The bait & switch on discussions of materialism

[TagliatelliMonster]

Impossible. Chaos can't create order.

Order arises from chaos all the time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes that's the point. It could not have formed in an orderly fashion by itself.

Why not?
How have you determined that?


Note that I'm not claiming it can. I don't know how the universe arose. Nobody does (that includes you).
I'm just wondering how you have ruled out that particular possibility.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hilarious. You could not do any such thing in a determined universe, obviously.

Quantum mechanics, which is physics at the most fundamental level, isn't deterministic but probabilistic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sometimes further argument is a waste of time.

On this, I agree with you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It means order can't form itself. It can't happen because it's the opposite of ewe see happening. What we see is order coming only from previously designed entities.

This programming has been passed on from the parent organisms, but it had to arise from an intelligent mind originally, since natural processes can not write programs.

But natural processes can form chemical bonds resulting in complex carbon molecules.
Molecules that we then call "programs" by analogy / metaphor.
Which in turn is then picked up by creationists such as yourself to make a silly point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Does a story "exist"? Or does it only exist when it's being conveyed by spoken words, or when it's written down in ink on paper? If the story exists, do the characters in the story exist? And if they don't exist, what of history? Does history not exist?

Stop with the false equivalences already.
Concepts dependent on human minds is not what is being talked about when talking about objects and entities that objectively exist in reality, independently of human minds.

Stories are not such entities.

What does it mean to say something is "objectively detectable"?

Typical response from someone who knows very well that the things he posits to exist don't objectively exist.
I submit that in any other context, you wouldn't feel a need to ask this question.

The coffee mug on my desk is objectively detectable. It has measurable, quantifiable manifestation in reality. If I slap you upside the face with it - trust me, you'll know.

The ghost under my son's bed does not fall in that category.
Neither does "the supernatural".

An idea in the human brain is objectively detectable even though the idea is not an object

The brain is.

So, does cognitive phenomena exist?

The brain that produces such, does.

Yet cognition is clearly subjective. So how can it be considered existentially objective?

The physical brain exists. Cognition is a function of said brain and is detectable through the brain activity. All of which is physical. This is how we can tell when a person is "brain dead".

But the act of looking (seeing) IS 'assuming'.

No. It is independently verifiable. Neither is "seeing" the only way to detect the manifestation of the tree.

Now suppose that I can see the tree while nobody else can. And that people can just walk "through" the place where I claim the tree is. When we take a photograph of the spot, no tree is seen either. It now no longer has detectable manifestation. It is no longer independently verifiable.

Will you believe me that there actually is a tree there that nobody can touch, feel, smell, see,... And that only I can see (and nothing else) for some reason?

Or will you rather classify my seeing the tree as being some kind of hallucination? Or that I am just trolling and thus lying about it? Or otherwise mistaken?

It's your brain organizing and labeling and assessing the visual stimuli it's receiving according to the various ways it's been taught to do this by past experience. When you were born you were born into a sea of undifferentiated phenomenal stimuli: lights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch, ... and for years you were learning how to differentiate them, and label them, and assess them for potential danger, or positive value. Such that now it's automatic. All these labels and assessments have become what you call "reality", now.


But do they define "existence"? Or do they just define existence, for you. What is the relationship between reality and existence? Because I think this is what's being constantly overlooked in this kind of discussion

I love how in such conversations, people in your camp tend to put into question all of reality, just so you can have an out to posit supernatural stuff.

But what does any of this have to do with the parameters of existence? How do we begin to address that question?

If the tree didn't have objective manifestation, then he would have just driven through it instead of ending up at the hospital with a total loss car.

That's because you are not distinguishing between reality as you perceive and conceive it, and existence, which surpasses your perception and conception. You're not distinguishing between your idea of a thing and the thing your idea now designates as existing as such.

No, that's what YOU are doing.
This is why I make a distinction between subjective perception of reality and actual objective independently verifiable reality.

What is the "outside" world? What is the "inside" world? How do you tell one from another? What do these have to do with existence?

And again you feel the need to question all of existence, just to be able to argue for supernatural shenannigans.

The outside world is existence as it is. Objective reality.
The inside world is what you perceive it to be, which doesn't necessarily match.
This is why we have to use objective evidence and methods of inquiry to distinguish between both.

Those things within perception that can not be confirmed objectively in the outside world, are indistinguishable from sheer imagination / non-existent things.

Like that tree that only I can see, but nobody else can.
You will not be assuming that there's a tree there that only I can see.
You will rather assume that I must be mistaken, lying, hallucinating, etc...

Physicality is just a sea of phenomenal 'gibberish' without the metaphysicality of human cognition. This is why I am not a materialist. Materials are just the stuff that great artists make great art from. The materials are necessary, yes, but it's the art that actually matters.

Now you seem to be raping the word "materialist".

 

[Wildswanderer]

The point is that the universe was orderly from the beginning. So even if the creation of the universe was a miracle, it was the last and only. Everything from then on is just natural, no need and no evidence for any magic beyond the Big Bang.

Everything else being just natural leaves out every mystery out there. We still don't even understand our own minds, let alone everything in the universe.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Funny how you just acknowledged that your worldview has to allow for magic to occur.

Well, duh. Of course the supernatural is a fact in my world.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Doesn't follow.

It absolutely does...as many prominent atheists will confirm.

 

[Wildswanderer]

New stars are even still forming in our galaxy where gravity and the eruption of other stars has brought heat there.

Because those laws already exist. Otherwise everything would be chaos. Not that anything would exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It absolutely does...as many prominent atheists will confirm.

No, it really doesn't.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Because those laws already exist. Otherwise everything would be chaos. Not that anything would exist.

I really don't know how to keep telling you that physical laws aren't like legal laws. Laws don't govern things. Laws are just descriptors of relationships. The laws don't do or cause anything. Laws exist because things exist, not the other way around.

 

[PureX]

Stop with the false equivalences already.
Concepts dependent on human minds is not what is being talked about when talking about objects and entities that objectively exist in reality, independently of human minds.

But "objects and entities" ARE concepts in the human mind. The world contains only undifferentiated phenomena. We experience that phenomena and conceptualize it according to our own abilities and needs. I find it puzzling that you are unable to recognize that.

Stories are not such entities.

They are, however, given "objective form" whenever we communicate them from one of us to another via verbalization of text. In fact, they have to be since we are not able to directly connect our minds to transfer information. So the question is, is the information "real" when it's just in our minds? Or is it only "real" when we objectify it to transfer it to someone else's mind?

Typical response from someone who knows very well that the things he posits to exist don't objectively exist.
I submit that in any other context, you wouldn't feel a need to ask this question.

I think you're getting annoyed because my questions are causing you to begin to realize the total failure of materialist philosophy.

The coffee mug on my desk is objectively detectable. It has measurable, quantifiable manifestation in reality.

But it's not a "coffee mug" until you conceptualize your experience of the collection of phenomena that you've chosen to isolate from all the other phenomena round it and compared and contrasted that set of phenomena with a huge array of other similar and different phenomena the experience of which you have stored in your memory. That's the process of cognition. A metaphysical process that takes place in the human mind. And without it, the coffee mug never becomes a coffee mug. It just stays undifferentiated and unlabeled and un-assessed phenomena.

The ghost under my son's bed does not fall in that category.

Of course it does. It's just a faulty assessment of the phenomena that he is experiencing.

The physical brain exists. Cognition is a function of said brain and is detectable through the brain activity. All of which is physical. This is how we can tell when a person is "brain dead".

So which is more important, the brain of the mind that it generates? The brain is just physical matter. The mind allows us to experience a whole new metaphysical realm of existence. The realm of concepts and values and memoty and imagination.

Now suppose that I can see the tree while nobody else can. And that people can just walk "through" the place where I claim the tree is. When we take a photograph of the spot, no tree is seen either. It now no longer has detectable manifestation. It is no longer independently verifiable.

Then like your son, you understood your experience differently than others do. It happens all the time. Sometimes we misunderstand what we experience collectively. Sometimes we misunderstand it individually. It's just a part of how human cognition works.

Will you believe me that there actually is a tree there that nobody can touch, feel, smell, see,... And that only I can see (and nothing else) for some reason?

I can interpret my experiences for myself, and can I understand that my interpretations may be at least somewhat inaccurate. As may yours. So I see no need to "believe", anything.

Or will you rather classify my seeing the tree as being some kind of hallucination? Or that I am just trolling and thus lying about it? Or otherwise mistaken?

All I need to do is consider that my understanding may be wrong, and go from there.

I love how in such conversations, people in your camp tend to put into question all of reality, just so you can have an out to posit supernatural stuff.

I am positing nothing "supernatural". I'm simply pointing out that what we call "reality" is an elaborate conceptualization created in our minds from our cognition of physical phenomena. "Reality" is a metaphysical phenomenon.

This is why I make a distinction between subjective perception of reality and actual objective independently verifiable reality.

They are not distinguishable. It's ALL cognition. And it's ALL happening in our mind. Makes no difference if it's happening in one mind or in one million of them. We are just as likely to misunderstand our experiences collectively as we are to misunderstand them individually.

And again you feel the need to question all of existence, just to be able to argue for supernatural shenannigans.

I don't know where you are seeing all this "supernatural shenanigans". I have not posted a word about anything being supernatural.

The outside world is existence as it is. Objective reality.
The inside world is what you perceive it to be, which doesn't necessarily match.
This is why we have to use objective evidence and methods of inquiry to distinguish between both.

So, how did you get 'outside yourself' to make this discovery? It sounds almost ... 'supernatural'!

Those things within perception that can not be confirmed objectively in the outside world, are indistinguishable from sheer imagination / non-existent things.

But since you cannot see the world "outside yourself" you are simply imagining that it exists differently than you are perceiving it. (That the "objective world" is different from your "subjective" experience of it.)

Like that tree that only I can see, but nobody else can.
You will not be assuming that there's a tree there that only I can see.
You will rather assume that I must be mistaken, lying, hallucinating, etc...

Actually I'm not going to assume anything. Not being a materialist, I do not despise imagination as some sort of "false profit" the way materialists seem to. So if you are seeing something that I am not, I'm fine with that.



Now you seem to be raping the word "materialist".[/QUOTE]

 

[Wildswanderer]

I really don't know how to keep telling you that physical laws aren't like legal laws. Laws don't govern things. Laws are just descriptors of relationships. The laws don't do or cause anything. Laws exist because things exist, not the other way around.

And if they didn't act in a certain manner there would be no laws. The question is why they do act in a certain manner consistently.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

And if they didn't act in a certain manner there would be no laws. The question is why they do act in a certain manner consistently.

The same reason you sweat from your armpit consistently. Because you still have armpit sweat glands. Other people with armpit sweat glands also sweat from them. That you consistently have armpit sweatglands and sweat from them could be called a law. But me observing that and calling it that doesn't cause it to happen. I'm just describing the thing that happens consistently.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, duh. Of course the supernatural is a fact in my world.

Uhu.
Abracadabra.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It absolutely does...

It does not.

as many prominent atheists will confirm.

Citation required.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because those laws already exist. Otherwise everything would be chaos. Not that anything would exist.

Once again you show that you do not understand that laws are descriptive and not prescriptive.

This has been brought to your attention at least 5 times in this thread alone.
Why insist on repeating your mistakes?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But "objects and entities" ARE concepts in the human mind.

No, they are not.
Now you are confusing the labels we use to identify things with abstract concepts.
These are not the same thing.

The coffee mug objectively exists, regardless of what we call it.
Giving it another label / function / purpose doesn't change a single objective property of the object itself.

It's density, the material it's made off, it's shape... all are what they are, regardless of what we use it for or label it as.

We experience that phenomena and conceptualize it according to our own abilities and needs.

And regardless of how we do that, the object retains its properties.

I find it puzzling that you are unable to recognize that.

I find it puzzling that you seem to think that the objective properties of objectively existing objects are dependent on our perception thereof.

I find it puzzling that you seem to think there is no difference between an abstract concept that only exists in our head as opposed to objective objects existing in objective reality.

Consider this:
I slap you upside the head with an abstract idea and then with a coffee mug.
Which one is going to make you bleed? Hence, which one has objectively, independently detectable manifestation in reality?

They are

They aren't. Stories are abstract. Coffee mugs aren't.
Coffee mugs have objectively detectable manifestation in reality. Stories don't.

, however, given "objective form" whenever we communicate them from one of us to another via verbalization of text. In fact, they have to be since we are not able to directly connect our minds to transfer information. So the question is, is the information "real" when it's just in our minds? Or is it only "real" when we objectify it to transfer it to someone else's mind?

They are abstract ideas. Not objectively existing objects with detectable manifestation in objective reality.
Nobody ever said that you can't communicate abstract ideas. They are just not the object of discussion here. We're talking about things that actually exist in objective reality.

As abstract concepts, EVERYTHING can "exist".
Including gooblydockbloebloe. A thing I just made up.
The question is: does it actually exist in objectively detectable reality?
The answer is no.

I think you're getting annoyed because my questions are causing you to begin to realize the total failure of materialist philosophy.

No. Materialism isn't about abstract ideas.
This is the point you keep missing.

But it's not a "coffee mug" until you conceptualize your experience of the collection of phenomena that you've chosen to isolate from all the other phenomena round it and compared and contrasted that set of phenomena with a huge array of other similar and different phenomena the experience of which you have stored in your memory.

A baby can't conceptualize the coffee mug.
Yet it will cry and bleed if you slap it upside the head with mug.
It won't when you do the same with an abstract idea.

Derp di derp derp.




I'm don't with this nonsense.
You don't seem to understand what materialism actually is.
It is the idea that every in the universe has physical underpinnings.
Abstract ideas have physical underpinnings, in the human brain. There's nothing about abstract ideas that is counter materialism.

Note that I'm not a materialist. Too dogmatic for my taste.
At best, I'ld say that I'm a tentative materialist. In the sense that I don't see any evidence of any things that don't have material underpinnings. But I'm very open to being shown otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And if they didn't act in a certain manner there would be no laws. The question is why they do act in a certain manner consistently.

Because they have physical manifestation and properties, and thereby influence other things with physical manifestation and properties. And its that relation that laws describe.