Occams Hatchet and Is Materialism "Special"

[The Grand Nudger]

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.  Further, there's no explanation of anything in science that -isn't- a materialists explanation.  I'm not slippery, your objections and requests are malformed.

I said that I felt "material" should refer to something specific, you refuse to define it in specific terms.  I contend that the modern definition of material is so strained that it now overlaps with common definitions of words with which it was once considered mutually exclusive-- like "miracle," or "idea," and you start talking about my problems instead of simply demonstrating my point to be false.

-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.

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?

Do you even KNOW what you think these terms mean?  What is matter to you, or materialism?  Give me something as substantive as the world, something I can sink my teeth into.

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?

--edit--
I can provide links of physicists who claim that QM is incompatible with material monism.  At least some physicists share my view, and I'm assuming that many probably share yours.  Alex, our own resident physicist, seems not too eager to engage in this particular debate, asking as far as I recall, for askers to tell him what they mean when they say "materialism."  You think I'm just trying to use word salad in support of woo, but you may be surprised to find that I care enough about the subject actually to have searched around, read forums and debates about it, and so on.

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?

Have you?

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.