(January 13, 2014 at 11:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: My question and the failure to address it reveals the blind spot of materialism.Failure? You're hallucinating again. I refused to answer your question. That says only that I refused to answer and nothing more. As usual, you infer more than the facts allow.
(January 13, 2014 at 11:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: You place a greater explanatory burden on dualist theories than on monist ones.Liar. I chose not to answer and noted that your question did nothing to help your point. That's all. You can stop constructing straw men at any point here.
(January 13, 2014 at 11:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: My point was that your questions can be turned back on naturalistic theories, as in “Why does the physical ground of being have the capacity to serve as a foundation for physical properties?”Your point was a fallacious attempt to shift the burden of proof through slander and a tu quoque argument. But I've come to expect little better from you.
(January 13, 2014 at 11:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: So when I ask, what gives matter the power to manifest physical properties, you have no answer.More lies. My refusal to answer neither implies that I have no answer, nor that no answer is available to me. When you stop trying to play Sigmund Freud and cease building your straw man army, you be sure to let me know.
(January 13, 2014 at 11:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: A source (Plotinus called it the Soul of All) for pure intentionality serves as the informing principle for primal matter, that which has a propensity to exist. The reason you can assign meaning and value onto physical reality is because you partake of that source.I'm not really in a charitable mood, given that you've once again chosen to trammel my reputation with a bunch of spurious lies, all founded on a threadbare argument from silence, but if we derive value from partaking of that source, how does that source acquire value? All you've done is substitute one empty argument for another; you're trying to equivocate your way out of trouble. Or am I supposed to infer that you're making the ipse dixit argument that it has value "because it just does?" ("That which bestows has inherent value. That is to say, you are the source of the value you give to the world." Is this bare assertion what all these lies have been used to defend?)
You've explained nothing. And as usual, leveled a bunch of slanderous and unfounded accusations against me.
Now, if you're not going to actually answer the questions, fuck off, you characterless twat.