(January 18, 2016 at 1:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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."
