Seeing red

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh idk...I'm a idea in a vat and I can't prove it unless I have full knowledge, or something like that ( )....and I've accepted that all may be true.  Now if you could just accept that an irrational claim has no place in a rational argument.......I'd say we'd made about as much progress as was possible between us, after all...you won't start to find bullets convincing and I won't stop...that's unlikely to change. 

[Edwardo Piet]

You and I find different things convincing.  We may never agree on that.  Your claim, however, that materialism can't account for x...... and idealism works just like it...is irrational.

Idealism doesn't work just like it.  It sub-suuuuuuumes it.  Sub-suuuuuummmes, mind you.

Idealism doesn't work[...]

Well you got that part right.

[The Grand Nudger]

You and I find different things convincing.  We may never agree on that.  Your claim, however, that materialism can't account for x...... and idealism works just like it...is irrational.

Idealism doesn't work just like it.  It sub-suuuuuuumes it.  Sub-suuuuuummmes, mind you.

Am I supposed to be amused or insulted with this? Dead serious.

subsumes

include or absorb (something) in something else.

If you tell me that materialism is an insufficient explanation for how a watch works, let alone how the universe works....and you tell me that idealism includes it, absorbs it.....You have included and absorbed that which you have declared to be insufficient.

[emjay]

Just to say, I accidentally kudosed something with a slip of the finger on my mobile, so after undoing that I thought I may as well do some more, but usually I don't kudos until I'm planning to reply, but it's too late/early for me to brain properly now so I'll reply properly another day. But rest assured I'll be dreaming of subsuming stuff and trying to make sense of that. Night guys

[bennyboy]

If you tell me that materialism is an insufficient explanation for how a watch works, let alone how the universe works....and you tell me that idealism includes it, absorbs it.....You have included and absorbed that which you have declared to be insufficient.

First of all, don't be offended. Subsuuuuuumes is just me playing around with emphasis, because it's central to my view, not just a semantic argument.

Idealism subsumes the mechanical and scientific understanding-- those are all ideas, after all. There's no problem with having many ideas being about things or properties, and in fact those kinds of ideas are very useful.

I think what it is with science is actually that there's a kind of secondary dualism: if science describes something, then science is a kind of proxy subjective agent-- it's active in the sense that it describes something. And it doesn't make sense to think of a subjective perspective without an object for it to perceive-- so the objective world must exist as science perceives it.

We talked in the past (or at least I did and you posted reponses to my posts) about the idea of scope-- that is, that ideas are relevant, or can even be taken at face value, in a given scope. So if I want to know how to build a bridge that stands up, I'll look up some books on architecture, check the tensile and compressive strength of materials in charts, etc. I don't need to ponder the philosophical implications of bridge building, because I just need to have the experience of a bridge that doesn't fall down, i.e. the physicalist explanation is perfectly sufficient in this scope. It's only when I say, "I can build a bridge, and it stands up, and I can do lots of other neat stuff, so nothing exists but things and their properties" that I am transcending the scope in which ideas about bridge building are validly applied. Or when I say, "Science has solved more problems than anything else, so it's the best tool with which to establish the meaning of beauty, or of what constitutes right and wrong."

The thing about subsumption is it creates nested sets. So a physicalist, scientific view is reserved for ideas about things and their properties, and another set of ideas may be applied to issues of right and wrong, and it isn't necessary that the twain shall ever meet.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not even a semantic argument Benny..........you are defending a plainly irrational claim.  Why, because it's central to your view.  There are other ways to arrive at your view, surely?  You don't need to polish that turd.  

Nested sets won't change that.  If you want to refer to materialisms explanations - and you obviously do- then you cannot claim that they are insufficient. If you wish to claim that they are insufficient, then they do not belong in your own position. It's twisted you into a knot, needlessly, to the point where you -describe- dualism without subscribing to dualism, and it's caused a wide range of other logical gaffs and inconsistencies throughout our conversation. It is the font of all misery and confusion between us, lol.

[bennyboy]

It's not even a semantic argument Benny..........you are defending a plainly irrational claim.  Why, because it's central to your view.  There are other ways to arrive at your view.  You don't need to polish that turd.  

Nested sets won't change that.  If you want to refer to materialisms explanations - and you obviously do- then you cannot claim that they are insufficient. If you wish to claim that they are insufficient, they do nothing but detract from your own position if you include them -in- your position.  You are declaring your own position to be insufficient.  This is inarguable.

This line is strange.  I also claim that a hammer is insufficient to build a house, but I include it in my toolkit.  Nobody accuses me of saying, "You claim a hammer is insufficient, so why do you insist on using it at least some of the time?"

The fact is that the materialist world view is a collection of ideas about experiences consistent enough to treat them as objective.  But they are still just ideas, and they are still just about experiences, insofar as you or I can establish without making unnecessary assumptions about a hypothetical underlying "reality."

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, you and I may never find the same things convincing, but we can at least agree to play by the same rules, you are still defending an irrational claim....which is, as you put it, central to your view.

Perhaps you think idealism is simply a better explanation. That wouldn't be so difficult to say, now would it? Good luck fleshing that out.but at least it isn't in breach of the system we're both using to work this shit out.

[bennyboy]

Again, you and I may never find the same things convincing, but we can at least agree to play by the same rules, you are still defending an irrational claim....which is, as you put it, central to your view.

You'll have to define what you mean by rational, because I feel the same way about you.  You are using an interface with reality which is absolutely, 100% experiential, and from your experiences, you have arrived at the conclusion that most of reality is not experiential.  This is circular logic, and you are doing EXACTLY what you claim I'm doing: you are using an idealistic basis for establishing a physical "reality."

That is irrational.

[The Grand Nudger]

Rational, as in -doesn't make fallacious arguments-. Jesus christ, now we're arguing whats rational in defense of illogic. We're attacking what we think another's position is as though that were a defense of our own.