Platonic Argument Against Materialism

[siti]

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

I never suggested you suggested they were. But what I am saying is that there is no compelling reason to assume that 'ideal forms' are 'other' than abstractions from an existing and fundamentally physical reality. Is there? (he said, once again repeating an unanswered question).

 

[1137]

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 mean Fideism, as in belief over evidence and reason, which perfectly fits physicalism. Property dualism requires nothing subjective at all, it's rooted in both philosophy and science. There is no appeal to ignorance.

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.

What I meant was simply the irony of using math when most of mathematics accepts Platonism.

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

No humor, just a fascinating observation.

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.

Lol pseudo-philosopher is upset at refining arguments he can't refute. I love you man.

I never suggested you suggested they were. But what I am saying is that there is no compelling reason to assume that 'ideal forms' are 'other' than abstractions from an existing and fundamentally physical reality. Is there? (he said, once again repeating an unanswered question).

Unless you can physically show me "roundness" then yeah, the is.

 

[siti]

Unless you can physically show me "roundness" then yeah, the is.

O...K...so unless we can physically observe "roundness" (for example), we must assume that "roundness" is objectively and primordially real but definitely not physical? Still not seeing this as a convincing argument I'm afraid. Still not seeing what possible use "roundness" would be in a world with no round things. Still waiting for you to name and describe a shape that does not exist.

 

[1137]

O...K...so unless we can physically observe "roundness" (for example), we must assume that "roundness" is objectively and primordially real but definitely not physical? Still not seeing this as a convincing argument I'm afraid. Still not seeing what possible use "roundness" would be in a world with no round things. Still waiting for you to name and describe a shape that does not exist.

Why would there be no round things? Here you go again pretending my position claims forms and matter are separated, and I fully expect you to once again claim to have never suggested such a thing lol. I'm well aware that you cannot provide what I ask for, it's exactly why physicalism is fideistic.

 

[siti]

Here you go again pretending my position claims forms and matter are separated

OK - lets go back - what does "Platonism" mean in your OP? If - as it seems by the rest of your argument opposing it to physicalism - you mean "Platonic Realism" then that means, by definition, that you are claiming that universals exist independently of any particular instantiation. Therefore there could, in a world described by Platonic Realism, be universals that were never instantiated - e.g. there could conceivably be "roundness" but no round things. Universalia ante res - universals before things.

Aristotle - a keen observer of the real world - disagreed and felt that although there are such things as universals, they exist only because there are physically existing examples of them. Universalia in rebus - universals in things.

The Aristotelian view (of universals) is compatible with physicalism, the Platonic view is not. The Aristotelian view is compatible with forms and matter being inseparable. The Platonic view is not.

So who is doing the pretending? If form and matter are inseparable, then Plato was wrong (about the independent existence of universals and particulars). It has nothing to do with whether the universals emerge from brains or not.

 

[shunyadragon]

I mean Fideism, as in belief over evidence and reason, which perfectly fits physicalism. Property dualism requires nothing subjective at all, it's rooted in both philosophy and science. There is no appeal to ignorance.

Appealing to philosophy again gets you nowhere. Lets see some science.

What I meant was simply the irony of using math when most of mathematics accepts Platonism.

I am not sure where this is going. An agreement on certain aspects does not mean mathematics accepts Platonism. Mathematics does not accept anything, because math is simply math and nothing else. Claiming math accepts Platonism is like people claiming to 'hate math,' math is indifferent to all this foolishness.

No humor, just a fascinating observation.

Nothing fascinating here.

Unless you can physically show me "roundness" then yeah, the is.

Buckyballs are perfectly round.

 

[1137]

OK - lets go back - what does "Platonism" mean in your OP? If - as it seems by the rest of your argument opposing it to physicalism - you mean "Platonic Realism" then that means, by definition, that you are claiming that universals exist independently of any particular instantiation. Therefore there could, in a world described by Platonic Realism, be universals that were never instantiated - e.g. there could conceivably be "roundness" but no round things. Universalia ante res - universals before things.

Aristotle - a keen observer of the real world - disagreed and felt that although there are such things as universals, they exist only because there are physically existing examples of them. Universalia in rebus - universals in things.

The Aristotelian view (of universals) is compatible with physicalism, the Platonic view is not. The Aristotelian view is compatible with forms and matter being inseparable. The Platonic view is not.

So who is doing the pretending? If form and matter are inseparable, then Plato was wrong (about the independent existence of universals and particulars). It has nothing to do with whether the universals emerge from brains or not.

I would say matter and Form are both reliant on another to an extent.

Appealing to philosophy again gets you nowhere. Lets see some science.

Hahaha, why don't you explain why science is superior without relying on argumentation . In seriousness though, I'd recommend at least some study into psychological science.

I am not sure where this is going. An agreement on certain aspects does not mean mathematics accepts Platonism. Mathematics does not accept anything, because math is simply math and nothing else. Claiming math accepts Platonism is like people claiming to 'hate math,' math is indifferent to all this foolishness.

Lol mathematics is a field of study which can indeed say things, how absurd!

Nothing fascinating here.

As someone interested in psychology and religious cultures, I highly disagree.

Buckyballs are perfectly round.

That's pretty irrelevant, they're still a buckyball and not roundness. They simply partake in roundness. Unless all round things are buckyballs?

 

[siti]

I would say matter and Form are both reliant on another to an extent.

So would I - but how is this view "Platonism" and how does it disprove physicalism?

 

[shunyadragon]

Hahaha, why don't you explain why science is superior without relying on argumentation . In seriousness though, I'd recommend at least some study into psychological science.

Air ball!!!!!!!!! No answer. I was a Psych major for two years, The three stooges; Duck, Bob and Weave par excellence!

Put your science where your mouth is!

Still waiting . . .

That's pretty irrelevant, they're still a buckyball and not roundness.They simply partake in roundness. Unless all round things are buckyballs?

Your argument is pure obfuscation.

Perfectly round buckyballs represent perfect roundness no matter how you consider it. Many things are round, which represents roundness, no problem.

 

[shunyadragon]

QUOTE="1137, post: 5166999, member: 54069"]I mean Fideism, as in belief over evidence and reason, which perfectly fits physicalism. Property dualism requires nothing subjective at all, it's rooted in both philosophy and science. There is no appeal to ignorance. [/quote]

Science is not belief over evidence and reason. Science is based on objective evidence and reason.

Please, demonstrate 'evidence' that is otherwise.

Appealing to philosophy again gets you nowhere. Lets see some science.

 

[1137]

Air ball!!!!!!!!! No answer. I was a Psych major for two years, The three stooges; Duck, Bob and Weave par excellence!

Put your science where your mouth is!

Still waiting . . .

Yeah right! You studied psych yet don't understand the difference between mind and brain? The problem for physicalism is precisely that we cannot address the mind in a direct, scientific way. We basically have to rely on statistical patterns, and even then each person is still seen as a unique individual. There's a reason therapy is recommended with medication, because it's realized you cannot address mental health issues in a physical way. Counselors teach meta-cognition, that don't tell clients to address their physical make up. And of course no physicalist has yet to physically show something mental. It rejects the null based on assumption and belief, simple as that.

Your argument is pure obfuscation.

Perfectly round buckyballs represent perfect roundness no matter how you consider it. Many things are round, which represents roundness, no problem.

The buckyball contains many other characteristics other than roundness. A cannot be non A, it's so simple that it's the foundation of all knowledge and logic.

QUOTE="1137, post: 5166999, member: 54069"]I mean Fideism, as in belief over evidence and reason, which perfectly fits physicalism. Property dualism requires nothing subjective at all, it's rooted in both philosophy and science. There is no appeal to ignorance.

Science is not belief over evidence and reason. Science is based on objective evidence.

Please, demonstrate 'evidence' that is otherwise.

Appealing to philosophy again gets you nowhere. Lets see some science.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say science is believe over evidence, please quote where I did. I said physicalism is belief over reason and evidence.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Lol pseudo-philosopher is upset at refining arguments he can't refute. I love you man.

Wait, this is the refined version? Looks the same to me.

All that's left is your descent into your 'the brain is a radio receiver' routine. Can hardly wait.

Hey, you know who else habitually attacks prevailing theories in attempt to lend credibility to their beliefs, while steering clear of the beliefs themselves?(with about the same level of success).

Hint, they really don't like evolution.

Anyhow, since you are playing at being open to dialogue, did you ever solve that problem I stumped you with 3 or 4 iterations of this same thread ago before you gave up the ghost on that one?You remember, we follow this to your inevitable conclusion; The 'brain is a radio receiver' for this etherial platonic conciousness of yours, and the problem of arbitrary inclusion presents itself? Even if you were right just being conscious is not enough, you need will, intelligence, and several other factors to constitute a mind.

So basically you have the same fragile and frankly, absurd argument that doesn't even lead to the conclusion you are looking for as you always do.

One can only wonder why you hate the real world so much to lead to these mental gymnastics that frankly, I think you don't even fully believe yourself, you just REALLY want to.

Otherwise, why would you keep bringing it up every week or two?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah right! You studied psych yet don't understand the difference between mind and brain? The problem for physicalism is precisely that we cannot address the mind in a direct, scientific way. We basically have to rely on statistical patterns, and even then each person is still seen as a unique individual. There's a reason therapy is recommended with medication, because it's realized you cannot address mental health issues in a physical way. Counselors teach meta-cognition, that don't tell clients to address their physical make up. And of course no physicalist has yet to physically show something mental. It rejects the null based on assumption and belief, simple as that.

I very well understand the difference between the mind and the brain, so does science. Science has studied and demonstrated many many things mental. It does not reject the null based on the assumption of belief. Science simply cannot address belief and religion, because of its subjective nature of belief, and Methodological Naturalism. This does not mean science cannot study and demonstrate the physical nature of belief in the mind and it's relationship to the brain.

Still waiting . . . Appealing to philosophy again gets you nowhere. Lets see some science.

You are still 'appealing to ignorance' in what you beleive science cannot do concerning the relationship between the brain and the mind.

The buckyball contains many other characteristics other than roundness. A cannot be non A, it's so simple that it's the foundation of all knowledge and logic.

Yes all round things have more attributes of roundness, but the reality is all round things have obvious attributes of roundness tht can be observe objectively and quantified. There is no claim here that 'A cannot be non A.'

I didn't say science is believe over evidence, please quote where I did. I said physicalism is belief over reason and evidence.

Your accusation and definition of fideism.

I mean Fideism, as in belief over evidence and reason, which perfectly fits physicalism. Property dualism requires nothing subjective at all, it's rooted in both philosophy and science. There is no appeal to ignorance.

Appealing to philosophy again gets you nowhere. Lets see some science.

What evidence can you provide, best with academic references, That the mind is in some way distinct from the brain? There is in reality no objective evidence that mind and consciousness is not a direct product of the brain.

Still waiting . . .

 

[Willamena]

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.

The materialist doesn't see it as a pointy shape participating in pointiness, so that has no effect on their view. They see it as a shape resplendent in its pointiness.

It's like a Christian saying, "God will send you to Hell" to an atheist. They don't believe in God or Hell, so it has no effect on their view.

 

[1137]

I very well understand the difference between the mind and the brain, so does science. Science has studied and demonstrated many many things mental. It does not reject the null based on the assumption of belief. Science simply cannot address belief and religion, because of its subjective nature of belief, and Methodological Naturalism. This does not mean science cannot study and demonstrate the physical nature of belief in the mind and it's relationship to the brain.

Still waiting . . . Appealing to philosophy again gets you nowhere. Lets see some science.

You are still 'appealing to ignorance' in what you beleive science cannot do concerning the relationship between the brain and the mind.



Yes all round things have more attributes of roundness, but the reality is all round things have obvious attributes of roundness tht can be observe objectively and quantified. There is no claim here that 'A cannot be non A.'





Your accusation and definition of fideism.



Appealing to philosophy again gets you nowhere. Lets see some science.

What evidence can you provide, best with academic references, That the mind is in some way distinct from the brain? There is in reality no objective evidence that mind and consciousness is not a direct product of the brain.

Still waiting . . .

I gave you science ya fideist. What do you think all those psych facts I have you are? You can poke at a brain, directly measure the changes, but you cannot do this with the contents of someone’s mind. Practices such as counseling can help to illustrate the difficulty in understanding the consciousness and subjective experiences of another. Yet another difference in properties is that the physical brain acts in deterministic, predictable ways. This is not the case with the mind, as easily showed by something like lucid dreaming. We can understand and measure how the brain is working during lucid dreaming, but the experience the dreamer is engaged in does not need to match reality in the slightest (LaBerge, 1990). Heck, even sitting around day dreaming the mind is free to wander despite the brain acting in very normal, material ways. In short, there is rather clearly a kind of property dualism between the mind and brain. Even if we assume that mind or brain arises from the other in some way, it is clear that there is a property dualism between the two. Any form of monism is going to show one-way causality. If the brain exists and completely creates the mind, then the brain will always cause an effect in the mind, not the other way around. Likewise, if only the immaterial or consciousness exist, then that would always precede physical change (which is obviously not the case). Neither of these are what we see in reality. Yes, obviously things like ingesting drugs or messing with the brain can cause cognitive changes, which gives material monism a slight edge over immaterial monism, but less commonly recognized is that this works both ways. For example, the belief in a placebo working, even when patients are aware it is a placebo, can lead to significant change in pain levels (Kaptcjuk, Friedlander, Kelley, Sanchez, Kokkotou, Singer, Kowalczykowski, Miller, Kirsch, and Lembo, 2010). Placebos, by definition, do not cause any physiological changes in the body. If we take away the belief in the placebo working, it will become ineffective. This study shows that deception is not even required, just the positive belief. This then leads to a change in pain, which corresponds to the physiological properties of pain relief. The entire field of cognitive therapy is based on hundreds of empirically validated studies, yet put absolutely no focus on the physiology of the brain (Beck, 2010). Things like prejudice are close to being explained in almost entirely metal terms, with no reliance on physiology (Duckitt, 2001). Even in children who don’t have advanced reasoning abilities or higher cognitive thought, it has been shown that just negative self-talk can have an overwhelming effect on their mental states (Treadwell & Kendall, 1996).Therapists work with things like visualization, self-talk, meditation, coping mechanisms, recognizing triggers, and so on. They do not, and it would be pointless to, ask patients to alter their neurotransmitter levels, the conditioning of their brain and mind, and things like that. It is addressed entirely from the mental side of things, because psychology inherently recognizes the property dualism behind the mind and body. While it is often suggested that psychology accepts material reductionism, such a position would actually undermine and destroy the entire field, and show its objective findings (paradoxically) false. I can also say from years of experience in academic psychology, and professional social work, that I have not met a peer or professor who accepted material reductionism.

The materialist doesn't see it as a pointy shape participating in pointiness, so that has no effect on their view. They see it as a shape resplendent in its pointiness.

It's like a Christian saying, "God will send you to Hell" to an atheist. They don't believe in God or Hell, so it has no effect on their view.

Yes, I know physicalism rejects aspects of reality to fit their needs, like mental events. The sad fact of the matter for them is that pointed ness is in fact am objective trait many things partake in, simple as that. Do I really need to show you multiple pointy things?

 

[1137]

Wait, this is the refined version? Looks the same to me.

All that's left is your descent into your 'the brain is a radio receiver' routine. Can hardly wait.

Hey, you know who else habitually attacks prevailing theories in attempt to lend credibility to their beliefs, while steering clear of the beliefs themselves?(with about the same level of success).

Hint, they really don't like evolution.

Anyhow, since you are playing at being open to dialogue, did you ever solve that problem I stumped you with 3 or 4 iterations of this same thread ago before you gave up the ghost on that one?You remember, we follow this to your inevitable conclusion; The 'brain is a radio receiver' for this etherial platonic conciousness of yours, and the problem of arbitrary inclusion presents itself? Even if you were right just being conscious is not enough, you need will, intelligence, and several other factors to constitute a mind.

So basically you have the same fragile and frankly, absurd argument that doesn't even lead to the conclusion you are looking for as you always do.

One can only wonder why you hate the real world so much to lead to these mental gymnastics that frankly, I think you don't even fully believe yourself, you just REALLY want to.

Otherwise, why would you keep bringing it up every week or two?

Ah my bad, your incapable of seeing the difference between arguments related to a topic. Don't feel bad, I'd expect nothing less of you! I don't see what argument you're making about will and intelligence, they both require consciousness. Can you please show me will or intelligence in a direct, physical way?

Of course I'm well aware you'll neither elaborate nor answer. You just keep these posts coming to brighten my day!

 

[Willamena]

I gave you science ya fideist. What do you think all those psych facts I have you are? You can poke at a brain, directly measure the changes, but you cannot do this with the contents of someone’s mind. Practices such as counseling can help to illustrate the difficulty in understanding the consciousness and subjective experiences of another. Yet another difference in properties is that the physical brain acts in deterministic, predictable ways. This is not the case with the mind, as easily showed by something like lucid dreaming. We can understand and measure how the brain is working during lucid dreaming, but the experience the dreamer is engaged in does not need to match reality in the slightest (LaBerge, 1990). Heck, even sitting around day dreaming the mind is free to wander despite the brain acting in very normal, material ways. In short, there is rather clearly a kind of property dualism between the mind and brain. Even if we assume that mind or brain arises from the other in some way, it is clear that there is a property dualism between the two. Any form of monism is going to show one-way causality. If the brain exists and completely creates the mind, then the brain will always cause an effect in the mind, not the other way around. Likewise, if only the immaterial or consciousness exist, then that would always precede physical change (which is obviously not the case). Neither of these are what we see in reality. Yes, obviously things like ingesting drugs or messing with the brain can cause cognitive changes, which gives material monism a slight edge over immaterial monism, but less commonly recognized is that this works both ways. For example, the belief in a placebo working, even when patients are aware it is a placebo, can lead to significant change in pain levels (Kaptcjuk, Friedlander, Kelley, Sanchez, Kokkotou, Singer, Kowalczykowski, Miller, Kirsch, and Lembo, 2010). Placebos, by definition, do not cause any physiological changes in the body. If we take away the belief in the placebo working, it will become ineffective. This study shows that deception is not even required, just the positive belief. This then leads to a change in pain, which corresponds to the physiological properties of pain relief. The entire field of cognitive therapy is based on hundreds of empirically validated studies, yet put absolutely no focus on the physiology of the brain (Beck, 2010). Things like prejudice are close to being explained in almost entirely metal terms, with no reliance on physiology (Duckitt, 2001). Even in children who don’t have advanced reasoning abilities or higher cognitive thought, it has been shown that just negative self-talk can have an overwhelming effect on their mental states (Treadwell & Kendall, 1996).Therapists work with things like visualization, self-talk, meditation, coping mechanisms, recognizing triggers, and so on. They do not, and it would be pointless to, ask patients to alter their neurotransmitter levels, the conditioning of their brain and mind, and things like that. It is addressed entirely from the mental side of things, because psychology inherently recognizes the property dualism behind the mind and body. While it is often suggested that psychology accepts material reductionism, such a position would actually undermine and destroy the entire field, and show its objective findings (paradoxically) false. I can also say from years of experience in academic psychology, and professional social work, that I have not met a peer or professor who accepted material reductionism.



Yes, I know physicalism rejects aspects of reality to fit their needs, like mental events. The sad fact of the matter for them is that pointed ness is in fact am objective trait many things partake in, simple as that. Do I really need to show you multiple pointy things?

For the materialist, it isn't rejecting bits of reality, but affirming reality.

That (strawman) is why your arguments fail.

 

[1137]

For the materialist, it isn't rejecting bits of reality, but affirming reality.

That (strawman) is why your atguments fail.

That's identical to saying "for creationists, the earth is 6,000 years old, so denying evolution is affirming reality, and evolution is a straw man."

 

[Willamena]

That's identical to saying "for creationists, the earth is 6,000 years old, so denying evolution is affirming reality, and evolution is a straw man."

Not quite.

It's just saying that unless and until you understand the materialist, building their side of the argument for them, and arguing against that, is going to fail.

Platonism does not figure into Aristoleanism (to coin a word).

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm just here to remind that nobody actually uses the term 'fideism' in the way you're using it. That it's not 'belief over evidence' but a specific set of arguments for gods and religious experience being counterintuitive to pragmatic debate. The argument that religious experience is ineffable and unavailable to reasoned dialogue. It came from the Latin breakdown of the faith system sola fide (By faith alone. As opposed to sola scriptura, sola gracia and others.)
The closest fideistic argument out of that context is
A. Pascal's wager, which argues religious experience is ineffable but reasoning points to faith giving one a cost-free gain.
B. The counter to hard solipsism can't be reached by reason.

But just saying that because someone doesn't accept your arguments against materialism makes them a fideist is a really inappropriate use of the term. And (ironically) a bad faith argument, to boot.