(April 17, 2014 at 8:19 pm)Esquilax Wrote:Its not an argument from ignorance. You espouse a a materialist view that intentionally denies that physical systems seek desired ends. Then you engage in special pleading that a certain type of physical process, human brain function, can do so.(April 17, 2014 at 6:40 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Translation: I cannot present a coherent refutation so I'll paraphrase what was said in an insulting way.
Why do I need to respond again to your usual argument from ignorance about meaning? As I've said before Chad, "I don't see how the meaning you guys construct for yourself can solve this problem I've invented to surpass the meaning I pretend I have that's better than yours," is not something that requires refutation. Until you can demonstrate a single shred of what you believe, you're in exactly the same boat as the rest of us.
My statement about proximate vs ultimate meaning stands unrefuted. I made no claim about the relative value of one to the other.
