(September 16, 2016 at 10:04 pm)bennyboy Wrote: call it that if you want.
(September 16, 2016 at 10:01 pm)Jesster Wrote: philosophical rambling
I don't believe you. Get over it.
Why materialists are predominantly materialists
|
(September 16, 2016 at 10:04 pm)bennyboy Wrote: call it that if you want. (September 16, 2016 at 10:01 pm)Jesster Wrote: philosophical rambling
I don't believe you. Get over it.
RE: Why materialists are predominantly materialists
September 16, 2016 at 10:20 pm
(This post was last modified: September 16, 2016 at 10:21 pm by ApeNotKillApe.)
(September 16, 2016 at 10:04 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(September 16, 2016 at 10:03 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Chomsky once said something like, 'Before you start asking questions about 'physical' and 'non-physical', you have to define what physical even means.' "As soon as we come to understand something, we call it physical."
I am John Cena's hip-hop album.
(September 16, 2016 at 10:04 pm)bennyboy Wrote: My answer is that whatever is or isn't "out there," the human experience of it is purely experiential/idealistic. In other words, the study of physics is a category of idea-- about the nature of and relationship among objects. It doesn't really require a position on the underlying nature of reality. But I'm happy defining "physical" as "whatever physicists are studying today," as I know what rich fields lay in that direction. Experience is a phenomena of the mind, the mind is computational software that runs on the hardware of the brain, which autonomously operates the vital functions of the body and instructs the conscious mind.
I am John Cena's hip-hop album.
Materialism is the ontology; science is the epistemology.
(September 16, 2016 at 9:04 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I'll weigh in here and agree with the OP that there's no evidence for material or anything like it. In fact, given double-slit experiments (quantum eraser) I'd say even a physical monism is on shaky ground, especially when idealism subsumes materialism and physicalism anyway. "Reality" is almost for sure unknowable; what we DO know is only what we experience, and relationships between the things we experience. I take issue with the ideas that reality is 'unknowable' with some Kantian fence between us and the noumenal. Just because you cannot know everything about something doesn't mean you cannot know a little bit about it. If sometime was truly unknowable then you couldn't know anything at all about it. (September 16, 2016 at 11:39 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: ... the mind is computational software that runs on the hardware of the brain, which autonomously operates the vital functions of the body and instructs the conscious mind. No the mind is a steam engine...sorry, wrong century. Hopefully you realized you are speaking figuratively.
The irony in direct opposition to scripture is that theists are the most materialists of anyone on the planet. Those grand, fancy churches and the mansions in which holy leaders live when there are homeless who could better benefit from such an obvious display of unnecessary extravagance.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter (September 17, 2016 at 12:20 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I take issue with the ideas that reality is 'unknowable' with some Kantian fence between us and the noumenal. Just because you cannot know everything about something doesn't mean you cannot know a little bit about it. If sometime was truly unknowable then you couldn't know anything at all about it. I can know that there's an empty glass on my desk, because that knowledge is independent of anything under or behind my experience of glass-on-desk. I cannot know what framework really underlies my experience of the glass-- is there a mind/matter dualism, an idealistic monism, a material monism, the Mind of God, a brain in a jar, etc.? EVEN IF I had ideas about reality, and they were 100% bang-on correct. . . how would I know this to be the case? How would I know there were not some additional layer, inscrutable to me, supporting all of that? |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
Why, Why,Why! | Lemonvariable72 | 14 | 4033 |
October 2, 2013 at 1:21 pm Last Post: Doubting Thomas |
|
WHY WHY WHY??!?!? JUST STOP...... | Xyster | 18 | 5764 |
March 18, 2011 at 12:27 pm Last Post: Zenith |