Any materialists have the support to debate 1:1?

[Axe Elf]

that's a tautology. according to your argumentation this:
"hi, my name is qaz"
has the same meaning of this, "despite all the subsequent nonsense":
ahdjakfoeidjskckelakf @&wjdkek !!!!

indeed, you can't choose or not choose to believe in axioms AND claim meaning for what you say at the same time.

You're going to have to do a better job of explaining yourself; I can't make heads or tails out of this.

out of curiosity, do you "believe" in maths?

I have faith in the axioms of mathematics when I want to do mathematics, but of course I realize that the axioms of math do not always apply to the real world. In other words, one plus one does not always equal two in the real world, but I have faith that one plus one equals two when I want to do mathematics.

(Yes, I realize that "one plus one equals two" isn't strictly axiomatic, although it was thought to be for some time, until a proof emerged--but it's close enough to illustrate my point.)

 

[Axe Elf]

I don't know. In my worldview, all facts are based on how much utility they provide compared to alternate set of facts.

In other words, the utility that a fact provides determines how much faith you place in its axiomatic underpinnings.

 

[sayak83]

In other words, the utility that a fact provides determines how much faith you place in its axiomatic underpinnings.

Yes.

 

[Axe Elf]

Yes.

So the more faith you have in its axiomatic underpinnings, the more useful a fact is. That's just another way of saying "all (useful) facts are based in faith," and that brings us back to "doh."

 

[sayak83]

So the more faith you have in its axiomatic underpinnings, the more useful a fact is. That's just another way of saying "all (useful) facts are based in faith," and that brings us back to "doh."

Not really. No matter how much faith I gain have that the wall is not there, the disutility of pain caused by banging my head on it demonstrates that an alternate axiom of a solid impassable wall provides better utility.

 

[Axe Elf]

Not really. No matter how much faith I gain have that the wall is not there, the disutility of pain caused by banging my head on it demonstrates that an alternate axiom of a solid impassable wall provides better utility.

Well of course not ALL faith provides a basis for fact; that was never the claim. The claim is that all facts are based in faith. The fact that the wall is impassable is based on faith in one's own personal experiences of solid walls--faith that those subjective experiences reflect some aspect of objective reality. Any time someone believes a "fact" that isn't true, the faith underlying that "fact" is misplaced--but EVERY fact is based in faith.

 

[sayak83]

Well of course not ALL faith provides a basis for fact; that was never the claim. The claim is that all facts are based in faith. The fact that the wall is impassable is based on faith in one's own personal experiences of solid walls--faith that those subjective experiences reflect some aspect of objective reality. Any time someone believes a "fact" that isn't true, the faith underlying that "fact" is misplaced--but EVERY fact is based in faith.

Pain felt by the head is a 1st person direct experience whose quality of being pain-like is indubitable. That's the foundation. Similarly the experience if quenching of thirst and satiation thereof by drinking water (as opposed to say sea water) is also indubitable. The qualia of these first person experiences and their corresponding valence (suffering, neutral, pleasant ) is directly apprehended. No faith is required.

The assumption of solidity when of wall is not based on some prior faith in objective reality, but the direct suffering that is experienced when I act as if its not.

 

[qaz]

You're going to have to do a better job of explaining yourself; I can't make heads or tails out of this.



I have faith in the axioms of mathematics when I want to do mathematics, but of course I realize that the axioms of math do not always apply to the real world. In other words, one plus one does not always equal two in the real world, but I have faith that one plus one equals two when I want to do mathematics.

(Yes, I realize that "one plus one equals two" isn't strictly axiomatic, although it was thought to be for some time, until a proof emerged--but it's close enough to illustrate my point.)

when you say that believing in something (axioms, in this case) is up to choice "despite all the subsequent nonsense", you say something that applies to any proposition but is completely devoid of meaning.

when we talk about experience, everyone sees that it's organized by rules. for example, the shape of the sun and that of the pupil resemble each other: you don't learn it, you intuit it (even if the circle doesn't exist per se). nobody ever taught you that 394939405 > 394939404 , you know it since you understood what a "number" is (even if the numbers don't "exist"). and this is very different from "knowing" that god exists or that you are a prophet, since any correct mathematical theory predicts its own predicates , whereas religious or philpsophical sets of statements don't.
obviously you can choose not to believe it, you may choose to believe that in the "ultimate reality" the shape of the moon resembles that of a blade of grass or what your fantasy commands. indeed, your argument leads to just one conclusion , that "true" and "false" are useless concepts , and schrodinger and gauss or jesus christ and anubis aren't worh of interest more than any retarded in the street.
so, yes, you're technically able to claim to be napoleon "in the ultimate reality", but this sentence doesn't mean anything since you have no criteria to separate what has meaning and what doesn't.

 

[Axe Elf]

Pain felt by the head is a 1st person direct experience whose quality of being pain-like is indubitable. That's the foundation. Similarly the experience if quenching of thirst and satiation thereof by drinking water (as opposed to say sea water) is also indubitable. The qualia of these first person experiences and their corresponding valence (suffering, neutral, pleasant ) is directly apprehended. No faith is required.

But they are not directly apprehended. They are perceived by sensations, and the perceptions are then processed into symbols which you have faith in as approximations of reality. You do not experience reality directly, you only have faith that you are experiencing some approximation of reality.

And if you want to say that you actually DEFINE reality by what you have faith in, then that's just another way of saying the same thing--all facts are based in (defined by) the faith you have.

 

[Axe Elf]

when you say that believing in something (axioms, in this case) is up to choice "despite all the subsequent nonsense", you say something that applies to any proposition but is completely devoid of meaning.

when we talk about experience, everyone sees that it's organized by rules. for example, the shape of the sun and that of the pupil resemble each other: you don't learn it, you intuit it (even if the circle doesn't exist per se). nobody ever thaugt you that 394939405 > 394939404 , you know it since you understood what a "number" is (even if the numbers don't "exist"). and this is very different from "knowing" that god exists or that you are a prophet, since any correct mathematical theory predicts its own predicates , whereas religious or philpsophical sets of statements don't.
obviously you can choose not to believe it, you may choose to believe that in the "ultimate reality" the shape of the moon resembles that of a blade of grass or what your fantasy commands. indeed, your argument leads to just one conclusion , that "true" and "false" are useless concepts , and schrodinger and gauss or jesus christ and anubis aren't worh of interest more than any retarded in the street.
so, yes, you're technically able to claim to be napoleon "in the ultimate reality", but this sentence doesn't mean anything since you have no criteria to separate what has meaning and what doesn't.

Did you do a lot of acid, qaz, back in the 60s?

When I said "despite all the subsequent nonsense," I meant "notwithstanding everything you said afterwards." So I am saying that one CAN choose to believe in axioms, and everything else you said is irrelevant. I fail to see how that "applies to any proposition but is completely devoid of meaning."

That's about as far as I can track you on this rudderless illusion of meaning.

 

[qaz]

Did you do a lot of acid, qaz, back in the 60s?

i'm 24 years old, so no.

When I said "despite all the subsequent nonsense," I meant "notwithstanding everything you said afterwards." So I am saying that one CAN choose to believe in axioms, and everything else you said is irrelevant.

what did you understand when i said "you can't choose to believe in axioms"? obviously that meant that believing ,or not believing , in axioms is not up to choice, that you can't reject them, as oppoite to religions. therefore we can draw a line which separates the objective experience and the subjective one.

 

[Axe Elf]

what did you understand when i said "you can't choose to believe in axioms"? obviously that meant that believing ,or not believing , in axioms is not up to choice, that you can't reject them, as oppoite to religions. therefore we can draw a line which separates the objective experience and the subjective one.

But you CAN reject axioms, despite anything you might say to the contrary. In fact, your disagreement signifies that you are rejecting at least one of my axioms, namely, the definition of an axiom itself.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What drives materialists crazy is that consciousness cannot be ... studied in a laboratory.

Bad day for neuroscientists, I guess.

 

[qaz]

But you CAN reject axioms, despite anything you might say to the contrary. In fact, your disagreement signifies that you are rejecting at least one of my axioms, namely, the definition of an axiom itself.

mathematical axioms, i mean, obviously. nobody can reject them , differently from faiths, because they are the rules themselves by which humans organize experience - but i'm repeating myself.

 

[Axe Elf]

mathematical axioms, i mean, obviously. nobody can reject them , differently from faiths, because they are the rules themselves by which humans organize experience - but i'm repeating myself.

Yes, even mathematical axioms can be rejected, same as any other faith statements.

 

[qaz]

Yes, even mathematical axioms can be rejected, same as any other faith statements.

then how do you distinguish between what comes from fantasy and what should be considered objective even by yourself? you don't. therefore your statements, by definition, are confined to subjectivity and temporary belief, since you lack any criterion of truth. you're not being enlightened or radically skeptic , you're just being hypocritical.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

then how do you distinguish between what comes from fantasy and what should be considered objective even by yourself? you don't. therefore your statements, by definition, are confined to subjectivity and temporary belief, since you lack any criterion of truth. you're not being enlightened or radically skeptic , you're just being hypocritical.

But the whole definition of axiom includes the fact they can't be proven. Theoretically, it is conceivable that any given axiom could be disproven tomorrow. However, within the commonly accepted frames and paradigms, the current set of axioms APPEAR to be correct, according to such repeatable experiments and calculations we have fit them into, so far.

 

[qaz]

But the whole definition of axiom includes the fact they can't be proven. Theoretically, it is conceivable that any given axiom could be disproven tomorrow. However, within the commonly accepted frames and paradigms, the current set of axioms APPEAR to be correct, according to such repeatable experiments and calculations we have fit them into, so far.

in mathematics they don't need to be proven and that's it. but when we talk about consciousness we ought to explain why they are the best criteria, and the only possible ones, in order to separate fantasies and objectivity.
i just touched on the issue, if you want to examine it, i suggest you to read der aufbau der welt by rudolf carnap.

 

[sayak83]

But they are not directly apprehended. They are perceived by sensations, and the perceptions are then processed into symbols which you have faith in as approximations of reality. You do not experience reality directly, you only have faith that you are experiencing some approximation of reality.

And if you want to say that you actually DEFINE reality by what you have faith in, then that's just another way of saying the same thing--all facts are based in (defined by) the faith you have.

Pain is directly apprehended, obviously. Pain\Pleasure is not a perception of anything other. They happen to me directly without any intervening intermediary. So are all thoughts, feelings, hopes and fears. Again obviously.

 

[Phantasman]

I'm sure such beliefs give you comfort but I can't believe in something unless I have good reason to. So you don't have anything more to provide than that you believe that spirits exist? How did you first develop this belief?

It not about believing spirits exist. That sounds like what people put into movies. Shaded and transparent people.

It started off just going to a church when I was 12. It just felt new and a place I felt comfort. Like shade on a hot day. As I got older I drifted into and out of churches, going with friends, etc.

At 19, I was going through a lot of confusion. I experienced a feeling of worthlessness one day and started feeling a harsh sense of anxiety, almost fear. I drove my motorcycle to a friends house just to get my mind off of it. He wasn't there, but his dad was. He saw my displeasure and asked what was wrong. I told him I just didn't feel right, and he talked with me. He asked me if we could pray together and I got on my knee's and prayed with him.

During this prayer, I experienced something I never felt before. I complete feeling of being washed inside. A complete calmness, and an image in my mind of dark to brightness. I started to cry. I felt so at peace, with the mans words still be spoken in prayer. Nothing mattered at that moment but the words I was hearing, as I felt I was only mind without body.

I left feeling so great. My friend had been at a bowling alley, his dad told me and I wanted to go see him. When I got there, I walked up to him and said guess "what just happened?". He stared for a moment and just said "you found Christ, didn't you?". I asked if his dad had called him during the trip there and he said no. He could just tell by my elation that he had never seen in me before.

That's was the first experience in a long road of many.