Occams Hatchet and Is Materialism "Special"

[robvalue]

What I don't get is the constant claims people make about things they just said are undetectable. They seem to value themselves as some sort of information gathering beacon which can surpass science just by attributing levels of certainty to emotions and individual experiences.

Sure, there may well be stuff we don't know about. It seems very likely. But we don't know about it. You just said so. Remember? Sheesh.

[Whateverist]

What I don't get is the constant claims people make about things they just said are undetectable. They seem to value themselves as some sort of information gathering beacon which can surpass science just by attributing levels of certainty to emotions and individual experiences.

Sure, there may well be stuff we don't know about. It seems very likely. But we don't know about it. You just said so. Remember? Sheesh.

Good point.  I prefer to rely on science to tell me what's out there and my inner life to tell me how I feel about it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

What I don't get is the constant claims people make about things they just said are undetectable.

Formal unities and manifest functions seem detectable. Materialism/physicalism take these aspects of reality for granted or dismiss them altogether. Not surprisingly some materialists aren't even capable of seeing these omissions.

[The Grand Nudger]

More of Chad, above, telling us what materialists do, and what materialisms problem is,, despite not having the first fucking clue what materialism is, by assessment of his objections.

I can keep repeating myself.  It's a fun game to play, my 4 year-old son seems to like it.

I'm not against science.  I'm not against science of brain, or behavioral science.  What I am against is the conflation of assumption with assertion.  Upon taking the philosophical position that all is material, it's not surprising that you'd wave toward the brain, or that you'd call it material, or that you'd think anything in our experience must be explained in material terms.

Benny, there's no reason to tell us that you don't disagree with the science...and then -immediately- elaborate on all of the ways that you disagree with the science.  This is idiocy......and I already said we could toss it...I gave you the floor, now, all you want to do with it, is keep bitching and moaning about the non-science? Well wtf, man?

Even that's fine.  However, in your insistence that all things are material, you are stuck with the problem of mind.

Who insists that, who?  Pitch straw elsewhere, I'm an asshole when people do it, it won't be fun. I think that what we've detected thusfar is material..no surprise there, since we designed our equipment to detect the material.

It cannot be physically measured, nor inferred from any physical properties of any system unless you already believe those things to have mind.  Given that 100% of things we think we know, or perceive, or interact with in any way, are done so only through the agency of subjective minds, that's a pretty big assumption.

I already know that you believe mind cannot be quantified, nor inferred. /shugs

In essence, you are using your subjective agency to infer its own nature.  I'm pretty sure obvious circular logic is not one of the tenets of good scientific procedure.  So if you want to claim that in arguing against you, I'm against science, then please be so kind as to demonstrate that your position represents scientific views, and mind does not.

Well, since we can't -not- use our subjective agency to infer -anything-...again it seems like it's hardly a problem for the materialist position - just a criticism of knowledge in the general.  A vain wish that we had some other tool. You're -also- using your subjective agency to make claims about it, but that circular relationship, as you see it, doesn't seem to bother you in the case of your own opinions and statements.

[Whateverist]

What I don't get is the constant claims people make about things they just said are undetectable.

Formal unities and manifest functions seem detectable. Materialism/physicalism take these aspects of reality for granted or dismiss them altogether. Not surprisingly some materialists aren't even capable of seeing these omissions.

Oh the effort they make in describing the things they say are undetectable.  No one said you weren't trying.  But dressing it up in big words helps as much as lipstick helps that ugly pig we're always hearing about.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Materialism: the philosophy that all phenomena consist of irreducible extended bodies mechanistically interacting by means of fundamental forces according to strictly mathematical rules.

Did I miss anything?

[The Grand Nudger]

Apparently so, given your many objections just in this thread.  What else can I say?

[robvalue]

Materialism doesn't account for magic. Some people like there to be magic.

But methodological naturalism, which is the most sensible position in my opinion, doesn't even deny magic. It doesn't deny anything. It simply observes that things beyond our ability to measure are... beyond our ability to measure. I'm surprised anyone would ever argue with that statement. Since we can't measure them, we can't model them or include them as a factor.

Please no more conflating the existent with the abstract. It's so tiresome.

[The Grand Nudger]

You shouldn't be surprised.  A statement regarding what is, to them, is wrong because of what they believe might be.

It's wrong, because we have not ruled out whatever it is they believe in, in their estimation. They think that this is a requirement. That we must rule out what might be to make a claim as to what is. If they would like to have their beliefs included in claims of what is, then they need to do so..they need to include it themselves, and bring us some of that which is. Not opine upon what might be. Materialists have -more- than brought their position...they've devised a method to test for what is, to test the soundness of their propositions. It's called a commitment to logical positivism.

Otherwise, it's just an endless chorus of "you might be wrong!"

-yeah, no shit.......and?

[robvalue]

Yeah. "You can't prove there isn't magic." Adults. Adults are saying this to me, once you remove the layers of nonsense.

No, I can't. I don't need to. I don't want to. I don't even know what fucking magic is anyway, outside of peoples' imaginations.

We had someone say it was things in other realities. That's a fair definition, although it doesn't seem to match any common usage of the word.