Platonic Argument Against Materialism

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Can't agree with number 1, therefore I reject 2 and 3. Materialism is the belief that everything in the universe is made up of matter. No amount of mental gymnastics can avoid this definition. If one rejects materialism on a personal level that's a fine reason as any that you've personally found to your own belief. To prove materialism wrong you would need to prove monism itself as something wrong.

Please show me where in the world a perfect circle exists.
And yet so much of scientific / mathematical theory depends on this immaterial concept.

Especially:
If we can conceptualize a perfect circle, then perfect circles must exist in the brain.
Can you please show me a part of the brain that contains a perfect circle.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The Forms are what we call, today, Abstract Objects. They are not intended to be reified. They present no problem for materialism, which simply recognizes them as ideas.

Please show me where in the world a perfect circle exists.
And yet so much of scientific / mathematical theory depends on this immaterial concept.

Especially:
If we can conceptualize a perfect circle, then perfect circles must exist in the brain.
Can you please show me a part of the brain that contains a perfect circle.

 

[Willamena]

Please show me where in the world a perfect circle exists.
And yet so much of scientific / mathematical theory depends on this immaterial concept.

Especially:
If we can conceptualize a perfect circle, then perfect circles must exist in the brain.
Can you please show me a part of the brain that contains a perfect circle.

The materialist' position is that abstract objects do not exist, they are relegated (as the OP indicated) to be ideas, and ideas are relegated to be less than existent, or somehow extraneous to existence.

 

[Willamena]

But of course they are distinct from the object. Does anything that includes "having points" have to be a triangle? Does anything that has wetness have to be H2O? If you say no then you accept characteristics as something quite real, not bound to one thing. Further, could you physically show me the concept of pointedness, or could you only show me specific points?


You literally say here that they differ by their characteristics but that those characteristics aren't actually real. That's nonsense pure and simple. Either they're real or they are not. If you simply mean the term we use isn't objective then sure, but so what?

Like Lui, I see the world as being composed of information. Things exist as information, but some things are "possessed" by it --physical objects posses characteristics. That characteristics are a "placeholder" means that when a word like "pointy" is mentioned, our attention immediately passes right through the placeholder to rest with the object they are assigned to (characteristics are a type of "property," they are "owned" by the object). That's what I meant by "not distinct." It has no implications for its being real.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Ok, I've finally stopped laughing for long enough to address... why I was laughing.

The OP, in one sentence -

Materialism is false because we communicate ideas with language.

Of all of his hokey arguments against materialism, this one really takes the cake.

 

[Willamena]

I said earlier that characteristics are real, but I've thought a bit about it while emptying the litterbox (perhaps a symbolic act). I'm going to take a neutral stance on whether characteristics and other properties are real, and here's why. Properties are a type of information whose sole purpose is to be that placeholder. They live to inform other things (to have their information copied and pasted to shape other things), that's their sole job. In some people's ontological model of the world, characteristics can inform themselves; for me, I'm going to keep the stance that there is no need for information to inform itself --it is enough that it does its job, it doesn't have to get paid for doing more than that. The characteristic "real/unreal" informs certain physical objects, it is entirely unnecessary for it to inform itself.

I already take the same stance for that single piece of information that informs the whole world in its existence, including properties (so is not in itself a property), namely "true/untrue," so this is a small step in clarification.

 

[shunyadragon]

Please show me where in the world a perfect circle exists.
And yet so much of scientific / mathematical theory depends on this immaterial concept.

Math including concepts in geometry, like perfect(?) geometric figures, are descriptive useful tools of science, technology, and every day life, and there is no expectation that "perfect" geometric figures exist in the real world. Nonetheless near perfect to perfect physical figures have been created by our technology down to the micro physical scale. For example: Carbon buckyballs have been created and observed in nature as perfect on the molecular scale.

Especially:
If we can conceptualize a perfect circle, then perfect circles must exist in the brain.
Can you please show me a part of the brain that contains a perfect circle.

Must? that is an odd criteria and not meaningful, actually the present technology of neurology can locate where in the brain such thoughts exist.

You are also drifting into an 'appeal to ignorance' to justify your argument.

 

[1137]

No you're not, you're describing subjective qualia.

The problem with the first premise of your argument is that there is no way we can know that Platonic forms have objective existence and clearly significant reason to doubt this. What is the compelling evidence against these forms simply being observed commonalities or regularities in the physical world? What, for example, would roundness mean in a world with no round things in it? Could roundness even exist in a world devoid of round things? Can you think of a Platonic form that is not approximated by some physically existing reality? Can you think of a shape that does not exist in reality? Why not? Because Platonic forms are abstractions not impositions. There is no more reason to believe that the forms of physical entities are imposed on them from outside of physical reality than to believe that they are abstracted from within physical reality as apparent 'universals' that represent broad commonalities of physical attributes among existing entities. Is there?

I've never suggested that the forms and matter are not related, in fact I've always said the opposite?

Your first assumption remains clearly false.

Yes, materialism, philosophical naturalism, relies on objective consistent evidence of our physical existence. Define 'external world.' It simply makes the assumption that there is no other worlds other than our physical existence verifiable, for which there is no objective evidence for any other world other than our physical existence.

Yes, physicalism does make the fideistic assumption that all is physical. We don't even really need forms to reject it, we have property dualism of the mind and brain.

The materialist' position is that abstract objects do not exist, they are relegated (as the OP indicated) to be ideas, and ideas are relegated to be less than existent, or somehow extraneous to existence.

Yeah exactly. So any pointed shape partaking in pointedness would be "just an idea." This itself destroys materialism because then we're just making up a world based on ideas, not describing it. You've entirely clarified my argument here.

Ok, I've finally stopped laughing for long enough to address... why I was laughing.

The OP, in one sentence -

Materialism is false because we communicate ideas with language.

Of all of his hokey arguments against materialism, this one really takes the cake.

Have you ever once understood an argument? The language doesn't really matter. It would take a SERIOUS moron to think that triangles don't exist because they aren't inherently called that, we made it up. It would be like saying earth doesn't actually exist because it's not objectively called earth Hahahaha. Always a genius SSE!

Math including concepts in geometry, like perfect(?) geometric figures, are descriptive useful tools of science, technology, and every day life, and there is no expectation that "perfect" geometric figures exist in the real world. Nonetheless near perfect to perfect physical figures have been created by our technology down to the micro physical scale. For example: Carbon buckyballs have been created and observed in nature as perfect on the molecular scale.



Must? that is an odd criteria and not meaningful, actually the present technology of neurology can locate where in the brain such thoughts exist.

You are also drifting into an 'appeal to ignorance' to justify your argument.

I simply wanted to comment on the irony of your reference to mathematics, where the most widely accepted position is mathematical Platonism.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Have you ever once understood an argument? The language doesn't really matter. It would take a SERIOUS moron to think that triangles don't exist because they aren't inherently called that, we made it up. It would be like saying earth doesn't actually exist because it's not objectively called earth Hahahaha. Always a genius SSE!

Well, you know what they say; The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results.

So no, I wasn't really expecting you to grep what I wrote, nor would I expect any argument to sway you one iota from your faith.

Pretty much everyone has already shredded this attempt to smithereens anyway, not much left to do here. Carry on.

 

[Willamena]

I've never suggested that the forms and matter are not related, in fact I've always said the opposite?



Yes, physicalism does make the fideistic assumption that all is physical. We don't even really need forms to reject it, we have property dualism of the mind and brain.



Yeah exactly. So any pointed shape partaking in pointedness would be "just an idea." This itself destroys materialism because then we're just making up a world based on ideas, not describing it. You've entirely clarified my argument here.



Have you ever once understood an argument? The language doesn't really matter. It would take a SERIOUS moron to think that triangles don't exist because they aren't inherently called that, we made it up. It would be like saying earth doesn't actually exist because it's not objectively called earth Hahahaha. Always a genius SSE!

Language isn't just making up labels for stuff. Words are placeholders for the ideas they represent---so when I key words at you, you look right through them to see ideas that I have thought. Philosophically, the subject of ideas is a topic of language.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Language isn't just making up labels for stuff. Words are placeholders for the ideas they represent---so when I key words at you, you look right through them to see ideas that I have thought. Philosophically, the subject of ideas is a topic of language.

Here, have a cigar. You are the winner!

You're wasting your time though.

Language is a series of markers that invoke conceptualization in others that share similar experience and language. To conclude from this that therefore the marker IS the thing is..well it's hard to take that very seriously to be honest.

 

[1137]

Well, you know what they say; The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results.

So no, I wasn't really expecting you to grep what I wrote, nor would I expect any argument to sway you one iota from your faith.

Pretty much everyone has already shredded this attempt to smithereens anyway, not much left to do here. Carry on.

See, I've always respected you for knowing you have nothing to say. I've never seen you seriously attempt to defend or refute or position, and I realized a long time ago it's because you have nothing to add. But unlike most in your situation, you embrace this instead of arguing nonsense. I like that.

Language isn't just making up labels for stuff. Words are placeholders for the ideas they represent---so when I key words at you, you look right through them to see ideas that I have thought. Philosophically, the subject of ideas is a topic of language.

What we call things is irrelevant to what their objective nature is. Things would continue to exist without minds to recognize them, at least if you believe in objectivity. The argument of ideas and language is all just one big red herring.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It actually makes sense that you would see it that way. We operate on completely different levels.

 

[Willamena]

What we call things is irrelevant to what their objective nature is. Things would continue to exist without minds to recognize them, at least if you believe in objectivity. The argument of ideas and language is all just one big red herring.

Language is why most discussions on RF eventually result in semantic dispute. Semantics is our means of promoting understanding by sharing our unique ideas about things.

When I refer to pointiness, I use the placeholder to refer to nothing more or less than an object's nature--but it's not pointiness's nature, pointiness is the object's nature.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

 

[Kilgore Trout]

1. Materialism requires Platonism to be correct.

2. Platonism proves materialism incorrect.

3. Therefore, it would be paradoxical for materialism to be correct.

Why number 1? Platonism recognizes things like natural kinds and the existence of Forms - objective characteristics that provide the essence of objects. If Platonism is not true then all characteristics, identification, etc are simple mental fabrications. Without it science itself would not be possible, for science relies on the being objective characteristics to study.

Why number 2? Rather obviously Forms and natural kinds and such are not material. If immaterial things are necessary for the world then materialism cannot be true.

Why 3? Because to reject Platonism would reject all that led to and supports physicalism. If characteristics and categories are only assigned by the brain, this is the exact opposite of materialism. And yet this is one of the most common objections to Platonism.

Come back and read this after you sober up.

Don't sweat it. We all do embarrassing things while intoxicated.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, physicalism does make the fideistic assumption that all is physical. We don't even really need forms to reject it, we have property dualism of the mind and brain.

This line will get you nowhere. Physicalism does not make a fideist assumption. Please describe what you mean here by fedeist. Property dualism you appeal to here requires subjective assumptions concerning the relationship between the brain and mind and consciousness. Science can provide an adequate explanation even though all questions have not been answered concerning this relationship. To go any further you have to 'appeal to ignorance,' and the claims of the subjective nature thought, which is not a problem for science.

I simply wanted to comment on the irony of your reference to mathematics, where the most widely accepted position is mathematical Platonism.

Nothing wrong with being descriptive when math is applied to science. In this way math has a useful purpose and works very well By the way, science is basically 'descriptive' in nature, and it also works very well when consistently describing our physical existence and applying it to technology.

 

[1137]

It actually makes sense that you would see it that way. We operate on completely different levels.

Oh that's for damn sure, at least there we can agree!

Come back and read this after you sober up.

Don't sweat it. We all do embarrassing things while intoxicated.

You cookie cutter atheists are my dose of daily comedy. Insults instead of refutation, how shocking!!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You cookie cutter atheists are my dose of daily comedy. Insults instead of refutation, how shocking!!

I see your sense of humor is as nonsensical as your attempts at argumentation.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Oh that's for damn sure, at least there we can agree!

Indeed. I'll just be over here waiting for you to post version 8 or 9 or whatever you are on of this exact same thread.