the squishy stuff in your skull.

Now, I can't speak for them (hell, usually I can't even understand them), but it seems to me like this all stems from fear of death. I honestly can't find anything positive about the philosophy other than the possibility of eternal consciousness of some sort.

I can understand feeling upset or unsatisfied with some of the explanations provided by science, but making stuff up just because it makes you feel better isn't logical.

Of course, I could just be talking out of my @$$. ;) I'm sure Ian will let me know...

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

Yes you are. I highly suspect that fear of death is genetically hard-wired. Whether or not people believe in a "life" after death, people generally speaking will be frightened of dying.

And if you really think about it and approach this rationally, people who believe in a "life" after death ought to be more frightened of death than those who suppose our existence is simply terminated. After all, entering into a wholly unknown "transempirical" reality whose characteristics we are quite unsure about is surely something more to be possibly feared, than a state very similar to which we enter every night in "deep sleep".

And BTW, ones desire for a certain state of affairs to be true does not give any evidence either that the state of affairs is not true, nor does it imply that the arguments for this state of affairs must therefore be flawed.

Interesting Ian

11th September 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by abiogenesis

I can understand feeling upset or unsatisfied with some of the explanations provided by science, but making stuff up just because it makes you feel better isn't logical.
[/B]

You confuse science with materialism. Science does not in any shape or form tell us that we are wholly material beings. That's what materialism tells us, and without any justification.

abiogenesis

11th September 2003, 09:02 AM

Thanks for setting me straight, guys. Apparently, I was talking out of my @$$. :)

I guess I don't understand the "special" thing. What could that possibly mean? All there is is what is and what isn't. Where does special come into it?

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

Edited to Add:
Man, Ian's quick on the draw! This was written before his two posts above.

Upchurch

11th September 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I highly suspect that fear of death is genetically hard-wired. huh. What an odd statement.

Ian, I was under the impression that didn't believe the physical world had much, if any, effect on the consciousness and, yet, here, you suggest that genetic (i.e. physical) material in the brain has a direct effect on the consciousness (i.e. fear).

What up?

Interesting Ian

11th September 2003, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
So what if love is a chemical reaction?

Well for a kick off the statement is meaningless. I might as well say "so what if a biscuit is an elephant"?

Interesting Ian

11th September 2003, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
huh. What an odd statement.

Ian, I was under the impression that didn't believe the physical world had much, if any, effect on the consciousness and, yet, here, you suggest that genetic (i.e. physical) material in the brain has a direct effect on the consciousness (i.e. fear).

What up?

The physical world quite clearly has a huge effect on conscious states and the mind (albeit not the self).

Upchurch

11th September 2003, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The physical world quite clearly has a huge effect on conscious states and the mind (albeit not the self). So, there is a correlation between physical phenomenon and changes in conscious state and the mind? And vice versa?

edited to add: specifically, I'm refering to a correlation between physical phenomena in the brain.

hammegk

11th September 2003, 10:58 AM

Gosh, Upchurch, you are close. *I* that thinks is capable of selectively picking through the baggage that the perceived-as-material *me* brings along, and apparently works at the brain "matter" level to effect change (Libertarian free-will) in *me*'s behavior.

Another way to examine the material vs immaterial question (Yahweh forgot to mention the stance of Idealism -- dualism imo collapses to one of the 2 choices) is that western thought holds the belief that Aristotle is The Answer. A thing either IS, or IS NOT.

Ergo, somwhere between the A-tom (assuming space is not infinitely divisible) currently at the baryon/lepton level, and human consciousness, arrives "life", an emergent property, a gestalt, the unexplained. Various problems in logic bedevil this state of affairs, HPC being one of them, although imo Life is the "real" mystery.

Idealism just removes that arbitrary "emergent property" line, but leaves Science such as it is intact.

Stimpson J. Cat

11th September 2003, 11:14 AM

Ian,

And if you really think about it and approach this rationally, people who believe in a "life" after death ought to be more frightened of death than those who suppose our existence is simply terminated. After all, entering into a wholly unknown "transempirical" reality whose characteristics we are quite unsure about is surely something more to be possibly feared, than a state very similar to which we enter every night in "deep sleep".

Well, if the majority of people who believe in life after death were not already certain of what the next would be like, you might have a point there.

I can understand feeling upset or unsatisfied with some of the explanations provided by science, but making stuff up just because it makes you feel better isn't logical.
[/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You confuse science with materialism. Science does not in any shape or form tell us that we are wholly material beings. That's what materialism tells us, and without any justification.

You are the one who is confused. No appeal to any metaphysical speculation is necessary to conclude from the scientific evidence that when we die, our minds cease to exist. You can always speculate that this is not the case, but the fact remains that the evidence indicates that it is.

Nobody has made any appeals to materialism here except you.

Dr. Stupid

Mike D.

11th September 2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by reprise
...the idea that our existence and our experience of that existence can be explained and described purely in terms of matter and its interaction with other matter is offensive to many people.

Sounds like matter is being offensive to itself in this case!

Interesting Ian

11th September 2003, 01:11 PM

Don't you ever get sick of following me around and responding to me in virtually every thread that I post in? What is so fascinating about my posts that you devote so much time to responding to them? :confused:

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you really think about it and approach this rationally, people who believe in a "life" after death ought to be more frightened of death than those who suppose our existence is simply terminated. After all, entering into a wholly unknown "transempirical" reality whose characteristics we are quite unsure about is surely something more to be possibly feared, than a state very similar to which we enter every night in "deep sleep".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, if the majority of people who believe in life after death were not already certain of what the next would be like, you might have a point there.

I have reservations that people are certain about what will happen to them after they die! But regardless of this, are you saying that people who believe in "life" after death do not generally fear death at all?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can understand feeling upset or unsatisfied with some of the explanations provided by science, but making stuff up just because it makes you feel better isn't logical.
[/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You confuse science with materialism. Science does not in any shape or form tell us that we are wholly material beings. That's what materialism tells us, and without any justification.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are the one who is confused. No appeal to any metaphysical speculation is necessary to conclude from the scientific evidence that when we die, our minds cease to exist. You can always speculate that this is not the case, but the fact remains that the evidence indicates that it is.

As I keep tirelessly pointing out, any such "evidence" can be equally accommodated by the transmission hypothesis of the self.

Stimpson J. Cat

11th September 2003, 01:37 PM

Ian,

Don't you ever get sick of following me around and responding to me in virtually every thread that I post in?

How incredibly arrogant of you to assume that I followed you into this thread. I was following this thread before you posted to it, you know.

Anyway, before you start throwing the obsession rock, perhaps you should check to see which one of us is quoting the other in his sig. :rolleyes:

What is so fascinating about my posts that you devote so much time to responding to them?

Fascinating is not the term I would use. Irritating is. It is very irritating to see you continue to sling around the same anti-materialism strawman arguments over and over again. I respond to your posts because it annoys the Hell out of me when people blatantly misrepresent other people's positions, which is just about all you ever do around here.

Well, if the majority of people who believe in life after death were not already certain of what the next would be like, you might have a point there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have reservations that people are certain about what will happen to them after they die! But regardless of this, are you saying that people who believe in "life" after death do not generally fear death at all?

Not at all. They cling to their belief in life after death as a way to cope with the fear. It does not eliminate the fear. It just helps them cope with it.

You are the one who is confused. No appeal to any metaphysical speculation is necessary to conclude from the scientific evidence that when we die, our minds cease to exist. You can always speculate that this is not the case, but the fact remains that the evidence indicates that it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I keep tirelessly pointing out, any such "evidence" can be equally accommodated by the transmission hypothesis of the self.

So what? It can also be equally accommodated by the brain in a jar hypothesis, or by the supernatural spirit hypothesis, or by the goddidit hypothesis, or by a literally infinite number of other unfalsifiable hypotheses that could potentially be dreamed up.

The point is that the theory that when you die, your mind ceases to exist, is the most parsimonious falsifiable theory available. That is why the evidence supports it. Evidence can never support a hypothesis which would be consistent with any observation you could possibly make.

Dr. Stupid

scribble

11th September 2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
So what? It can also be equally accommodated by the brain in a jar hypothesis, or by the supernatural spirit hypothesis, or by the goddidit hypothesis, or by a literally infinite number of other unfalsifiable hypotheses that could potentially be dreamed up.

!!

Great post, Stimpy.

Dancing David

11th September 2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

You confuse science with materialism. Science does not in any shape or form tell us that we are wholly material beings. That's what materialism tells us, and without any justification.

Quite right I to the second power, but what science also tells us is to look for verification of the hypothesis coming from theory. And so far I have yet to see evidence of anything outside the material world.

So is it okay to believe in the material world, cause i sure have been confued following some of the other threads on this board.

So it is not scientific materialism that is objectionable but philosphical materialism/

elliotfc

11th September 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
I really have tried to understand the POV of the immaterialists, but they are poor at explaining it. Some seem more inetersted in name calling than they do explaining thier POV.

So what is the big objection to materialism?

I can't think of a reason why the world needs to be explained in a materialist way. It can be understood in a materialist way, and it can be understood in other ways as well. I wouldn't call it a big objection, it's just doesn't do it for a lot of people.

But we all are here, by power of the organic mechanism. there may be an immaterial world, but since we can't acsess it why would it even matter?

I disagree that we can't access it. If it exists, then it matters.

-Elliot

elliotfc

11th September 2003, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by reprise
Materialism and its derivative philosophies challenge the "specialness" of a lot of things which are important to people, by reducing those experiences, emotions, thoughts, aspirations, etc to being a function of matter. Even without involving the supernatural/paranormal in the debate about materialism, the idea that our existence and our experience of that existence can be explained and described purely in terms of matter and its interaction with other matter is offensive to many people.

All organized life is special, whether you are a materialist or not that can't really be argued. It's fine to theorize that all emotion and thought etc can be reduced, but that has yet to be proven. This isn't Hari Seldon psychohistory, nobody can predict or calculate emotion and thought and it can't be materially observed, but you are entitled to your faith in this matter I guess.

Can our existence be explained materially? Yes. Can it be explained in other ways? Yes. If you have hang-ups about the supernatural/paranormal then that explains why you would go with the materialistc philosophy.

I guess some people find materialism offensive. I just find it exclusionary.

-Elliot

elliotfc

11th September 2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by abiogenesis
From what I've read of Ian's and Q-Source's arguments, they spend a lot of effort defending the mind/brain separation. It is vitally important to them that the conscious mind's existence is not dependent on the squishy stuff in your skull.

It is difficult for me to conceive of mind/brain separation.

Now, I can't speak for them (hell, usually I can't even understand them), but it seems to me like this all stems from fear of death.

Really? I don't see how the ideas are necessarily related, and if you would bring of fear of death, that suggests that you are more concerned with fear of death than someone who doesn't bring it up. Displacement of a feeling on someone else can be a symptom of psychic issues.

I honestly can't find anything positive about the philosophy other than the possibility of eternal consciousness of some sort.

First, positive/negative is besides the point if you're talking about reality or objective truth. Second, the other than is a pretty big deal, you must admit, if the possibility is in fact reality. Third, it explains many things such as conscience and ideals and the feelings we have that certain things are right and certain things are wrong.

I can understand feeling upset or unsatisfied with some of the explanations provided by science, but making stuff up just because it makes you feel better isn't logical.

I think people have good reason for believing that a part of us may be eternal. Making up the idea that there is no good reasons for that idea is a coping mechanism; try walking in another person's shoes. You, I take it, feel better now that you have defused something you feel is out of order. Good for you.

-Elliot

elliotfc

11th September 2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by reprise
Think of something which has had a powerful emotional impact on you - the birth of your child, the bombing of the WTC, for instance. Now imagine someone telling you that your feelings in response to those events are simply a function of the matter in your brain; nothing special. In strict materialism, that's precisely what your emotions, your thoughts, your hopes, etc are - no more "significant" or "special" than the digestive process which is the result of physical and chemical interactions which take place in your gut.

Prove that feelings are strictly a function of the matter in your brain. If you are able to predict without flaw how a person will feel given certain conditions, the intensity of those feelings, etc etc etc etc you will have demonstrated your idea. Short of that, it is faith in an idea.

-Elliot

reprise

11th September 2003, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Prove that feelings are strictly a function of the matter in your brain. If you are able to predict without flaw how a person will feel given certain conditions, the intensity of those feelings, etc etc etc etc you will have demonstrated your idea. Short of that, it is faith in an idea.

-Elliot

There is considerably more evidence supporting the materialist theory of existence than there is any of the "spiritual" models. We can certainly verify the existence of the brain and we can prove that physical events affecting the brain (whether direct trauma, illness, or disruption of the usual biochemical or electrical balance) produce changes in the way a particular individual experiences the world - including their emotions.

Can we predict at an individual level precisely how an individual's brain will react to these events? In gross terms, we often can predict how interference with normal brain function will manifest in terms of emotions and other aspects of personality. At an individual level, predictions become less certain.

The various "spiritual" models of existence have yet to prove that their theories, laws, predictions are valid at even the gross level, much less the individual level.

Faith is a belief which is not based on evidence. There is considerable evidence in support of a materialistic model of the universe, life, experience, and reality. I do not have "faith" that the Sun will rise tomorrow. I have confidence that the Sun will rise tomorrow based on what has been proven about the nature of our Solar system and based on the predictions which have proven true thus verifying that we understand the basic nature of the our Solar system. Some of those predictions have yet to be proven - one of them being that our Sun is going to eventually "die" - but we are still able to collect data which either strengthens or weakens those predictions.

FWIW, I'm a naturalist rather than a classic materialist. Naturalism doesn't reject the existence of forces which we have yet to discover existing or influencing our existence - it does, however, assert that those forces will not be "supernatural"; it theorises that those forces will be subject to observable, demonstrable "rules" which can be verified and from which verifiable predictions can be made. "Paranormal" phenomena per se could quite easily be accommodated within the naturalistic model if they could be proven to exist. The current "spiritual" theories used to explain paranormal phenomena - however - cannot be accommodated within the naturalistic model as those theories are based on the assumption that there exist forces which exist outside of nature and which are not subject to any observable, demonstrable, verifiable laws.

abiogenesis

11th September 2003, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc:
It is difficult for me to conceive of mind/brain separation.Me too, that's the point. I have seen no reliable evidence suggesting that such a separation exists.Originally posted by elliotfc:
Really? I don't see how the ideas are necessarily related, and if you would bring of fear of death, that suggests that you are more concerned with fear of death than someone who doesn't bring it up.Actually, I still don't think I'm too far off base with this. Look at Ian's sig, for example. The first quote is from a book entitled Death and Eternal Life. How much do you want to bet that the book suggests the mind survives the death of the brain? As far as I can see, Idealism has as much going for it as religion: it makes people happy about something they don't understand. And from the discussions I've read, the existence of the mind independent of the brain seems to be the central "happy thought." Personally, I'm just fine with oblivion. :wink:Originally posted by elliotfc:
First, positive/negative is besides the point if you're talking about reality or objective truth.I was trying to figure out the appeal of Idealism. What question does it "answer" for people that science doesn't? The only one I am aware of is "What happens to us when we die?"Originally posted by elliotfc:
Second, the other than is a pretty big deal, you must admit, if the possibility is in fact reality.Regardless of how "big a deal" it is, wishing it so does not make it so. There is no reliable evidence supporting the existence of an afterlife, idealist or otherwise.Originally posted by elliotfc:
Third, it explains many things such as conscience and ideals and the feelings we have that certain things are right and certain things are wrong.The explanations of Idealism cannot be tested. Therefore, in my opinion, it explains nothing. The only explanations that are worth anything are those obtained through scientific investigation. It is unwise to accept an explanation just because it makes you feel good. It is much better to expend the effort in trying to understand how things really are. It's that whole search-for-objective-truth thing.Originally posted by elliotfc:
I think people have good reason for believing that a part of us may be eternal.In the absence of very strong supporting evidence, there is no good reason to believe any such thing.Originally posted by elliotfc:
Making up the idea that there is no good reasons for that idea is a coping mechanism; try walking in another person's shoes.I don't see how requiring evidence can be perceived as a coping mechanism. I refuse to "make stuff up".Originally posted by elliotfc:
You, I take it, feel better now that you have defused something you feel is out of order. Good for you.
I've been following these materailism/idealism discussions for a while now. Your comments, elliotfc, don't suggest the same about you. I doubt that it is within the power of anyone here to "diffuse" the issue.

You, I take it, feel better now that you have entered a discussion with no knowledge of the concepts being discussed and, rather than trying to learn something, passed judgement on others in order to feel more intelligent. Good for you.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

elliotfc

11th September 2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by reprise
The various "spiritual" models of existence have yet to prove that their theories, laws, predictions are valid at even the gross level, much less the individual level.

I guess not to your pleasing or liking. The spiritual idea that there is a moral law that is independent of human thinking is quite obvious to me at the individual level, and at the gross level very many millions and billions of people have had no problem with that proof. Of course that proof won't satisfy everybody, this isn't mathematics.

Faith is a belief which is not based on evidence.

???

But take the Christian faith? It is based on the New Testament. If you don't accept that as evidence that's up to you. I reject some things that you accept as evidence.

What you should actually be saying is "Faith is a belief which is not based on acceptable evidence", and acceptable will depend on an individual judgment call compared to a standard of the person's choosing.

There is considerable evidence in support of a materialistic model of the universe, life, experience, and reality.

Agreed.

I do not have "faith" that the Sun will rise tomorrow. I have confidence that the Sun will rise tomorrow based on what has been proven about the nature of our Solar system and based on the predictions which have proven true thus verifying that we understand the basic nature of the our Solar system.

You could have simply said that you've oberserved the Sun rise everyday of your entire life.

-Elliot

Dub

11th September 2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Prove that feelings are strictly a function of the matter in your brain.

For example, take love/bonding/whatever you want to call it. Certain hormones, Vasopressin and oxytocin, have been identifed in relation to this emotion. Qutoing Insel & Shapiro(1992):

"oxytocin is released during mating activates those limbice sites rich in oxytocin recpetors to confer some lasting and selective reinforcement value on the mate"

Insel, T. R., & Shapiro, L. E. Oxytocin recpetor distribution reflects social organisation in monogomous and polygamous voles. Preceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 89, pp. 559-563.

Insel also found that male rats, when injected intercerebrally with oxytocin, become more "highly sexed". In females, it helps the mother bond with its young. Insel and Shapiro in studing 2 species of prarie voles, one polygamous and one monogomous, found that when thge polygamous voles had far less oxytocin and vasopressin in certain parts of the brain than the monogmous species. However, after injecting oxytocin and vasopressin into the brains of the polygamous voles, they showed behviour like that of the monogamous species. The same was found be performing the experiment in reverse through knocking out the oxytocin receptors in the brains of the monogamous speices - they became polygamous. Here then, is evidence of physical processes in the brain producing emotions or 'feelings'. And before you say "well thats only in rats and voles", humans too react to these horomones in a similar way. The smell of a new born baby actually stimulates the production of vasopressin in men. :eek:

If you are able to predict without flaw how a person will feel given certain conditions, the intensity of those feelings, etc etc etc etc you will have demonstrated your idea.

Your idea is flawed from the get-go. You're asking for objective data when the measurements will be subjective. Exactly how people feel and how intense those feelings are is highly subjective. And how people react to different situations is varies highly.

Short of that, it is faith in an idea.

It has nothing to do with "faith - its based on evidence. Neuro-science is fairly young and there's a massive amount that we dont yet know. However, you see to think that because neuro-science doesnt have a perfect knowledge of the processes of the brain then its nothing more than "faith" and therefore only as valid as any fantastic ideas people can make up.

elliotfc

11th September 2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by abiogenesis
I was trying to figure out the appeal of Idealism. What question does it "answer" for people that science doesn't?

Probably none. The answers may be superior from an individual's point of view.

The only one I am aware of is "What happens to us when we die?"Regardless of how "big a deal" it is, wishing it so does not make it so.

That's not what I mean. IF there is life after death, then it is a big deal. I'm not stretching that into wishing. If we're talking about speculation, I think you can understand how life after death is a big deal.

There is no reliable evidence supporting the existence of an afterlife, idealist or otherwise.

Reliable for some, unreliable for others. Standards for reliability are like movable goalposts. Sometimes the standard is high, sometimes it is low. The variation is symptomatic of what you want to believe/disbelieve.

The explanations of Idealism cannot be tested. Therefore, in my opinion, it explains nothing.

Fair enough, that explains where you are coming from.

The only explanations that are worth anything are those obtained through scientific investigation.

To you that is. Worth is in the eye of the beholder.

It is unwise to accept an explanation just because it makes you feel good.

Agreed.

It is much better to expend the effort in trying to understand how things really are.

Agreed.

It's that whole search-for-objective-truth thing.

Agreed.

In the absence of very strong supporting evidence, there is no good reason to believe any such thing.

You mean life after death? Well, it's interesting that you used the word *good*. That's a moral word, and so it's open to mindsets that are more than scientific. Your good does not necessarily correspond to my good.

I don't see how requiring evidence can be perceived as a coping mechanism. I refuse to "make stuff up".

You require scientific evidence as you define it and as you would compare it to an idealized standard. That is how you find intellectual fulfillment. You use words like *worth* and *good* which mean different things to different people, so those are value judgments that are things you personally assign. That may not be making stuff up, but it is conforming to your personal standards.

You, I take it, feel better now that you have entered a discussion with no knowledge of the concepts being discussed and, rather than trying to learn something, passed judgement on others in order to feel more intelligent. Good for you.

That's the problem with these forums, isn't it? I am calling you for passing judgment on others, and yes that is a form of passing judgment. If the topic is immaterialism, would you explain the concepts being discussed? And you're wrong, I've learned quite a bit from this. I wouldn't be here if this wasn't good for me.

-Elliot

Dub

11th September 2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

I guess not to your pleasing or liking.

If something is true it makes no difference if a person likes it or not.

The spiritual idea that there is a moral law that is independent of human thinking is quite obvious to me at the individual level, and at the gross level very many millions and billions of people have had no problem with that proof. Of course that proof won't satisfy everybody, this isn't mathematics.

Your evidence for this? What exactly "makes it obvious" to you? The explanation that 'it must be true because so many people believe it' is called an appeal to popularity (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html)

But take the Christian faith? It is based on the New Testament. If you don't accept that as evidence that's up to you. I reject some things that you accept as evidence.

Objective evidence is not affected by whether someon chosses to or to not accept it. Its true whether you like it or not.

What you should actually be saying is "Faith is a belief which is not based on acceptable evidence", and acceptable will depend on an individual judgment call compared to a standard of the person's choosing.

No, faith is belief without objective evidence.

With regards to 'acceptability', you seem to be implying that some people have a reason for not wanting to believe in life after death. Its an extremely attractive notion which I think most people would 'like' to be true. I'd love for it to be true. However, I live in the real world. Thus, I doubt most people do not 'want' to accept the evidence for it, its just that the evidence isnt there.

elliotfc

11th September 2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Dub
[For example, take love/bonding/whatever you want to call it. Certain hormones, Vasopressin and oxytocin, have been identifed in relation to this emotion.

What comes first, the feeling or the chemical? Of course there would be a chemical associated with a feeling.

Insel also found that male rats, when injected intercerebrally with oxytocin, become more "highly sexed".

Ummm, confusing sex and love? Thanks for the education about rats.

And before you say "well thats only in rats and voles",

TOO LATE!

humans too react to these horomones in a similar way. The smell of a new born baby actually stimulates the production of vasopressin in men. :eek:

What comes first, the feeling or the hormone? Not that interested in the baby case.

Your idea is flawed from the get-go. You're asking for objective data when the measurements will be subjective. Exactly how people feel and how intense those feelings are is highly subjective. And how people react to different situations is varies highly.

OK, should I lower my standards of belief on this one then?

It has nothing to do with "faith - its based on evidence. Neuro-science is fairly young and there's a massive amount that we dont yet know. However, you see to think that because neuro-science doesnt have a perfect knowledge of the processes of the brain then its nothing more than "faith" and therefore only as valid as any fantastic ideas people can make up.

No, if it's a science I'm just asking for science to do what science does.

The argument is that emotions can be explained purely by brain chemistry and neurotransmitters. I'm saying that it's obvious that brain chemistry and neurotransmitters would be involved.

If what comes first, the emotion or the chemical, is a purely subjective situation, then it is a question that science can not answer I guess.

-Elliot

reprise

11th September 2003, 08:15 PM

In a sense, elliot, I think that your explanations of immaterialism are of the kind that David expressed frustration with in the OP.

The OP made the - IMHO valid - point that immaterialists often fail to outline precisely what their belief is, and compound the confusion by failing to offer evidence in support of that belief but simply pointing out the flaws and short-comings of other belief systems.

Just as there are a whole range of belief systems derived from materialism, so there are a range of belief systems based on immaterialism - and the strengths and weaknesses of each of those theories are different.

Yes, someone might base their beliefs about the nature of existence on a book. It might be the Bible, it might be the Qu'ran, it might be Asimov's Foundation series or Herbert's Dune series - there's about as much credible evidence for the existence of a supreme being as there is for the existence of any of the gods and goddesses of mythology or even for the Wicked With of the West.

elliotfc

11th September 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Dub
If something is true it makes no difference if a person likes it or not.

Exactly.

Your evidence for this? What exactly "makes it obvious" to you? The explanation that 'it must be true because so many people believe it' is called an appeal to popularity (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html)

???

You brought up the individual/gross levels, not me.

On the individual level, it is obvious that I have a spiritual nature, and I don't know how many individuals have the same notion. If you want scientific evidence, I can't give you any.

You require scientific proof for what I think is obvious. I can't meet your requirement. That an explanation must be true or untrue because of the presence or lack of scientific evidence is called an appeal to science. It works great and I use it quite often. But it isn't the only thing I use, obviously. If you want to build straw horses and extrapolate that into the notion that I believe, I don't know, that a banana is a rocket ship, that would be pretty amusing I guess!

Objective evidence is not affected by whether someon chosses to or to not accept it. Its true whether you like it or not.

Agreed.

No, faith is belief without objective evidence.

And your standard for objectivity is...

With regards to 'acceptability', you seem to be implying that some people have a reason for not wanting to believe in life after death.

Not at all. I think there is evidence that Jesus was existed and was who he claimed to be. You wouldn't find that evidence acceptable (I assume). I don't think that has anything to do with a desire to want to believe in life after death.

Its an extremely attractive notion which I think most people would 'like' to be true. I'd love for it to be true. However, I live in the real world.

We all live in the real world. That's like saying your heart beats.

In the real world, guess what? People can live successful lives and have successful children and believe any of a billion different things. We all live in the real world, regardless of what we believe.

Thus, I doubt most people do not 'want' to accept the evidence for it, its just that the evidence isnt there.

The evidence is there, it's just not acceptable evidence to you, while acceptable to others. All on this planet, this real world.

-Elliot

elliotfc

11th September 2003, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by reprise
The OP made the - IMHO valid - point that immaterialists often fail to outline precisely what their belief is, and compound the confusion by failing to offer evidence in support of that belief but simply pointing out the flaws and short-comings of other belief systems.

But that's just it. I can't make a precise outline about what my belief is, other than that it is outside the materialistic belief. And given that, you have an explanation for why my definition is contingent upon an opposition towards the materialist explanation.

So I'm out of this thread then, if the point is to get a precise outline.

-Elliot

reprise

11th September 2003, 09:16 PM

elliot, I think that those who believe in immaterial models of existence (whether based on religion or the existence of a supreme being or not) sometimes feel personally attacked when asked questions about their beliefs by materialists.

The whole point of the scientific method is to publish your work in order that your peers can evaluate its validity - an essential part of this process is actively looking for flaws in the theory, including its methodology and any conclusions reached. People tend to react quite strongly to their personal belief systems being subjected to this same kind of scrutiny; this is especially true in respect of those aspects of their beliefs which relate to personal issues.

Materialists are saying "this is the standard of evidence by which we evaluate our own belief system and in order for your belief system to be granted equal validity the evidence in support of it must meet this standard" - make no mistake about that.

You - as an individual - can choose to accept a lesser standard of evidence as validating your personal belief system, but cannot then claim that evidence as "scientific" or "objective".

There are many aspects of our lives for which we do not demand such a standard of proof. We tend to accept the word of our friends and our partners unless there is compelling reason not to do so (and sometimes in spite of compelling evidence that they are lying to us). We tend to accept the findings of our legal system unless a glaring error attracts our attention. We tend to focus on the aspects of our political belief systems which we personally find attractive without demanding full disclosure of the consequences of widespread/longterm application of those policies.

I - personally - can choose to be persuaded by and accept as "evidence" your arguments in favour of an immaterial existence. My doing so in no way elevates those arguments to the status of "proof" in the manner which it is used in debates such as these.

metacristi

12th September 2003, 03:55 AM

David

So what is the big objection to materialism?

I think we must specify clearly the context in which we use the term 'materialism'.There are objections to materialism (ontological or 'modern materialism') but this is irrelevant to the mind/body problem [for example-common to both-they are not really 'testable',as I've argued in one of my last posts],

Immaterialists objects to the current conjecture that 'consciousness' is entirely a product of the brain by going well beyond the 'interactionist' dualistic approach.For example what we name 'qualia' could,very well,be a fundamental feature of nature which our brain merely access (as in Chalmer's proposal) or consciousness might have a quantum dimension but this does not make it less 'material',in spite of the 'idealistic' label usually attached to this proposal.

There are two main branches in the immaterialists' 'camp'.Some are 'dualist immaterialists' (still considering matter as belonging to the 'fundamental reality' toghether with another,mental,substance that do not interact with matter having as intermediary carriers of interaction) by postulating that matter can transform directly in the 'mental substance' of the soul,at least at quantum level (we cannot put in evidence this yet).I do not take into account Descartes' view since it involves that God makes possible the connection between matter and the mental substance every time it is needed.

Others are pure idealists (matter is not existing at the fundamental reality-consisting of 'ideas',being less 'real') they advocate the idea that the 'self' exists in a 'metamind',God's 'mind' or connected to a 'Matrix'.I do not consider here solipsism or the 'social idealism' [many minds but without the necessity of something who/which to account for the laws of nature or the agreements/disagreements between human consciousnesses] as they cannot be sustained logically in a sound manner.

In the case of pure idealism it is postulated that 'matter' is formed of 'ideas' produced both by God [the 'metamind','the matrix'] and by 'the selfs' themselves.'The 'self' exists therefore outside 'matter' though this does not mean that 'consciousness',as we know it,does not depend on the 'laws' of matter.A brain damage for example destroys consciousness,as we know it,but leaves 'the self' intact.It is only incapable to 'act' at the level of our reality in a normal (for us) manner due to the 'higher laws' existing at the metamind's level.

Which approach is true in absolute (regarding the nature of consciousness)?Materialism (the interactionist dualism included),'immaterialist dualism' or pure idealism?The reality is that we do not know.Moreover there is no way to make a clear experimental difference,now at least,which to force all of us to believe in the materialist/idealist approach of mind.If for the 'immaterialist dualism' we can argue that there is a problem with the spontaneous transformation of matter in the 'mental substance' basically there is no way to make the difference between the materialistic and pure idealistic approaches of the mind.

The reality is that the materialistic approach of mind is prefered rather due to the successes of science and of the scientific method in general,as we conceive them today,than to its parsimony.This involves sheer pragmatism well beyond simplicity since we cannot really say that the materialistic view is simpler.Indeed on one hand the materialistic approach,in general,is simpler because it does not postulate the existence of a 'metamind' but on the other hand it postulates the apriori existence of a 'material objective reality' at the level of the fundamental reality (which we cannot sustain with sufficient arguments)...

I am not at all sure that the actual successes of science are enough to settle in a sound manner (yes the assumption of 'realism' might be false in absolute) the problem of mind.Moreover given that we do not have a clear view of what consciousness is,I mean a final,'holistic view' (not certitudes anyway) there is no constraint yet which to force all rational people to believe in the materialistic approach of mind.I'd argue that we should be more cautious,the best label for the actual materialist theory of mind is 'conjecture'.The fact that science and the scientific method,as we conceive them now,have 'worked' well so far is not incompatible with idealism.

Nothing can assure us that the materialistic view (well beyond the actual computational-emergentist theory of mind) will 'work' till the end in the case of consciousness...Indeed it is possible that the materialistic approach of mind will never be disproved (not neccessarily because of a final limit of empirical sciences) and still there will exist a lot of facts that will remain unexplained in a satisfactory manner (even if some other new aspects will perfectly 'fit' in the materialistic description).

As a conclusion I'd argue that there is no need to consider the materialistic approach to be true.The assumption of realism (with the express rejection of idealism) could be modified such that to postulate only the existence of an 'exterior' 'domain' that can be intersubjectively 'observed' and 'probed'.Of course the same is valid for idealism.I'm afraid that our philosophical fights are not enough to settle the problem...

Some Friggin Guy

12th September 2003, 04:12 AM

Question about definitions:

MAterialism does not seperate mind from brain, yet Dualism does.

My definition is this: The brain is the generator for the mind, the mind being the bio-electric impulses coursing through the brain.

My beliefe is that upon death, within a very short amout of time (I do not know scientifically how long) these impulses stop, and thus the mind ceases to exist.

Does this make me a materialist, a dualist, or a bit of both?

I am simply curious.

Interesting Ian

12th September 2003, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Question about definitions:

MAterialism does not seperate mind from brain, yet Dualism does.

My definition is this: The brain is the generator for the mind, the mind being the bio-electric impulses coursing through the brain.

My beliefe is that upon death, within a very short amout of time (I do not know scientifically how long) these impulses stop, and thus the mind ceases to exist.

Does this make me a materialist, a dualist, or a bit of both?

I am simply curious.

If you mean the mind is literally the bio-electric impulses coursing through the brain then this would clearly make you a materialist.

However, I am unable to discern any meaning to this definition of mind.

Dancing David

12th September 2003, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

I can't think of a reason why the world needs to be explained in a materialist way. It can be understood in a materialist way, and it can be understood in other ways as well. I wouldn't call it a big objection, it's just doesn't do it for a lot of people.

I disagree that we can't access it. If it exists, then it matters.

-Elliot

Elliotfc,
This is an area of great intrest to me, how can you acsess it? believe me, I have been a spiritual person on my forty four trips around the sun, and I am well versed in spiritual experience. So I can enjoy this discussion. But I believe that by applying the scientific method to spiritual issues, some very interesting things can be lerned.

So , how to acsess the immaterial?

Interesting Ian

12th September 2003, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by metacristi
David

I think we must specify clearly the context in which we use the term 'materialism'.There are objections to materialism (ontological or 'modern materialism') but this is irrelevant to the mind/body problem [for example-common to both-they are not really 'testable',as I've argued in one of my last posts],

Immaterialists objects to the current conjecture that 'consciousness' is entirely a product of the brain by going well beyond the 'interactionist' dualistic approach.For example what we name 'qualia' could,very well,be a fundamental feature of nature which our brain merely access (as in Chalmer's proposal) or consciousness might have a quantum dimension but this does not make it less 'material',in spite of the 'idealistic' label usually attached to this proposal.

There are two main branches in the immaterialists' 'camp'.Some are 'dualist immaterialists' (still considering matter as belonging to the 'fundamental reality' toghether with another,mental,substance that do not interact with matter having as intermediary carriers of interaction) by postulating that matter can transform directly in the 'mental substance' of the soul,at least at quantum level (we cannot put in evidence this yet).I do not take into account Descartes' view since it involves that God makes possible the connection between matter and the mental substance every time it is needed.

Others are pure idealists (matter is not existing at the fundamental reality-consisting of 'ideas',being less 'real') they advocate the idea that the 'self' exists in a 'metamind',God's 'mind' or connected to a 'Matrix'.I do not consider here solipsism or the 'social idealism' [many minds but without the necessity of something who/which to account for the laws of nature or the agreements/disagreements between human consciousnesses] as they cannot be sustained logically in a sound manner.

In the case of pure idealism it is postulated that 'matter' is formed of 'ideas' produced both by God [the 'metamind','the matrix'] and by 'the selfs' themselves.'The 'self' exists therefore outside 'matter' though this does not mean that 'consciousness',as we know it,does not depend on the 'laws' of matter.A brain damage for example destroys consciousness,as we know it,but leaves 'the self' intact.It is only incapable to 'act' at the level of our reality in a normal (for us) manner due to the 'higher laws' existing at the metamind's level.

Which approach is true in absolute (regarding the nature of consciousness)?Materialism (the interactionist dualism included),'immaterialist dualism' or pure idealism?The reality is that we do not know.Moreover there is no way to make a clear experimental difference,now at least,which to force all of us to believe in the materialist/idealist approach of mind.If for the 'immaterialist dualism' we can argue that there is a problem with the spontaneous transformation of matter in the 'mental substance' basically there is no way to make the difference between the materialistic and pure idealistic approaches of the mind.

The reality is that the materialistic approach of mind is prefered rather due to the successes of science and of the scientific method in general,as we conceive them today,than to its parsimony.This involves sheer pragmatism well beyond simplicity since we cannot really say that the materialistic view is simpler.Indeed on one hand the materialistic approach,in general,is simpler because it does not postulate the existence of a 'metamind' but on the other hand it postulates the apriori existence of a 'material objective reality' at the level of the fundamental reality (which we cannot sustain with sufficient arguments)...

I am not at all sure that the actual successes of science are enough to settle in a sound manner (yes the assumption of 'realism' might be false in absolute) the problem of mind.Moreover given that we do not have a clear view of what consciousness is,I mean a final,'holistic view' (not certitudes anyway) there is no constraint yet which to force all rational people to believe in the materialistic approach of mind.I'd argue that we should be more cautious,the best label for the actual materialist theory of mind is 'conjecture'.The fact that science and the scientific method,as we conceive them now,have 'worked' well so far is not incompatible with idealism.

Nothing can assure us that the materialistic view (well beyond the actual computational-emergentist theory of mind) will 'work' till the end in the case of consciousness...Indeed it is possible that the materialistic approach of mind will never be disproved (not neccessarily because of a final limit of empirical sciences) and still there will exist a lot of facts that will remain unexplained in a satisfactory manner (even if some other new aspects will perfectly 'fit' in the materialistic description).

As a conclusion I'd argue that there is no need to consider the materialistic approach to be true.The assumption of realism (with the express rejection of idealism) could be modified such that to postulate only the existence of an 'exterior' 'domain' that can be intersubjectively 'observed' and 'probed'.Of course the same is valid for idealism.I'm afraid that our philosophical fights are not enough to settle the problem...

A thoughtful post Metacristi. Not that I agree with everything you said, but it was interesting stuff.

Upchurch

12th September 2003, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
Gosh, Upchurch, you are close. *I* that thinks is capable of selectively picking through the baggage that the perceived-as-material *me* brings along, and apparently works at the brain "matter" level to effect change (Libertarian free-will) in *me*'s behavior.Cute, but you're assuming that the *I* is independent of the brain matter. Do you have reason to think this is so? You'll note also that outside changes (physical tauma, drugs, hormones, etc.) to brain matter effect changes to the *I*. In other words, the *I* is, at the very least, co-dependent to the physical brain, rather than the physical brain being merely a symptom of the *I*.

Aside and speaking of which controls which, if the "Matrix hypothesis" were true, that would suggest that consciousness is completely dependent on the physical world. Otherwise, mechanical, electrical, and chemical changes to the human brain wouldn't create such a convincing illusion to the human consciousness.
Another way to examine the material vs immaterial question (Yahweh forgot to mention the stance of Idealism -- dualism imo collapses to one of the 2 choices) is that western thought holds the belief that Aristotle is The Answer. A thing either IS, or IS NOT.Straw man. Black and white "IS/IS NOT" was rejected with the advent of quantum mechanics.
Idealism just removes that arbitrary "emergent property" line, but leaves Science such as it is intact. How so?

metacristi

12th September 2003, 09:45 AM

In the 'Matrix hypothesis' problem I tend to agree with Chalmers,though,as him,I am not such an idealist:we cannot be sure that our observed 'reality' is fundamental.Of course this does not mean that our actual objective knowledge,derived from science and the scientific method ceases to have value,to be 'true' at least on our domain of definition,but certainly we are not entitled to extend that in absolute...

Let's say that a matrix (lower-case "m") is an artificially-designed computer simulation of a world. So the Matrix in the movie is one example of a matrix. And let's say that someone is envatted, or that they are in a matrix, if they have a cognitive system which receives its inputs from and sends its outputs to a matrix. Then the brain at the beginning is envatted, and so is Neo.

We can imagine that a matrix simulates the entire physics of a world, keeping track of every last particle throughout space and time. (Later, we will look at ways in which this set-up might be varied.) An envatted being will be associated with a particular simulated body. A connection is arranged so that whenever this body receives sensory inputs inside the simulation, the envatted cognitive system will receive sensory inputs of the same sort. When the envatted cognitive system produces motor outputs, corresponding outputs will be fed to the motor organs of the simulated body.

When the possibility of a matrix is raised, a question immediately follows. How do I know that I am not in a matrix? After all, there could be a brain in a vat structured exactly like my brain, hooked up to a matrix, with experiences indistinguishable from those I am having now. From the inside, there is no way to tell for sure that I am not in the situation of the brain in a vat. So it seems that there is no way to know for sure that I am not in a matrix.

Let us call the hypothesis that I am in a matrix and have always been in a matrix the Matrix Hypothesis. Equivalently, the Matrix Hypothesis says that I am envatted and have always been envatted. This is not quite equivalent to the hypothesis that I am in the Matrix, as the Matrix is just one specific version of a matrix. For now, I will ignore the some complications that are specific to the Matrix in the movie, such as the fact that people sometimes travel back and forth between the Matrix and the external world. These issues aside, we can think of the Matrix Hypothesis informally as saying that I am in the same sort of situation as people who have always been in the Matrix.

The Matrix Hypothesis is one that we should take seriously. As Nick Bostrom has suggested, it is not out of the question that in the history of the universe, technology will evolve that will allow beings to create computer simulations of entire worlds. There may well be vast numbers of such computer simulations, compared to just one real world. If so, there may well be many more beings who are in a matrix than beings who are not. Given all this, one might even infer that it is more likely that we are in a matrix than that we are not. Whether this is right or not, it certainly seems that we cannot be certain that we are not in a matrix.

The URL where can be found his entire article (Ian pointed it out first in one of his posts few months ago) is:

http://www.u.arizona.edu/%7Echalmers/papers/matrix.html

We can easily extend this to Berkeley's type of idealism or to the 'metamind hypothesis'.Indeed there is no need to suppose that the 'self' can be only a 'brain' more or less identical with the brain in the 'simulation' (our 'reality') in spite of problems that could arise regarding the role of the physical brain.

billydkid

12th September 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
I really have tried to understand the POV of the immaterialists, but they are poor at explaining it. Some seem more inetersted in name calling than they do explaining thier POV.

So what is the big objection to materialism?

There are a number of interesting notions thats seem to be related to neoplatonism and aristotelian logic.

But we all are here, by power of the organic mechanism. there may be an immaterial world, but since we can't acsess it why would it even matter?

What they always trot out is "qualia". "How do you explain qualia." that old routine. I'm almost as irritated by "qualia" as I was by "TLOP". - well, not the laws themself (although they are frequently irritating.

billydkid

12th September 2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by reprise

It's true that debates about materialism often seem to centre around consciousness as it relates to death, but the debate is just as relevant in terms of our day to day experiences.

Think of something which has had a powerful emotional impact on you - the birth of your child, the bombing of the WTC, for instance. Now imagine someone telling you that your feelings in response to those events are simply a function of the matter in your brain; nothing special. In strict materialism, that's precisely what your emotions, your thoughts, your hopes, etc are - no more "significant" or "special" than the digestive process which is the result of physical and chemical interactions which take place in your gut.

From my point of view, the fact that you can attribute our emotions and thoughts and dreams and experiences to electrochemical processes makes them no less astonishing, amazing or mysterious. This is one thing I never could understand about the dualist types- that the fact that you can attribute the effects of our consciousness to tangible causes somehow diminshes their sheer remarkableness in their minds. Why the need for some supernatural aspect to give them meaning?

hammegk

12th September 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Straw man. Black and white "IS/IS NOT" was rejected with the advent of quantum mechanics.

Interesting thought. Electrons & quarks are the "same thing". Sorry. That's my viewpoint, not yours, unless you have become an idealist.

How so?
??? Is it not logically obvious?

In the non-idealistic view "life" is an emergent property of "non-life" -- a line must be drawn -- unless you believe your "objective physical world" *is* alive. Do you?

TLOP as science has mapped them do not change.

billydkid

12th September 2003, 03:44 PM

reprise

12th September 2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by billydkid

From my point of view, the fact that you can attribute our emotions and thoughts and dreams and experiences to electrochemical processes makes them no less astonishing, amazing or mysterious. This is one thing I never could understand about the dualist types- that the fact that you can attribute the effects of our consciousness to tangible causes somehow diminshes their sheer remarkableness in their minds. Why the need for some supernatural aspect to give them meaning?

If, in fact, the idealists are correct and my emotions, thoughts, dreams, etc have a "spiritual" component, then that must be equally true for the negative, destructive, aspect of my consciousness as it is for the positive, aspirational part of "me".

hammegk

12th September 2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by reprise

If, in fact, the idealists are correct and my emotions, thoughts, dreams, etc have a "spiritual" component, then that must be equally true for the negative, destructive, aspect of my consciousness as it is for the positive, aspirational part of "me".

Nope. That tends towards some form of theism, not idealism, at least imnsho. None of those things are any part of the *I* that thinks; that's just crap, courtesy of bag-o-bones *me*, for *I* to sort through.

Rayn

12th September 2003, 04:26 PM

Dancing David said: So , how to acsess the immaterial?

I've advocated the views of Implicate Order Theory and the Holographic Universe in an attempt to address this question, though no one seems to either care to agree/disagree or have no opinions on the subject whatsoever. Anyways, from these views, it seems that there is both a "top-down" order of the universe, and a "bottom-up" order, the latter being the order that science has been investigating for so long. However, with the phenomena of such things as quantum entanglement, and the implications that the universe is wholly interconnected, I think that some interesting things are on the verge of acknowledgement in the scientific community, hopefully one spiritual in nature.

Personally, the findings of Ian Stevenson and reincarnation, although not conclusive (it would help if there were others doing such work as well), are extremely fascinating. The hypothesis brought up, that reincarnation is the only manner possible of such phenomena(data) occurring, is rather well supported in his work. Also, the works of Ganzfeld experiments, and subjective chronicles of NDE/OBE, are interesting, insofar as we are concerned with accessing a spiritual side. However, I have qualms about both whether such phenomena occur (although I do believe that subjective evidence is important, it does not serve science well) and whether we should ask for scientific verification of spirituality, especially on an individual level. This is one of the main issues I've always had with Creationists and their ilk, as I've never understood putting your faith under a scientific lens. Yet, this does not keep me from saying that I believe the "top-down" ordering is intrinsically spiritual, the Universe itself being "conscious," whatever that means.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

12th September 2003, 05:21 PM

Rayn said:This is one of the main issues I've always had with Creationists and their ilk, as I've never understood putting your faith under a scientific lens.
So you can turn it into a political agenda.

~~ Paul

Rayn

12th September 2003, 06:07 PM

Touché :D

Interesting Ian

12th September 2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by billydkid
[B]

From my point of view, the fact that you can attribute our emotions and thoughts and dreams and experiences to electrochemical processes makes them no less astonishing, amazing or mysterious.

Indeed, just as a biscuit doesn't taste any less sweet because some asswipe says it's really an elephant.

Some Friggin Guy

12th September 2003, 07:22 PM

However, I am unable to discern any meaning to this definition of mind.

The meaning, at least as far as I mean it, is that the brain is an organ, but the mind is the result of that organ's process.

Dancing David

12th September 2003, 07:41 PM

I would like to thank all for the response, there is alot for me to digesat. And it has been stated fairly clearly and concretely, it takes me a while to digest text, especial on the computer screen. So I will respond. Thank you for not being too rude to each other in this discussion.

Interesting Ian

13th September 2003, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy

The meaning, at least as far as I mean it, is that the brain is an organ, but the mind is the result of that organ's process.

That's a bit vague. If you mean the mind is something different from the brain, but originates and is wholly dependent on the brain, then that would not be meaningless. This is the position known as epiphenomenalism. A rough analogy would be that the mind is to the brain as a shadow is to the body casting that shadow.

It is materialism which I find meaningless. Materialism states that the mind literally is the physical processes in the brain itself, or is a logical entailment (not a relationship because of the way the Universe happens to be ie not a relationship due to physical laws, because that would be epiphenomenalism). Some people think of the brain/mind as being like hardware/software of a computer. So if you created an android which acted indistinguishably from a human being, then it would be conscious by definition. This is a hugely complex subject I'm afraid.

billydkid

13th September 2003, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

That's a bit vague. If you mean the mind is something different from the brain, but originates and is wholly dependent on the brain, then that would not be meaningless.

The "mind" is a process that originates in and is wholly dependent on the brain. It is an activity the brain engages in. Noone means literally, physically that the mind is the brain, but that mind is an emergent property of the brain.

Interesting Ian

13th September 2003, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by billydkid

The "mind" is a process that originates in and is wholly dependent on the brain. It is an activity the brain engages in. Noone means literally, physically that the mind is the brain, but that mind is an emergent property of the brain.

Identity theories state that mental processes are identical to physical processes. And Stimpson J Cat has stated he believes mental processes are literally identical to processes in the brain.

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/identitytheory.html

http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/kant/field/mbit.htm

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/i/identity.htm

Stimpson J. Cat

13th September 2003, 07:47 AM

Ian,

The "mind" is a process that originates in and is wholly dependent on the brain. It is an activity the brain engages in. Noone means literally, physically that the mind is the brain, but that mind is an emergent property of the brain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Identity theories state that mental processes are identical to physical processes. And Stimpson J Cat has stated he believes mental processes are literally identical to processes in the brain.

That's right. I, like Billykid, claim that consciousness is activity that the brain engages in. I have told you that before. I have never claimed that consciousness is the brain.

Dr. Stupid

Interesting Ian

13th September 2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Ian,

That's right. I, like Billykid, claim that consciousness is activity that the brain engages in. I have told you that before. I have never claimed that consciousness is the brain.

Dr. Stupid

I said that in one version of materialism the mind is literally the physical processes within the brain. I made that very clear in the post that Billy responded to, although I never mentioned the identity theory as such because I didn't want to confuse Guy.

When I originally said that epiphenomenalism stipulates that the mind is different from the brain I was using simplistic language for the benefit of Guy. If I had said the brain is a distinct existent yet ontologically dependent on the brain, there is a danger he may not have understood what I meant.

Interesting Ian

13th September 2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
How incredibly arrogant of you to assume that I followed you into this thread. I was following this thread before you posted to it, you know.

Yeah, but no doubt only because it had Ian in the title.

Anyway, before you start throwing the obsession rock, perhaps you should check to see which one of us is quoting the other in his sig.

I would quote anyone who makes such an uttlerly preposterous assertion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is so fascinating about my posts that you devote so much time to responding to them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fascinating is not the term I would use. Irritating is. It is very irritating to see you continue to sling around the same anti-materialism strawman arguments over and over again. I respond to your posts because it annoys the Hell out of me when people blatantly misrepresent other people's positions, which is just about all you ever do around here.

Name any occasion when I have ever misrepresented your position.

Interesting Ian

13th September 2003, 08:18 AM

Stimpson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are the one who is confused. No appeal to any metaphysical speculation is necessary to conclude from the scientific evidence that when we die, our minds cease to exist. You can always speculate that this is not the case, but the fact remains that the evidence indicates that it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I keep tirelessly pointing out, any such "evidence" can be equally accommodated by the transmission hypothesis of the self.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what? It can also be equally accommodated by the brain in a jar hypothesis,

A meaningless hypothesis.

or by the supernatural spirit hypothesis,

What hypothesis is that? How is it distinguished from mine?

or by the goddidit hypothesis,

Vacuous.

or by a literally infinite number of other unfalsifiable hypotheses that could potentially be dreamed up.

Well certainly the materialist hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Especially as you claim the collosal amount of evidence opposing it is no evidence at all. And of course you blithely ignore the unintelligibility of materialism.

The point is that the theory that when you die, your mind ceases to exist, is the most parsimonious falsifiable theory available.

It is not a theory and it is not falsifiable. It is an unsubstaiated assertion which ignores all the evidence and is indifferent to questions of intelligibility.

Dymanic

13th September 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

There may be an immaterial world, but since we can't acsess it why would it even matter?
Such a simple question.

Amazing, isn't it, how such a simple question can generate such a plethora of polysyllabic terminological esoterica, but nothing remotely resembling an actual answer?

I love the way Dennett illustrates this with a few frames out of a Casper The Friendly Ghost comic book. In one scene Casper manipulates objects in the real world, while in another he passes right through them. So which is it? Casper either can or cannot interact with physical matter.

Everyone seems to agree that whatever mind is, it must somehow interact with brain. What exactly is proposed as the means by which this is accomplished?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

13th September 2003, 10:40 AM

Ian said:Identity theories state that mental processes are identical to physical processes.
What exactly does identical mean in this context? It sounds similar to saying that electricity is identical to electric generators. or a painting is identical to paint.

~~ Paul

Dancing David

13th September 2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

It is not a theory and it is not falsifiable. It is an unsubstaiated assertion which ignores all the evidence and is indifferent to questions of intelligibility.

Um, what evidence is there for life after death, in the scientific sense of evidence, or if you wish to make a phiosophical evidence go ahead.

It is very easy to falsify the theory that there is no life after deathm give an example of life after death. Then it is falsified.

Materialism is only unintelligable when it gets confused between scientific materilism and philosophical materialism.

Dancing David

13th September 2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic

Such a simple question.

Amazing, isn't it, how such a simple question can generate such a plethora of polysyllabic terminological esoterica, but nothing remotely resembling an actual answer?

I love the way Dennett illustrates this with a few frames out of a Casper The Friendly Ghost comic book. In one scene Casper manipulates objects in the real world, while in another he passes right through them. So which is it? Casper either can or cannot interact with physical matter.

Everyone seems to agree that whatever mind is, it must somehow interact with brain. What exactly is proposed as the means by which this is accomplished?

I would say that the brain generates the illusion we call mind, and that the brain is the boat, the mind is the wake of the boat.

Mind id like the self it is an illusion that we use to address a wholoe series of seperate events, that really are linked but incoherent.

(thats my story and I'm stickin to it...)

Interesting Ian

13th September 2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Materialism is only unintelligable when it gets confused between scientific materilism and philosophical materialism. [/B]

There's no such thing as "scientific materialism" I highly suspect that Stimpy has pulled that phrase out of his ass.

Upchurch

13th September 2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Interesting thought. Electrons & quarks are the "same thing". Sorry. That's my viewpoint, not yours, unless you have become an idealist.Ugh. Whatever. :rolleyes:

I'm not getting back into this "redefining words until things work the way you want them to" game with you again, hammegk. If you're going to use science, use actual science. Don't just use words you've heard out of science and pretend you know what you're talking about. It'd be better if you just stuck to philosophy and dropped the pseudo-scientific nonsence.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

13th September 2003, 04:01 PM

Ian said:There's no such thing as "scientific materialism" I highly suspect that Stimpy has pulled that phrase out of his ass.
I agree. But the really cool thing is how he hacked the entire Internet to make it look like there is such a concept:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22scientific+materialism%22

~~ Paul

hammegk

13th September 2003, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
....Don't just use words you've heard out of science and pretend you know what you're talking about. It'd be better if you just stuck to philosophy and dropped the pseudo-scientific nonsence.

Umm, you really believe that? Why not ask a question to test (your) understanding of the meaning I say my words could -- not necessarily should -- convey. Am I currently technically competent as a physicist & mathematician, no. Do you then suggest my linkage of "quark" and "electron" actually has no meaning, or is it possible you just don't understand it?

Interesting Ian

13th September 2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ian said:
I agree. But the really cool thing is how he hacked the entire Internet to make it look like there is such a concept:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22scientific+materialism%22

~~ Paul

So what does it actually mean then?? What on earth has science got to do with materialism??

Interesting Ian

13th September 2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ian said:
I agree. But the really cool thing is how he hacked the entire Internet to make it look like there is such a concept:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22scientific+materialism%22

~~ Paul

Well, I decided to look up "scientific idealism". A phrase I just made up.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22scientific+idealism%22

And no I haven't hacked the Internet :)

Interesting Ian

13th September 2003, 06:29 PM

And "scientific dualism". Another phrase I just made up on the spot.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22scientific+dualism%22

scribble

13th September 2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And "scientific dualism". Another phrase I just made up on the spot.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22scientific+dualism%22

Aw... you remind me of a proud little puppy dog with these posts, Ian. So cuuuute... can I pet you?

Mercutio

13th September 2003, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Well, I decided to look up "scientific idealism". A phrase I just made up.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22scientific+idealism%22

And no I haven't hacked the Internet :) Wow! You just made up a term, and it is used in the title of a book from 1908! You are right, you can influence the past through PK! I'm convinced, anyway...where do I send money?...:)

Some Friggin Guy

14th September 2003, 01:12 AM

I.I.

While I appreciate the fact that you were adhering to the K.I.S.S. rule of explanation, I would like you to know you need not talk down to me. I am capable of understanding most concepts, I had just never found a good word definied by my beliefs of mind/brain.

I will say this though:

When I originally said that epiphenomenalism stipulates that the mind is different from the brain I was using simplistic language for the benefit of Guy. If I had said the brain is a distinct existent yet ontologically dependent on the brain, there is a danger he may not have understood what I meant.

You are correct. This may have confused me, since it seems to me you mean that mind is a distinct existent, yet ontologically dependent on the brain.

asthmatic camel

14th September 2003, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

If I had said the brain is a distinct existent yet ontologically dependent on the brain, there is a danger he may not have understood what I meant.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Guy didn't understand. I'm damned if I can make any sense of this statement.

Regards,

AC.

Dancing David

14th September 2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by asthmatic camel

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Guy didn't understand. I'm damned if I can make any sense of this statement.

Regards,

AC.

I have to say that when Ian does post for the benefit of those of us who are ontologicaly challened it is of great benefit to me, I can almost understand where this has been going for all these months.

Dancing David

14th September 2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

There's no such thing as "scientific materialism" I highly suspect that Stimpy has pulled that phrase out of his ass.

HUMPH!

Thats all I can say to you!

Dear Sir,

I am pleased to announce to one and all, that I pulled that phrase out of MY butt , most honored poster. In the pissing contest engaged in by I.I. and S.J.C, into which I have contributed a large amount of urine, I might claim that a question had been posited by me, that you had agreed that: there was no issue with an object, reffered to, in reply to said query.

Thereby,
I assumed that it was agreed that scientific materialism just assumes that there is a material world that human beings could investiagate. The investigation of said realm is already defined by the means and method of the 'scientific method'. Under the rules of the aforementioned 'scientifc method' the assumption that there is a 'material' realm which exists is not a question for consideration. The method itself is the basis for all statements made under the rules of said method. Inherently it is therefore implied that the only questions that can be answered are those subjects to hypothesis , testing and observations.

Hereby I would state that any questions about the origins of the world, the means by which said 'material' world comes into being or beings in said 'material' world can address the realm of the 'material' are currently relegated to the realm of theories. Theories under the model can be discussed unto the n-th degree.
But only those that can be put to the scientific method shall be considered for the realm of 'evidence' in the scientific method.

So, there is a body of beliefs and philosphy, which by thier natures are a closed system that can only discuss the material evidence as presented under the scientific method. Questions and summations put forward are subject to all the rules of the scientific method, including all the baggage associated therein, including that all thoughts and objects which can be considered to be material must be tested under the scientific method.

I used the phrase 'scientific materialism' because I felt that it was already understood that this philosophy is closed system, where there can be no relevant discussion of ontology because it can not currently be tested under the definition of ontology and the rules of the scientific method.

I used the phrase of my own free will, I am not Stimpy's sock puppet. I used it myself, which is an illusiory object defined only by the fact that I believe it it was my fingers whcih typed the post you quoted.

I will try to read through the pissing contest thread and find the series of posts which led to the phrase scientific materialism being used by my fingers, and again I feel that it is a phrase which *I* posted on my very own.

Thank you.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

14th September 2003, 05:42 PM

Ian said:And "scientific dualism". Another phrase I just made up on the spot.
Etc., etc., etc.

Remember when I said that the goal of philosophy was to generate all possible metaphysics, regardless of whether they made sense? There you have it!

As the joke goes, no wastebaskets . . .

~~ Paul

c4ts

14th September 2003, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ian said:
Etc., etc., etc.

Remember when I said that the goal of philosophy was to generate all possible metaphysics, regardless of whether they made sense? There you have it!

As the joke goes, no wastebaskets . . .

~~ Paul

Perhaps that is Ian's goal, but I don't think he represents the whole of philosophy.

Loki

14th September 2003, 08:26 PM

metacristi,

The reality is that the materialistic approach of mind is prefered rather due to the successes of science and of the scientific method in general,as we conceive them today,than to its parsimony.This involves sheer pragmatism well beyond simplicity since we cannot really say that the materialistic view is simpler.Indeed on one hand the materialistic approach,in general,is simpler because it does not postulate the existence of a 'metamind' but on the other hand it postulates the apriori existence of a 'material objective reality' at the level of the fundamental reality (which we cannot sustain with sufficient arguments)...

Personally, I prefer materialism because it resolves the various issues of "why"? Ian's Idealism simply creates more "why" questions that it solves.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

15th September 2003, 06:19 AM

c4ts said:Perhaps that is Ian's goal, but I don't think he represents the whole of philosophy.
I think Ian is just jumping on the bandwagon that's already rolling down main street. When it reaches the end, it will contain all possible metaphysics, but no agreement.

~~ Paul

Upchurch

15th September 2003, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

Do you then suggest my linkage of "quark" and "electron" actually has no meaning Yes, you're calling an electron a quark is incorrect by definition. An electron (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Electron.html) is a lepton (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Lepton.html) and not a quark (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Quark.html), even though both leptons (i.e. electrons) and quarks are both fermions (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Fermion.html).
or is it possible you just don't understand it?It is possible that there is much about QM that I don't understand and, in fact, there is a great deal about it that I do not understand. However, I don't use words I've heard from QM and pretend to know what they mean either. Further, what I don't know, I look up.

This, like many other of your arguments of late, are poor excuses to either create pseudoscience or use half truthes from actual science to "show" your metaphysical arguments true.

Stick to what you're good at (whatever that is) and quit mangling science.

hammegk

15th September 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
....what I don't know, I look up.

This, like many other of your arguments of late, are poor excuses to either create pseudoscience or use half truthes from actual science to "show" your metaphysical arguments true.

Stick to what you're good at (whatever that is) and quit mangling science.

Dear Uppie, just for the sake of argument assume I actually knew what those definitions said without looking them up. And we could also discuss what my "understanding" of the definitions is, but I suspect I get some reasonable expectations of what they meant.

Now see if you can extract your head from the sunless cavity in which it resides long enough to actually see if you can get a glimmer of understanding why *I* the idealist might state an electron & a quark are "the same thing" when a materialist cannot do so since each are (at least in current physics) primary "things-in-themselves".

And what did you say you are good at?

scribble

15th September 2003, 03:45 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hammegk
Now see if you can extract your head from the sunless cavity in which it resides long enough to actually see if you can get a glimmer of understanding why *I* the idealist might state an electron & a quark are "the same thing" when a materialist cannot do so since each are (at least in current physics) primary "things-in-themselves".
[QUOTE]

Well, actually, you asked him if your statement had any meaning, and in an answer like you describe, where the two are linked in the same manner with which they are linked with every other physical item that exists, it does not.

My english teacher would've killed me for a sentence like that.

-Chris

hammegk

15th September 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by scribble

Well, actually, you asked him if your statement had any meaning, and in an answer like you describe, where the two are linked in the same manner with which they are linked with every other physical item that exists, it does not.
Sorry, you don't get it ether.

My english teacher would've killed me for a sentence like that.

-Chris

Definitely an F-. :wink:

Obfuscation is fun, though. I try to give all the geniuses here something to think about; they usually don't though. BTW, revising hammegk's 1st rule (for context): "99.99% of all JREF arguments are semantics".:D

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

15th September 2003, 05:09 PM

My turn!

They are the same thing because everything is the same thing?

~~ Paul

Upchurch

15th September 2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

just for the sake of argument assume I actually knew what those definitions said without looking them up.You didn't, obviously, but let's pretend that you knew electrons and quarks were not the same thing...
to actually see if you can get a glimmer of understanding why *I* the idealist might state an electron & a quark are "the same thing" when a materialist cannot do so since each are (at least in current physics) primary "things-in-themselves".I honestly don't care what or how your pseudo-science metaphysic arbitrarly changes real principles to allow you to feel that you have some inside track on the "real" world.

You can play your little games all you like, but don't expect me or anyone else to take your make-believe at face value. Skeptic's forum and all that. If you make a mistake, we're going to call you on it, like I did above.
And what did you say you are good at? Actually learning what concept mean before I use them and admiting, both to myself and others, when I'm wrong about those concepts.

You should get over yourself and try it sometime.

Dancing David

16th September 2003, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

Dear Uppie, just for the sake of argument assume I actually knew what those definitions said without looking them up. And we could also discuss what my "understanding" of the definitions is, but I suspect I get some reasonable expectations of what they meant.
Lets just assume that you really don't care to explain anything that you post because you are too lazy to explain what you mean. Hammegk, you really have showed yourself to be a troll here. UC is about the most moderate poster on the JREF, and you have showed yourself to be just argumentative for no point. Whats the matter is your day care center not serving you enough prunes today?

Now see if you can extract your head from the sunless cavity in which it resides long enough to actually see if you can get a glimmer of understanding why *I* the idealist might state an electron & a quark are "the same thing" when a materialist cannot do so since each are (at least in current physics) primary "things-in-themselves".
Now lets see if you extract yourself from that pinnacle of self absorbtion that you dwell in. You are very lazy, why should anybody care what the idealist *you* thinks? What the matter don't *you* know *what* *you* think well enough to describe it?

And what did you say you are good at?
Well Hammegk, we know that all you are good at is one liners, you are the english equivalent of S&S except he was more polite.

Gee, hammegk, why don't you explain to us why an idealist would claim an electron and a quark are the same thing? Can't? Your brain to busy drifting in and out of alertness, or are you just the crappy old man who can't defend his ideas and so he lashes out?

Upchurch

16th September 2003, 07:41 AM

Thanks, DD

hammegk

16th September 2003, 07:55 AM

Er, yes: Great Minds Think Alike. Are you two engaged yet?

Upchurch

16th September 2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
Er, yes: Great Minds Think Alike. Are you two engaged yet? Another cowardly response. :rolleyes: Can't defend your argument so falling back on insults?

hammegk

16th September 2003, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Another cowardly response. :rolleyes: Can't defend your argument so falling back on insults?
If you & Dancing find my posts meaningless, your choice. I will not lose sleep over it, nor do I intend to gather a large number of my posts in one place and try to spoon-feed them to you. I've mentioned before, I'm interested in my education, not yours.

Try ignore. It works for me.

Upchurch

16th September 2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

I've mentioned before, I'm interested in my education, not yours.That's good. You have a long way to go.
Try ignore. It works for me. Obviously not.

Dancing David

16th September 2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

If you & Dancing find my posts meaningless, your choice. I will not lose sleep over it, nor do I intend to gather a large number of my posts in one place and try to spoon-feed them to you. I've mentioned before, I'm interested in my education, not yours.

Try ignore. It works for me.

What a laugh riot, and so sensitive, can dish but can't take, huh?

I bet you keep the old gals up at the nursing home all night long.

Sorry, Uppie I can't marry you, our engagement is oof, my wife woulkd be very upset!

You don't have to spoon feed us hamme, we can read if you have a reasonable argument to present, I see no reason that idealism and the scientfic method should be opposed, since they address seperate realms.

Try ignore huh, you are good at ignorance.

Upchurch

16th September 2003, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Sorry, Uppie I can't marry you, our engagement is oof, my wife woulkd be very upset! My fiancee would also be put out. (especially since we're T - 60 days and counting :D)

We'll have to limit ourselves to admiration from afar. :cry:

hammegk

17th September 2003, 10:39 AM

Umm, yes, a sense of humor is a wonderful thing, good-o for both of you. And a couple good shots from both of you, best from DD, imo.

Reviewing:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Upchurch
Straw man. Black and white "IS/IS NOT" was rejected with the advent of quantum mechanics.

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

by hammegk
Interesting thought. Electrons & quarks are the "same thing". Sorry. That's my viewpoint, not yours, unless you have become an idealist.

Note that Paul did provide a possible (idealistic) "answer".

Although now I think I have another request. Define "matter". :D

Upchurch

17th September 2003, 11:17 AM

Request granted: "Matter" (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Matter)

A slightly more serious answer: "Matter" (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Matter.html) Anything that occupies space, has mass, and possesses inertia.

Dancing David

17th September 2003, 11:55 AM

Matter:
that thing that makes you shout when you bang your toe into it.

Most likely all is energy, matter is an illusion created by the perstistance of location.

Upchurch

17th September 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Most likely all is energy, matter is an illusion created by the perstistance of location. Actually, matter is energy and energy is matter. A lot of people, like hammegk here, tend to forget that last part and place energy on a higher tier of importance. As if it were more fundamental in some way, even though there is no real reason for this. It's just easier to conceptualize.

hammegk

17th September 2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Actually, matter is energy and energy is matter. A lot of people, like hammegk here, tend to forget that last part and place energy on a higher tier of importance. As if it were more fundamental in some way, even though there is no real reason for this. It's just easier to conceptualize.
Uppie, you never cease to amaze me. Do you actually believe I believe the crap you just typed in?

And feel free to conceptualize. Oh, I know! You "see" the math. :rolleyes:

Upchurch

17th September 2003, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Uppie, you never cease to amaze me. Do you actually believe I believe the crap you just typed in? I honestly don't know. You did at one point because we've argued about it. So, either you've changed your mind or your just being contrarian. I really don't know which.

If I'm wrong about what you believe, correct me. However, if you present you're pseudoscientific guesses (e.g. electrons are quarks), I will point out the factual errors as per usual.

hammegk

19th September 2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I honestly don't know. You did at one point because we've argued about it. So, either you've changed your mind or your just being contrarian. I really don't know which.
Try to go with "contrarian". I prefer "devil's advocate", but understand "contrarian" carries less baggage. ;)

pseudoscientific guesses (e.g. electrons are quarks), I will point out the factual errors as per usual.
Had I made the bald statement "electrons are quarks", I would have welcomed your rejoinder. I did not do so. :(

Upchurch

19th September 2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Had I made the bald statement "electrons are quarks", I would have welcomed your rejoinder. I did not do so. :( You're back-peddeling. :rub:
Electrons & quarks are the "same thing".
As I said in my original complaint, you can play these juvinille "redefine words until the meet my needs" games as much as you like. It doesn't make your personalized definitions any more true.

Go read a book. It could only do you good.

hammegk

19th September 2003, 02:12 PM

Whatever you say.

Feel happier now? I hope so. ;)

Upchurch

19th September 2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
Feel happier now? Marginally. Until you pull your BS again. Then I, or someone else, will call you on it, you'll do your undeserved superiority dance, and it'll just start all over again.

I'd be much happier if you were just honest.

Dancing David

19th September 2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Actually, matter is energy and energy is matter. A lot of people, like hammegk here, tend to forget that last part and place energy on a higher tier of importance. As if it were more fundamental in some way, even though there is no real reason for this. It's just easier to conceptualize.

I am sure glad that we are not engaged, this would lead to endless fights I am sure.
[Ian mode]
How can you possibly believe that, saying that energy is matter is like saying that trumpets can dance. Why do materialist make such wierd statemnets. the last ti,e I checked my trumpet could barely walk , much less dance![/ian mode]

;)

hammegk

19th September 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Marginally. Until you pull your BS again. Then I, or someone else, will call you on it, you'll do your undeserved superiority dance, and it'll just start all over again.

I'd be much happier if you were just honest.

Uppie, maybe you believe something was accomplished by you, here, recently. I'll always be happy to provide you nits -- that you completely fail to understand -- to pick at.

Enough of this useless badinage for me, here, now, anyway.

Back on the track, what is "Mass"? What is "Inertia"? Do you still insist materialism has a firm basis? Finally, your position should be that matter & energy are different forms of "what-is" I'd think; of course e=mc2. I have a glass of water here; would you turn it into "energy" for me please?

Certainly following your intuition that an objective, material, world exists is easy & yeah, "intuitive".

Upchurch

20th September 2003, 06:28 PM

Whatever :rolleyes:Originally posted by hammegk
what is "Mass"?
Mass (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Mass.html) is a measure of the matter/energy in an object.
What is "Inertia"?
Inertia (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Inertia.html) is "the resistance to change in state of motion which all matter exhibits."
Do you still insist materialism has a firm basis?Straw man. I've never insisted this. I insist that science has a firm basis and I strongly believe that materialism has a firm basis.
Finally, your position should be that matter & energy are different forms of "what-is" I'd think; of course e=mc2. I have a glass of water here; would you turn it into "energy" for me please?Second straw man. I don't know what you mean by "what-is", so I can hardly hold the position that matter/energy is the basis of it, whatever "it" is.

Further, while it is physically possible to turn a glass of water into some form of energy, it is not practically possible as I possess neither the knowledge nor the technology.

I've given you these definitions before and you still have yet to discover any internal inconsistancy, nor has anyone else for that matter despite this viewpoint being around for over 300 years, that will once and for all disprove materialism. Good luck trying this time.

Now it is my turn to ask the questions. The only thing you think you know is true is that "I think", right? Well, kinda. I mean, we've already been through the discussion where I showed that you can't even be 100% sure of that, but let's go with it.

First of all, by using the term "I", you are automatically infering that there must be something else besides yourself. If there was nothing else but you, then there is no significance in the word "I". So, are you not already assuming that there must be something else other than yourself?

Second of all, if I may assume that you preceive the world around you (a reasonable assumption since you respond to my posts), I can conclude that you receive stimuli. Now, there are a number of possible sources of this stimuli.

1. You are generating stimuli by yourself for yourself, knowingly or unknowingly. (solipsism)
2. You are receiving stimuli generated by a material world that exists exactly as your senses perceive it to be.
3. You are receiving simulated stimuli generated by some agent that does not reflect reality.

Please let me know if I missed any possibilities that wouldn't fit under these categories.

If (1) is true, then I am (as Franko loves to point out) a figmant of your imagination and you are effectively arguing with yourself. Regardless, this could be tested by trying to consciously control your stimuli and doing unusual things like flying or walking through walls.

If (3) is true, the you are the puppet of a false reality meant to deceive you.

If (2) is true, then you can trust your senses and have the opportunity to learn about material world around you through observation and your other senses.

Now, as a sceptic, it is reasonable to doubt even what your senses tell you, but there must be a source of the stimuli that you experience. Which possible source (either the ones above or another I have not mentioned) do you believe is the correct one and how have you reached that conclusion?

By the fact that you make the differentiation by use of the word "I", one would tend to think you would reject the first possibility. Further, since you seem adamant to reject the existance of the material world, one would tend to think you also reject the second possibility. Is this accurate?

In summation, are you the dupe of a lying agent?

Dancing David

21st September 2003, 07:53 AM

Upchurch,
I can not speak for hamme but I think that the counter is that the only way to prove materialism is through materialism. The question of why any being would go out of there way to create the material world is a philosophicaly moot.
Secondly, the argument seems to be that since we don't know what preceded the universe, it could be all mind.

Hamme, correct me please.

hammegk

21st September 2003, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

In summation, are you the dupe of a lying agent?
As previously discussed, that is unknowable imo.

As to the remainder of your post, are you truly clueless, or just being humorously facetious?

Dancing David's answer above is as good as I could give. Please argue with him if you feel anything else is to be gained; I've had more than enough.

Upchurch

22nd September 2003, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

As previously discussed, that is unknowable imo.So, you have no idea where the stimuli comes from, but you know that I am absolutely incorrect about there being a physical, material world? How do you reach that conclusion, ya big hypocrite?
Dancing David's answer above is as good as I could give. Please argue with him if you feel anything else is to be gained; I've had more than enough. The coward's way out, huh? As per usual, you can (try to) dish it, but you can't take it.

If you can't back it up, don't make the claim.
Originally posted by Dancing David

I think that the counter is that the only way to prove materialism is through materialism. The question of why any being would go out of there way to create the material world is a philosophicaly moot.I agree, that materialism cannot be proved from hammegk's starting position of "I think", however, neither can it be disproven as he likes to claim. Further, applying Occam's Razor to the implications derived from the fact that we do receive stimuli makes the "lying being" unlikely. Although, I do agree that the "why" is indeed moot, unless the source can be determined.

That leaves us with the possibilities that either we generate our own stimuli or there is a material world that generates it for us. If it is the former, however, note the intricate detail of the world our imaginations (although, really, there need only be one person's imagination involved since the rest of us probably don't exist if this is the case) have produced. Notice also the consistancy, that need not be there by necessity, which need not be there due to the arbitrariness of our imagination, as opposed to dreams which are arbitrary.

The simplist and most consistant explination for our stimuli is that it is generated by a physical material world. Now, there is still a chance that our senses mis-interpret that world, but if that is the case, they mis-interpret it very consistantly.
Secondly, the argument seems to be that since we don't know what preceded the universe, it could be all mind.I'm not sure I see the conection. Further, conceeding the existance of the universe assumes the physical world anyway.