Occams Hatchet and Is Materialism "Special"

[bennyboy]

You are too slippery.  You claimed science supports your world view with regard to qualia, but refused to provide any science supporting your world view with regard to qualia.  

There's no need.  You and I both know that it exists, you object to it.  

No I don't. Show me.

-it does, but it doesn't mean the same thing in the colloquial sense as it does in the scientific sense.  Nor does the meaning of material in either sense fully encompass the position of materialism.  It's just a tick of language, of what we knew when we named that position.  Things that are immaterial, in the colloquial sense, are -still- things that fall under the header materialism, in the scientific or philosophical sense.  That you think that the stuff has to be "material" stuff in the colloquial sense to be compatible with -materialism- in the latter sense is an issue of you not being able to make up your mind whether it;s stuck at billiards balls or includes too much.  You have failed, from top to bottom, to address -materialism-.   That you think it includes miracles, would..I think, be a surprise to any materialist...and that you think that ideas are somehow different is again just assuming your assertion to be true.  

That's a lot of words, and nary a definition of "material" to be found anywhere in them.

People used to think all sorts of silly shit.  I;m not sure why you think, what they think, is relevant.  Just because they were ignorants who couldn't possibly imagine (let alone have known) what made an "idea" tick doesn't mean that you and I are, or have to be.  I've done worse than demonstrate your position to be false, I've demonstrated your means of objection to be invalid.  They are, after all...your problems.  If you don;t want to see me opine over fallacy nested in fallacy...then stop doing it?  

You keep saying you've done things you haven't done, at least in my view. Maybe less metacommentary and more actual proof of / support for your position?

Indeed I do.  Matter, is simply the observable stuff.  That's all it actually means.  Materialism is the notion that the world is, therefore..made of the observable stuff and it's interactions.  That;s the ground floor.  Different type of materialist positions have subtle differences, but this is what they all share. It's not the position, even, that every single thing is material (in the colloquial sense)..because plenty of things included in materialism are not material in that sense (hello gravity, hello electricity)...which is what you consistently insist that they be.  Further, the things that you think aren't material in either sense, and additionally do not confirm to the materialist position....are things which you have no reasonable justification for concluding to be such, while all available evidence points to them being as such.  See why you've been having trouble, yet?

"Observable stuff"? What stuff are you talking about, exactly? Whatever we are experiencing, since we are experiencing it, it must be stuff? Is that it? "It seems so, therefore it IS so"?

He may be reluctant to weigh in, and there's no compulsion that he do so...but it's probably important to know what the person thinks materialism means, if they're going to argue against it.  Look at how long you've been going on about -something- that doesn't actually have anything to do with materialism?  I believe that you care about the subject.  I trust that you searched around.  You obviously found whatever you were looking for, but who doesn't?

Nope. My views were established by what I read about QM and philosophy, and not the other way around. Me giving up on materialism was as much a Eureka moment as many people here giving up on atheism-- the more I learned, the more I felt the view was unsupportable.

There;s hardly a need, since every single one of your missteps comes down to logic 101.  Not Physics 101, or even advanced physics ala QM.  The most informative thing you did, apparently, was watch some debates...but theres not actually a little ticker in the corner of the screen that tells you when one or the other of the presenters is leveraging poorly formed - but clearly convincing (to you, at least) - arguments.  That's assuming you've accurately reproduced whatever arguments were presented by them in -our- interactions.  There -are- valid and difficult objections to materialism...most productively so from within the ranks of various stripes of materialists.  They bicker like cats and dogs.  What you've been presenting, though....isn't any of that.

Still a lot of talk about me and my learning process, and not much talk of your view and SUPPORT for it. My assertion is that I don't know what is ultimately real, and I therefore declare as agnostic. Your assertion is that stuff, its properties, and its interactions are all that exist, and you have been surprisingly dodgy about demonstrating that belief to represent truth.

I'll probably keep responding, because I'm dumb that way and I have too much free time. But I can't see how this discussion is going to move forward unless someone is willing to make a positive assertion and attempt to support it. I was super sure that was going to be you, but it seems that's not the case.

You will probably now claim that I'm making a God of the gaps about our discussion because I don't know how it is going to work out, right?