- #666
sascha
- 127
- 2
Never mind what you call them (name tag); the point is what you mean by them. As long as there is something of the nature of what we call laws (or jhQWDqwe541i234lkn), the problem exists.
And what problem is that? I still don't understand your point about physical rules. You drop things, they fall. Any time that they don't, there is a physical reason for it. Drop something that shuld fall, and it doesn't fall, and that would be a good step towards showing me that a non-materialistic viewpoint has merit.Originally posted by sascha
Never mind what you call them (name tag); the point is what you mean by them. As long as there is something of the nature of what we call laws (or jhQWDqwe541i234lkn), the problem exists.
Originally posted by Fliption
And yet you haven't even read the opposing view?
And that is all I have done.
Yes don't counter it cause you would be proving exactly what I was trying to prove. Don't you understand that the point of that example was not to defend Idealism? I wasn't trying to make a good argument for why love existed. I was merely trying to show that someone can take the view that it does because we cannot define "shown to exists". The fact that the materialist can make the claim you suggested just makes my point even more.
Whether the argument for or against materialism in my example is a good one or not is not the point. The point is that the definition doesn't lend itself to a debate on the topic at all. It just begs for more definitional clarification.
I just don't get why you cannot accept this.Your view seems VERY extreme and impractical. What does the word "color" mean to you? Under your understanding of what "color" is, do you think it is a creation of your subjective experience or do you think color really exists?
I feel that we are having severe semantic problems here. Just answer the question about color and maybe I can understand better what you're view is because it seems totally radical and unusable to me right now.
You are not wrong in your conclusion but your assumptions are wrong. I was trying to be extra careful so that you wouldn't make this claim but you did anyway. The labeling of the secondary "things" is simply assigning words to perceived effects to the processes of the primary "things". The word "color" is used to describe an effect of experiencing matter. Must people would agree color does not really exists but it is a very useful word for describing the effect. The materialists can easily make the conclusion that all things are material from this definition. The only bias here is desired bias. If you cannot see that this definition at least lends itself to helping people understand the distinctions between the views then I'm not sure what else to say.
This is completely unreasonable for you to say there is no grey area. This goes against the whole idea of philosophy; claiming we cannot have a discussion on a topic because all the words are biased. When you started out participating in this thread you weren't saying this at all. You were disagreeing with me when I claimed that Zero's definition was biased and not effective for use in a discussion. Now you are trying to claim that it is impossible to come up with an unbiased definition of your view. So 2 things can be concluded from your view.
1) I was right. Zero's definition is biased.
2) There is no definition of materialism that will allow an opposing view. Because the materialists conclusion is built into the definition. And this apparently doesn't allow even a word to be assigned to an opposing view. Let alone an opposing argument.
Originally posted by sascha
Never mind what you call them (name tag); the point is what you mean by them. As long as there is something of the nature of what we call laws (or jhQWDqwe541i234lkn), the problem exists.
Well, it DOES dovetail nicely with my atheism, doesn't it? Quick, someone make the calim that it is logical to assert the existence of things which cannot actually be shown to exist!Originally posted by Mentat
Anyway, Zero's definition doesn't directly refer to what materialism is, because (and I was hoping I wouldn't have to bring this up) materialism is not a belief (any more than atheism is), but it is rather a negation of a belief. The materialist's opinion is that there are no "emergent properties", which is merely a negation of the Idealistic assumption that there are.
AFAIC, even the definition "...believes in all things that can be shown to exist" is just a negation (rightly so, since it is ascribed to materialism) of the idea that "something exists which cannot be shown to others as existing".
That is a rather inane example, isn't it? I expected something much better. When you have a REAL example, feel free to try again.Originally posted by sascha
Zero, if you want an example of matter not falling where it should, look at any plant. It carries matter upwards -- but why should it do so?
Originally posted by Fliption
Going back to the real topic, I was thinking alittle bit about what Mentat and I have been discussing. And I'd like to ask a question to all the proclaimed materialists to illustrate a point.
My question is this..."What possible result from a scientific experiment would convince you that all things are not material?"
IOW, what would it take for you to change your mind? Be very specific please.
Originally posted by sascha
Laws have nothing to do with a dictate, but with the way things ultimately are structured, or the way processes ultimately unravel. The dictate aspect comes in only when conflating the concept of law with the concept of force. This is widespread, but certainly not what I am doing.
Originally posted by sascha
Sure, Zero, you will tell me that the genes of the plant make it do that. But this merely shifts the problem into the genes. Why should something want to have genes of growth? Why should matter want to live at all?
Assigning wants and needs to matter...very anthropomorphic of you, and illogical.Originally posted by sascha
Sure, Zero, you will tell me that the genes of the plant make it do that. But this merely shifts the problem into the genes. Why should something want to have genes of growth? Why should matter want to live at all?
You are going backwards...and you are trying to assign porpose, which is #4 on the list of why people reject the evidence for materialism...Originally posted by sascha
But if matter wants nothing, how come it invented life for increasing its entropy (as Mentat put it)? You might note that evolutionary theory does not have an answer to precisely this point.
Originally posted by sascha
But if matter wants nothing, how come it invented life for increasing its entropy (as Mentat put it)? You might note that evolutionary theory does not have an answer to precisely this point.
Originally posted by sascha
I mean: there is no empirical evidence for matter producing life on its own, only lots of hypotheses (i.e. provisional beliefs). The Miller type experiments reach up to some tidbits, then that's it. No alive cell can be manfactured or be observed to come together. This has nothing to do with assigning purpose, but only with describing.
Originally posted by sascha
Either the materialist PoV can make really sure about this, or it must be doubted. That's not off topic at all.
Anything can be doubted...except if you believe in spirits and special cases, in which you can always have a handy non-explanation to use.Originally posted by sascha
Either the materialist PoV can make really sure about this, or it must be doubted. That's not off topic at all.
Again, this is a case of a complex process which mirrors less complex ones. It is just chemistry, the same things that cause rainclouds and icicles, forms life. Mo magic, nothing but a fancier result of basic reactions.Originally posted by sascha
I mean: there is no empirical evidence for matter producing life on its own, only lots of hypotheses (i.e. provisional beliefs). The Miller type experiments reach up to some tidbits, then that's it. No alive cell can be manfactured or be observed to come together. This has nothing to do with assigning purpose, but only with describing.
Actually, I think he may have misspoken...life is not efficient at all, but I think I'll leave it to him to clarify...Originally posted by sascha
BTW, why is Mentat attributing efficiency to matter?
Originally posted by sascha
BTW, why is Mentat attributing efficiency to matter?
Which point are you missing?Originally posted by sascha
And Zero, I don't see your point.
Originally posted by sascha
Mentat, the alternative to Materialism is not just Idealism. There is at least another dozen positions, in case you care.
And Zero, I don't see your point.
Ahhh, that makes perfect sense. Living things are entropy machines, so their existence seems to be almost a forgone conclusion.Originally posted by Mentat
I meant (as can be easily deduced from my previous posts) that it (a living organism) is very effecient at increasing entropy - which is the path of least resistance for the Universe, and thus doesn't need to be "strived for" (as I may have accidentally implied) but is the inevitable tendency.
Originally posted by Zero
Ahhh, that makes perfect sense. Living things are entropy machines, so their existence seems to be almost a forgone conclusion.
Entropy doesn't mean destruction...you don't seem to have enough knowledge of the physical world to be making judgments on it, at least based on this and your posting about evolution.Originally posted by sascha
So if I understand you correctly, Mentat, life would be most efficient if it would destroy as much as possible as quickly as possible. Interesting.
Originally posted by sascha
So if I understand you correctly, Mentat, life would be most efficient if it would destroy as much as possible as quickly as possible. Interesting.