5 ms·

>I tell you what my definitions are, not the other way around. Update your arguments, which, in this case, probably consists of discarding them. I've never spo

by bkst 11y ago

>I tell you what my definitions are, not the other way around. Update your arguments, which, in this case, probably consists of discarding them. I've never spoken to you in my life. The definition of materialism has been established since 450 BC. It has nothing to do with you. You can't say that 1=0 just because you define it that way. You have to actually prove that they're the same. Using your tactic I can prove unicorns exist by redefining unicorns to not have horns. Under my new definition of unicorns, unicorns exist, and I'm going to go around shouting from the rooftop that unicorns exist and I've proved they exist. Anyone who tells me that unicorns don't exist is guilty of failing to recognize my private definition of unicorns. But this argument is absurd, just as your argument that matter exists because you have redefined matter in a new way that is incompatible with the previous definition of matter is absurd. If your new definition of matter is incompatible with your old definition of matter, then why are you using the same word? It's not matter. It's something else. So use a new word. It's not a unicorn, it's a horse--something that has already been claimed to exist by the philosophers of horses. You can't say that you've refuted the philosophy of horses and proved that only unicorns exist by redefining unicorns to not have any horns and then pointing at horses as proof of your unicorn theory. This is how crazy materialists sound. Completely illogical. Materialists in 2015 are going to barns and pointing at horses to prove that unicorns exist, because they've redefined unicorns to now be without a horn. It would be funny if it wasn't so popular. Berkeley didn't refute Jerf-Materialism. I was arguing against normal materialism, which holds that all things are matter, and that matter is a deterministic, solid, stable, extended substance that has mass, takes up space, is made up of smaller bits of matter, has an exclusion principle with the space that it takes up, interacts with neighboring matter through contact, and so on. This is still what most people think of as matter. Even the people who discovered the empirical evidence that refutes the existence of matter still claim to believe in matter, it's just odd. Guess what guys! If it doesn't walk like a duck, doesn't talk like a duck, doesn't quack like a duck... it's NOT a duck! And your private language is not relevant to this discussion.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- bkst 11y ago
  I'm a rationalist. An honest rationalist is logically compelled to be an immaterialist. Immaterialism does not imply theism. What is strange about today is that the materialists themselves have discovered their own refutation, but instead of just acknowledging it, they redefined their favorite word "matter" to have all the properties of the things that are incompatible with matter. They proved themselves right by redefining their word to mean its opposite--to mean what the opponents of materialism always claimed. What are the properties of mind? * unextended, like the photon (Descartes) * indeterministic, like the collapse of the quantum wave function that occurs "randomly" rather than "deterministically" * perceiving, like Schrodinger's observer who causes the collapse of the wavefunction when he perceives the cat Berkeley the famous immaterialist empiricist idealist said, "To be is to be perceived" ... and now quantum physics says the same thing... but insist that they are still materialists. It's really quite hilarious.
jerf 11y ago
"And your private language is not relevant to this discussion." Since you've been trying to claim the right to define matter for all of us, and then philosophically force conclusions based on those definitions down our throats over our objections about how those aren't our definitions, it rather is. Tu quoque. Your post is its own refutation. You can't insist on being the only person allowed to play definition games, and that everyone else is doing it wrong if they try because you know the definitions they are secretly using... or, rather, you can, but don't expect me to take you seriously as a result. Your thinking here is so solipsistic you appear to be just barely aware that there are other opinions, but you are not capable of engaging with them, only shouting at them to "shut up!" and then get back to the point you're trying to make regardless.
- bkst 11y ago
  I'm not solipsistic at all... I'm using the socially established definition. I'm engaging in the 2500 year old tradition and usage of the word. I'm using the word in the same way it was used by Thales, Democritus, Bacon, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Locke, and all scientists before the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and most scientists still today. I'm using the word in the same way that most non-physicists still use it--where for instance biologists in crafting their theories assume that lifeforms obey classical materialist principles despite the findings of quantum physics that those principles are wrong. You can't claim that I invented the definition of materialism anymore than you can claim that I invented 1+1=2.
alexhill 11y ago
I'm not the parent but I'll stop considering myself a "materialist" then. I'm not wedded to the term. What should I call myself? A physicalist? I'll try to describe the position that I (and I think most of the people you're debating with here) hold, without leaving too many terms undefined. There exist reliably measurable external, non-mental, things. Ok, the physicalist says, consciousness does not arise from little material billiard balls bumping into one another. We have a more complex picture now of the composition of the external world, and so consciousness arises from that. This position does not rely on determinism; it can comfortably coexist with the kind of structured randomness seen in quantum physics. It also doesn't logically exclude dualism, but as far as we know, only permits a kind of one-way dualism where some conscious substance exists as a consequent but not a cause of physical processes. Put another way, I don't believe we have discovered anything about the external world that requires the kind of explanation that consciousness can provide. I understand your annoyance – I feel the same way about people who say they aren't "atheist", then go on to describe their textbook atheist beliefs. Though I end up doing it more than I'd like, it doesn't help to reprimand those people for what I see as a misuse of words, any more than you calling people "completely illogical" helps here. Arriving at different conclusions based on different definitions of terms is entirely logical. It's more constructive to find common ground in what people mean than to argue about definitions.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- bkst 11y ago
  Most human beings don't consider themselves logical. 80%+ of people consider their most meaningful and important beliefs to be faith based. So I have no problem with those people claiming to believe in matter. It's the materialists who also claim to be rational that make no sense. It's nice that you aren't wedded to the ancient and refuted superstition that is tied to the word "materialism". But you are mistaken if you think your peers aren't... most self-proclaimed materialists, if asked to describe their beliefs, will describe them inline with the classic Newtonian or Cartesian formulation of matter. They will say the world is deterministic, stable, extended, takes up space, etc. Most self-proclaimed atheists claim to be materialists and profess a belief in this old type of materialism. Very few of them will say they aren't wedded to the word like you do. I completely respect your rejection of the word--it shows me that you are a logical person who has developed a more sophisticated worldview than the simple materialism that most non-theists still claim is true.

by bkst 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

bkst 11y ago
I'm a rationalist. An honest rationalist is logically compelled to be an immaterialist. Immaterialism does not imply theism. What is strange about today is that the materialists themselves have discovered their own refutation, but instead of just acknowledging it, they redefined their favorite word "matter" to have all the properties of the things that are incompatible with matter. They proved themselves right by redefining their word to mean its opposite--to mean what the opponents of materialism always claimed. What are the properties of mind? * unextended, like the photon (Descartes) * indeterministic, like the collapse of the quantum wave function that occurs "randomly" rather than "deterministically" * perceiving, like Schrodinger's observer who causes the collapse of the wavefunction when he perceives the cat Berkeley the famous immaterialist empiricist idealist said, "To be is to be perceived" ... and now quantum physics says the same thing... but insist that they are still materialists. It's really quite hilarious.

jerf 11y ago

"And your private language is not relevant to this discussion." Since you've been trying to claim the right to define matter for all of us, and then philosophically force conclusions based on those definitions down our throats over our objections about how those aren't our definitions, it rather is. Tu quoque. Your post is its own refutation. You can't insist on being the only person allowed to play definition games, and that everyone else is doing it wrong if they try because you know the definitions they are secretly using... or, rather, you can, but don't expect me to take you seriously as a result. Your thinking here is so solipsistic you appear to be just barely aware that there are other opinions, but you are not capable of engaging with them, only shouting at them to "shut up!" and then get back to the point you're trying to make regardless.

bkst 11y ago
I'm not solipsistic at all... I'm using the socially established definition. I'm engaging in the 2500 year old tradition and usage of the word. I'm using the word in the same way it was used by Thales, Democritus, Bacon, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Locke, and all scientists before the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and most scientists still today. I'm using the word in the same way that most non-physicists still use it--where for instance biologists in crafting their theories assume that lifeforms obey classical materialist principles despite the findings of quantum physics that those principles are wrong. You can't claim that I invented the definition of materialism anymore than you can claim that I invented 1+1=2.

alexhill 11y ago

I'm not the parent but I'll stop considering myself a "materialist" then. I'm not wedded to the term. What should I call myself? A physicalist? I'll try to describe the position that I (and I think most of the people you're debating with here) hold, without leaving too many terms undefined. There exist reliably measurable external, non-mental, things. Ok, the physicalist says, consciousness does not arise from little material billiard balls bumping into one another. We have a more complex picture now of the composition of the external world, and so consciousness arises from that. This position does not rely on determinism; it can comfortably coexist with the kind of structured randomness seen in quantum physics. It also doesn't logically exclude dualism, but as far as we know, only permits a kind of one-way dualism where some conscious substance exists as a consequent but not a cause of physical processes. Put another way, I don't believe we have discovered anything about the external world that requires the kind of explanation that consciousness can provide. I understand your annoyance – I feel the same way about people who say they aren't "atheist", then go on to describe their textbook atheist beliefs. Though I end up doing it more than I'd like, it doesn't help to reprimand those people for what I see as a misuse of words, any more than you calling people "completely illogical" helps here. Arriving at different conclusions based on different definitions of terms is entirely logical. It's more constructive to find common ground in what people mean than to argue about definitions.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
bkst 11y ago
Most human beings don't consider themselves logical. 80%+ of people consider their most meaningful and important beliefs to be faith based. So I have no problem with those people claiming to believe in matter. It's the materialists who also claim to be rational that make no sense. It's nice that you aren't wedded to the ancient and refuted superstition that is tied to the word "materialism". But you are mistaken if you think your peers aren't... most self-proclaimed materialists, if asked to describe their beliefs, will describe them inline with the classic Newtonian or Cartesian formulation of matter. They will say the world is deterministic, stable, extended, takes up space, etc. Most self-proclaimed atheists claim to be materialists and profess a belief in this old type of materialism. Very few of them will say they aren't wedded to the word like you do. I completely respect your rejection of the word--it shows me that you are a logical person who has developed a more sophisticated worldview than the simple materialism that most non-theists still claim is true.