Platonic Argument Against Materialism

[David T]

i haven't studied platonism enough to really offer a concise opinion but I am aware of platonic forms.


but I wonder if the theories on creation of the universe lends itself to the same idea of some conscious energy creating all these myriad forms.

the only problem western science has with the idea of this energy is having intelligence/consciousness. most science wants to believe it's random and chaotic. thats scientism.

That's the $64,000,000 (accounting for inflation) question. In order to come up with the correct answer one also has to account for the one that gives the answer. I was invited to a religious studies group at a local university. I was planning on going and saying that i was a part of a research group studying, religious studies groups who studied religious groups who study their texts. I was also going to say that there was a different group, who studied my group, who was studying their group, studying religion, as religion studied their text!!! Ohbexactly like my avatar!!! Curious what's all this "studying" leads to!! In greeknmuthos, As narrcisis studied his reflection he could not see that there was anything more beautiful than what he was studying!!!! Apparently their might be some truth in those old dusty "myths" as theologians labeled them "scientifically"
So long ago!! My degree btw.

 

[David T]

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).

Is a human literally separate from a chimpanzee? Hell in the case of Aristotle Plato is an east side New Yorker a different species than an SO. CAL. Individual? Oh **** you are correct my mistake sorry!!

 

[David T]

Trees are indifferent on the topic, so it seems the topic is only relevant to an extremely tiny small new branch on the tree of life called the university which btw is self convinced it's the genisis of everything. Its not, it's new, thus the most uninformed and most primative in its self levitating ivory towerness Comically absurd and definitely not socrates at all.

 

[viole]

Yeah exactly, materialism sees them as simply ideas. They are not simply ideas, characteristics objectively exist, and they HAVE to for materialism to even make sense as a confused position. Like no materialist would ever actually apply this line of reasoning in practice. If I described my coffee table as short, black, and rectangular, assuming I'm not just lying for whatever reason, I'm not describing ideas, I'm describing objectively existent characteristics.

Are you sure?

- short: space is relative. and relational. There are no absolutely short things. Even for a materialist
- black: that is subjective. If that coffee table reflected ultraviolet, it would look ultraviolet to anyone with the senses to detect that. What is objective is its spectrum of emission.
- rectangular: that is closer to objectivity, even though it is an approximation. And no materialist would say that rectangularity is material.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

Is a human literally separate from a chimpanzee? Hell in the case of Aristotle Plato is an east side New Yorker a different species than an SO. CAL. Individual? Oh **** you are correct my mistake sorry!!

Speciation draws us, we and the other great apes, together, rather than separating us. That's why all those Christians in the 19th Century were up in arms, thinking that Darwin had lumped them together with chimpanzees.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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!

No, I'm perfectly capable. If only your song had a second note, I would address that too.

I'm not sure if you are deflecting or you still don't get it, but past experience points to dishonesty. I guess we'll see.

But one more time me for the gallery. Consciousness is one aspect of a mind, pure consciousness on its own is not intelligent, nor willful, nor motivated nor capable to think or do anything. To get to your conclusion you need to mush a bunch of your 'platonic forms' together which you have not been able to address.

Not that you have laid out an argument for, nor an understanding of, Plato's ideas. It's just that even if you were to up your game and lay out something even halfway cogent and coherent it still wouldn't get you where you are trying to go.

Bruce Lee would have called it 'dry land swimming'

 

[1137]

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.

Good to know, though frustrating to pretend me disagreeing with an argument is the same as the argument being based solely on faith.

 

[shunyadragon]

I gave you science ya fideist.

As noted this a classic misuse of the term for fideism, and it goes down hill from there.

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,

All the above can be explained by a natural relationship between the brain and the mind.

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.

The field of psychology is based on Methodological Naturalism is grounded the scientific methods that are falsifiable

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.

Anecdotal claims do not fly like a bull frog with wings. References please. Be specific on references for your claims of the rejection of methodological naturalism.

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?

Methodological Naturalism rejects no aspects of reality that can be falsified by scientific methods. The above is over flowing with vain attempts at arguing from ignorance to justify your argument.

Multiple pointy things, like cone heads, are meaningless in this argument, or any legitimate argument.

 

[1137]

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).

Yeah, we're done here if you can't understand the difference between trying to show how reality is and trying to define an incorrect position. The sad fact of the matter for you is that there is pointedness, and many things partake in it, yet this cannot be physically accessed. Really doesn't matter what the wrong position thinks, thanks to something magical known as objective truth.

No, I'm perfectly capable. If only your song had a second note, I would address that too.

I'm not sure if you are deflecting or you still don't get it, but past experience points to dishonesty. I guess we'll see.

But one more time me for the gallery. Consciousness is one aspect of a mind, pure consciousness on its own is not intelligent, nor willful, nor motivated nor capable to think or do anything. To get to your conclusion you need to mush a bunch of your 'platonic forms' together which you have not been able to address.

Not that you have laid out an argument for, nor an understanding of, Plato's ideas. It's just that even if you were to up your game and lay out something even halfway cogent and coherent it still wouldn't get you where you are trying to go.

Bruce Lee would have called it 'dry land swimming'

Ah yes, I don't agree precisely with Plato so can't be right, I forget you're actually RHP sometimes and so would see it that way. But Nah, things evolve. I'm really not sure why you're caught up on consciousness, you see unable to separate arguments from each other, like thinking this is anything more than a refutation of materialism.

 

[1137]

As noted this a classic misuse of the term for fideism, and it goes down hill from there.



All the above can be explained by a natural relationship between the brain and the mind.



The field of psychology is based on Methodological Naturalism is grounded the scientific methods that are falsifiable



Anecdotal claims do not fly like a bull frog with wings. References please.



Methodological Naturalism rejects no aspects of reality that can be falsified by scientific methods. The above is over flowing with vain attempts at arguing from ignorance to justify your argument.

Multiple pointy things, like cone heads, are meaningless in this argument, or any legitimate argument.

Sorry buddy, once you start ignoring studies and an entire field of science to get your way I have to ignore. Funny... my ignore list is mostly physicalists and creationists, they're just so damn similar!

 

[1137]

I've decided to stick to my DIRs for now, I just am way too exhausted from this week to keep arguing against blind faith.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry buddy, once you start ignoring studies and an entire field of science to get your way I have to ignore. Funny... my ignore list is mostly physicalists and creationists, they're just so damn similar!

No studies cited so far, and no references documenting the rejection of Methodological Naturalism in the field of psychology, nor an other related science.

You are hiding in the blue smoke and mirrors and unable, respond with a coherent argument and documentation, and awkwarly misusing terminology like 'fideism.'

 

[Willamena]

Yeah, we're done here if you can't understand the difference between trying to show how reality is and trying to define an incorrect position. The sad fact of the matter for you is that there is pointedness, and many things partake in it, yet this cannot be physically accessed. Really doesn't matter what the wrong position thinks, thanks to something magical known as objective truth.

Pointiness is objective and an idea. It seems to me that might be the turning point where perspectives part ways.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Good to know, though frustrating to pretend me disagreeing with an argument is the same as the argument being based solely on faith.

Thems the breaks of perspective. If they don't accept that you can reach a compelling argument against materialism/physicalism (If we're using them interchangeably in this contect), then they're going to conclude it takes either mistaken reasoning or faith to reach that conclusion instead.
Lots of YE creationists get frustrated with the same thing because they firmly believe YEC isn't a faith based assumption but a reasonable conclusion. I'm not comparing the value of logical arguments for YEC to logical arguments for substance dualism, just illustrating that even the best intentions to not make someone feel that way might still have that effect if you come to an impasse where you say, 'I don't agree with or understand how you think this data or philosophy can reasonably bring you to this conclusion.'
That's something I imagine both of us have done with YEC, I do with substance dualism, and you do with substance monism.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Pointiness is objective and an idea. It seems to me that might be the turning point where perspectives part ways.

Not sure if pun, clicked funny anyway.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I've decided to stick to my DIRs for now, I just am way too exhausted from this week to keep arguing against blind faith.

That's no more a fair assessment of them then it would be of you. I can see you believe the logical, reasoned arguments point towards substance dualism even if I don't agree. I can see that they believe logical, reasoned arguments point towards substance monism even if you and others wouldn't agree. Neither is blind faith, just an impasse of conclusions.

Plenty of substance monists have done just as much due diligence in philosophy and come to different conclusions. So saying that they're blind or making blind assumptions is uncharitable and personally slighting. If you think that's what they do to you, then don't sink to their level.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Ah yes, I don't agree precisely with Plato so can't be right, I forget you're actually RHP sometimes and so would see it that way. But Nah, things evolve. I'm really not sure why you're caught up on consciousness, you see unable to separate arguments from each other, like thinking this is anything more than a refutation of materialism.

Well, to start with you haven't refuted anything, as pretty much every post in this thread has demonstrated.

Second..lol. you have made a bunch of posts on this exact same topic, and they are virtually identical.

But no..THIS time is surely unrelated to the others.

It's actually pretty funny. No matter how many times, or how many people, soundly reduce your half assed ideas to rubble you never learn anything.

Your loss. No really, only yours.

 

[1137]

No studies cited so far, and no references documenting the rejection of Methodological Naturalism in the field of psychology, nor an other related science.

You are hiding in the blue smoke and mirrors and unable, respond with a coherent argument and documentation, and awkwarly misusing terminology like 'fideism.'

Haha so I cite 5 peer reviewed sources and you're totally fine ignoring them in favor of your belief. See, I honestly thought that's what a fideist is, I guess I just need the term "blind faith." Anyways it's obviously pointless to try and reason with you when you'll pretend studies don't exist, so how about you address MY question and explain the superiority of science without relying on philosophy

Pointiness is objective and an idea. It seems to me that might be the turning point where perspectives part ways.

So show me pointedness!

That's no more a fair assessment of them then it would be of you. I can see you believe the logical, reasoned arguments point towards substance dualism even if I don't agree. I can see that they believe logical, reasoned arguments point towards substance monism even if you and others wouldn't agree. Neither is blind faith, just an impasse of conclusions.

Plenty of substance monists have done just as much due diligence in philosophy and come to different conclusions. So saying that they're blind or making blind assumptions is uncharitable and personally slighting. If you think that's what they do to you, then don't sink to their level.

I understand that, but when you show someone evidence and they just stand there screaming that you never did that must differ from rational individuals concluding something different.

Well, to start with you haven't refuted anything, as pretty much every post in this thread has demonstrated.

Second..lol. you have made a bunch of posts on this exact same topic, and they are virtually identical.

But no..THIS time is surely unrelated to the others.

It's actually pretty funny. No matter how many times, or how many people, soundly reduce your half assed ideas to rubble you never learn anything.

Your loss. No really, only yours.

Dude these honestly keep me going, you're hysterical! I'm even showing your posts around now, you've got a bit of infamy that you so crave. Please keep it up, I beg you!

 

[Willamena]

So show me pointedness!

*points at pointy things*

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I understand that, but when you show someone evidence and they just stand there screaming that you never did that must differ from rational individuals concluding something different.

Sounds like a difference of conclusion on what constitutes evidence. Not to harp on the YECs but if they show me evidence of creationism via complex structures I'm not going to agree that what they're showing me is actually evidence of YEC (or C in general).

I know I've linked this to you before and you by no means have to watch if you don't want to, but this is how I've seen most materialists/physicalists functionally define what does not convince them of substance dualism and why. I think you'll have more success coming from that direction, talking to them about your differing conclusions, than trying to redefine how they view things like idea, shapes or abstraction.