Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist
October 18, 2015 at 4:42 am
(October 17, 2015 at 12:57 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: Oh, and the bs you later spout about there being other evidence than empirical evidence, that let me with an expression on my face of, well, dull suprise. Evidence by its very nature has to be empirical, because it has to be independently evaluated by persons or groups other than those offering it. And the only way we can ensure this quality is by demanding empirical standards for what is being presented as evidence.
So by empirical, are you not hypocritically begging the question just as the OP did?
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist
October 18, 2015 at 5:05 am
(This post was last modified: October 18, 2015 at 5:06 am by bennyboy.)
Bump because double-post.
Posts: 66325
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist
October 18, 2015 at 9:41 am
(This post was last modified: October 18, 2015 at 9:49 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(October 16, 2015 at 6:53 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Really? We, as humans, have interacted with what % of the universe, according to you? And yet, we have the Big Bang theory, and established rules of physics, and it is your position that ALL OF REALITY is founded on these rules, is it not? You claim it must be turtles, all the way down and in every conceivable direction, do you not? This is because you know of nothing else, and extend what you know into the unknown. An appeal to hypocrisy isn't any better than a comp fallacy. The black box is yours, not mine..remember? I'm making you stick to your own comments and criticisms. My position (no matter how terribly you've butchered it), is irrelevant. I don't think we're stuck in a black box, so these are hardly criticisms of -my- position..eh?
Yes...I would attempt to explain the unknown by reference to the known... do you have some other way?
Quote:My view of positions, and of reality, is broader than yours. I think that materialism is a sensible position, but only in a certain context: that of experiences which are both consistent and sharable with other humans. The experience of mind is not sharable, and is not well described by materialism. The world of QM, taken on the basis of individual particles, isn't really consistent, and is therefore not well described as matter-- though for now, you seem to be willing enough to describe mathematical functions as "material" so long as they are roughly positioned in time and space.
You're as wrong about QM now as you were before, for the same reason as before, and there's little excuse for me to re-explain, nor, obviously...would a correction matter to you.....
Quote:So no, I don't demand that all reality be describable by materialism for that position to have value. And that is why I say that idealism subsumes materialism. Of all the ideas we can have, some of them are about experiences which are consistent and sharable.
You like to say it because you are compelled by the materialist's science, by the materialist's bridges, by the materialist's explanations........
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist
October 18, 2015 at 7:28 pm
(This post was last modified: October 18, 2015 at 8:10 pm by bennyboy.)
(October 18, 2015 at 9:41 am)Rhythm Wrote: You're as wrong about QM now as you were before, for the same reason as before, and there's little excuse for me to re-explain, nor, obviously...would a correction matter to you..... Look, I know scientists refer to QM "particles" as matter. However, we now have a system where matter = energy = wave functions in space. Sounds like fairies to me, and just because you are willing to call fairies matter doesn't make it so. I suppose if it is discovered all is ideas, you'll still be fine, because you'll say, "It's not ideas. It's mind/energy/particles. . . you know. . . STUFF."
Quote:You like to say it because you are compelled by the materialist's science, by the materialist's bridges, by the materialist's explanations........
Many of them are theist's explanations as well, but accepting for example classical physics doesn't make me a Christian. I don't dispute the observations, I dispute that the world view leads to materialism as FOUNDATIONAL to reality.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist
October 18, 2015 at 7:36 pm
I'm enjoying Bennyboy's and Rhythm's exchange here.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist
October 18, 2015 at 11:45 pm
(This post was last modified: October 18, 2015 at 11:46 pm by bennyboy.)
I'd like to ask Rhythm a question. I'd argue that for something to be material, it must be made up of material. So what's a QM particle made up of?
Posts: 8034
Threads: 47
Joined: September 12, 2015
Reputation:
41
RE: Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist
October 22, 2015 at 4:03 pm
(October 18, 2015 at 4:42 am)bennyboy Wrote: (October 17, 2015 at 12:57 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: Oh, and the bs you later spout about there being other evidence than empirical evidence, that let me with an expression on my face of, well, dull suprise. Evidence by its very nature has to be empirical, because it has to be independently evaluated by persons or groups other than those offering it. And the only way we can ensure this quality is by demanding empirical standards for what is being presented as evidence.
So by empirical, are you not hypocritically begging the question just as the OP did?
Begging what question? Just throwing random nonsense at my refutation of the OP in the hopes that it'll stick is no way to engage in a debate.
But then again, you are trying to argue a conjecture with no basis under any conceivable measure.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Posts: 8709
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist
October 22, 2015 at 5:16 pm
(This post was last modified: October 22, 2015 at 5:17 pm by Neo-Scholastic.
Edit Reason: grammar
)
(September 11, 2015 at 2:31 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: …it cannot be reasonably refuted or bypassed…
Premise 1: A metaphysically solipsist world (a world where only a mind exists) cannot be proven false due to epistemic limitations.
Premise 2: It is unreasonable to presume solipsism is impossible given 1, therefore it must be reasonably granted solipsism is possible.
Both premises fall to Aristotle’s Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC). It states that nothing can both exist and not exist simultaneously and in all ways. It is an undeniable truth regardless of whether or not any mind knows it; the PNC it is not a product of the mind. Since at least one thing exists extra-mentally, the PNC, it follows that all forms of idealism, including solipsism, are false.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist
October 22, 2015 at 6:34 pm
(This post was last modified: October 22, 2015 at 7:30 pm by bennyboy.)
(October 22, 2015 at 4:03 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: (October 18, 2015 at 4:42 am)bennyboy Wrote: So by empirical, are you not hypocritically begging the question just as the OP did?
Begging what question? Just throwing random nonsense at my refutation of the OP in the hopes that it'll stick is no way to engage in a debate.
But then again, you are trying to argue a conjecture with no basis under any conceivable measure.
Because the rules of evidence you are talking about require that you've already made philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality, AND those rules demand that any argument made against your assumptions must be framed in a way that supports them. You are, exactly, doing this:
Quote:Umm.... your argument flat out falls apart when you assert that "X" is true in order to lay out your proof for "X".
What if I said, "God is real, and you can only disprove the existence of God through legitimate spiritual means" and then refused to accept your "evidence" on grounds that it didn't properly conform to the assumption you are in fact arguing against? That would be stupid, right? Well. . . explain how you aren't doing that but with a different assumption.
|
