|
Crowsbeak posted:How? God gives us freedom of action.The fact you don't acknowledge God is you abusing that freedom. Unless you want God to just direct us like drones. I am afraid that this is going to lead to an argument about free will, so I'll accept your assertion that free will definitely exists. Let's also go with the Christian God since that is what the argument most directly applies to. Why would God revealing himself in some way (which I assume would be the action that would convince most atheists) invalidate free will? God revealed himself to many people directly and indirectly throughout the Bible, and it didn't seem to be a problem. Satan hung out with God and still rebelled, so it seems like knowledge of God doesn't pose a problem for freedom of action.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:26 |
|
|
FabioClone posted:I am afraid that this is going to lead to an argument about free will, so I'll accept your assertion that free will definitely exists. Let's also go with the Christian God since that is what the argument most directly applies to. Wait who actually thinks his existence does beyond Calvinists and more litterally minded Muslims?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Thanks, that's certainly a detailed response, so lets get into it. So, let's start where the real point of contention seems to lie: By the way, I remember an added question I have: physical reality doesn't obviously lie in physical reality, so physical reality doesn't exist?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Wait who actually thinks his existence does beyond Calvinists and more litterally minded Muslims? I thought that's what you were saying with your point about freedom of action and God controlling us like drones? If not, I must have misunderstood your point. I'm saying that an omniscient, omnipotent god could easily convince any atheist of his existence. If he doesn't, the responsibility for the continued lack of belief is on god. To use an analogy, if I see someone lost in the forest who I could easily help, and I choose not to help that person, I am responsible for him continuing to be lost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Dialectical materialism is a method of inquiry, it's not a part of philosophy or phenomenology and isn't opposed to what you've called 'naive materialism'. Onto the second point: the entire issue is that you're saying phenomena (or experience) is more real because it doesn't require mediation - I'm trying to point out that it does, and that's even the case for totally internal states. For example, you may look at a girl you like, getting together with a boy you don't like, and feel anger. If you didn't have an understanding of what 'jealousy' was, you might simply see that as that boy doing what he usually does, 'he makes me so angry, that rear end in a top hat!'. Consider then, touching a stone. You say this isn't real, but it requires exactly as much mediation as the jealousy-interpretation - If we stick to your definition of what is 'real', then nothing is real, and 'real' just becomes a meaningless word.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Dialectical materialism is a method of inquiry, it's not a part of philosophy or phenomenology and isn't opposed to what you've called 'naive materialism'. I didn't say it was part of phenomenology. I'm saying Marx at least understoot various philosophical ideas like the things I've brought up and took them in account when formulating his theories, allowing something more mature than the naïve first materialism. (Not that I know much about Marx I admit, so I could be doing some horrible injustice to him here.) Thanks, this is very useful! But why do you say that I say touching a stone isn't real?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Thanks, that's certainly a detailed response, so lets get into it. So, let's start where the real point of contention seems to lie: Physical reality being the universe external to our minds composed of matter and energy (let's set aside quantum mechanics for the moment, unless you have a very compelling reason why we shouldn't) that we interact with through means that are independently verifiable to our own senses. quote:(I'll also want to know why you mean exist to mean "is within physical reality" so you may want to keep that in mind when formulating an answer!) I mean that because it is the most useful, coherent, and consistent definition I have available to my knowledge. Like I said, it's what allows me to differentiate between that which is external to my perception and that which is merely a hallucination because only the former actually exists. The Belgian posted:By the way, I remember an added question I have: physical reality doesn't obviously lie in physical reality, so physical reality doesn't exist? You're going to have to rephrase this because I have no clue what you're asking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Because you said this:The Belgian posted:Phenomena are more real because their reality is immediate as I have repeatedly argued. Is it, for you, enough to say "I am experiencing something" in your mind? Because that's just equivalent to "I am alive".
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Because you said this: Oh, so you're arguing from a theory-ladenness point? This is admittedly a bit of a problem to me, of wich I am aware to some extend. But theory-ladenness will present issues for almost every view here I think: Earlier on, I used the term 'blinded by their own biases', which is still a problem for people like Who What Now because their conversation remains closed within their own brand of materialism. My goal here initially was certainly not to convert everyone to my own way of thinking but to show the biases beneath the surface which would hinder the discourse on the actual topic of this thread. (I'll certinly admit to having my own biases but I try to be aware of them if I can.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Earlier on, I used the term 'blinded by their own biases', which is still a problem for people like Who What Now because their conversation remains closed within their own brand of materialism. Not for lack of trying on my part, I've asked you a dozen times to give good explanations of your position for more than a dozen posts. Edit: And you accuse me of being smug while continuously calling people "naïve materialists" every single post you do make while not taking any time to argue the merits of any other position. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Our misunderstanding seems to run even deeper than I thought:Who What Now posted:through means that are independently verifiable to our own senses. I don't know what you're saying here, shouldn't something 'move through' your senses before it can get to you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:
Naïve isn't a derogatory term in this context?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Oh, so you're arguing from a theory-ladenness point? This is admittedly a bit of a problem to me, of wich I am aware to some extend. But theory-ladenness will present issues for almost every view here I think:
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Our misunderstanding seems to run even deeper than I thought: Seriously, you say this after also saying this: The Belgian posted:EDIT: Who What Now's smug certainty is an example of this and it causes difficulties in having an open conversation. Not that it's a problem that he disagrees with me, but the tone in which he does is unfortunate. Are you literally incapable of any self-awareness? Do you not understand how you yourself come off and present yourself? At least I own up to my smugness, goddamn. Anyway, hypocrisy aside; quote:I don't know what you're saying here, shouldn't something 'move through' your senses before it can get to you? Sorry, "independent from our own senses" would have been slightly better phrasing. As in, if I see a green book I can use things other than my own senses to verify that, yes, there is indeed a green book that exists there. Most often this is the senses of one or more other people but can include, say, a device to measure the wavelength of reflected light to either support or deny the claim that the cover is green. To head off a potential response, no I do not have a solution to hard solipsism and cannot prove that these independent verifications are not hallucinations perceived by me along with everything else in what I call reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why not just save time and be a solipsist if you're going to pretend that things don't actually exist. Agreed, with regards to God
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
^^^^^ Because God isn't necessary for anything. The Belgian posted:Naïve isn't a derogatory term in this context? I don't know whether you're lying to me or yourself at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So you honestly believe that hallucinations are every bit as real as actual physical things? Do you believe that things are only real when they are observed? Hallucinations can be more real than physical things. Consider Saddam's WMDs, the shared consensus about these things existing has literally led to a change in the course of human history Consider a dispute about the border between two nations, literal wars break out over symbolic lines that don't exist
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
When people take empiricism as justification for ontological arguments concerning "objective reality", we have a problematic situation, but pointing out the naïveté of such crude leaps of bad faith doesn't mean we throw our arms up and concede that nothing exists or some dorm room solipsism. You can reject the notion of a fixed objective external reality revealed purely by empiricism without falling into magiks or brain in a vat sophistry Consider Lacan's conception of human experience as the interplay of three orders, the Real, Symbolic, and Imaginary. I find this far more useful than some naive dichotomy between internal illusions and external concrete reality
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Hallucinations can be more real than physical things. See, this is why I care about people believing as many true things and as few false or fake things as possible. Were this the case, we never would have invaded Iraq and wouldn't have border disputes. Edit: Commie NedFlanders posted:You can reject the notion of a fixed objective external reality revealed purely by empiricism without falling into magiks or brain in a vat sophistry If you can I've yet to meet anyone who has. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
I think I know how to say what my problem is. Atheism is just another ideology. It's just another way of thinking. It can be emptied of it's content and used for bullshit like any other way of thinking. It likes to pretend this isn't the case by contrasting it self as a departure from religious ideologies implying that this difference prevents it from being used to manipulate. Any way of thinking is subject to the risk of being emptied and used to gently caress with and manipulate. And that's the problem with "naive"
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
FabioClone posted:I thought that's what you were saying with your point about freedom of action and God controlling us like drones? If not, I must have misunderstood your point. Well you really are not going to like my answer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
lots of science fans have belief you can decompose science and philosophy. this delusion leads to much confabulation and confusion. cheerleaders can't tell r^2 from the coefficient of alienation and even if they could they don't actually science, so what they end up with is just bullshit. science cheerleading is a form of mysticism based around the worship of the Greek alphabet and repetitive chanting of mantras to ward off evil anecdotes and daemons, to stay pure and Objective. amen. It's a legitimate religious belief of course, like how Christians who never actually read or put time into understanding the bible are still Christian, but it's obviously aggravating to Christians who do read it to have these goons running around making Christianity look like a bunch of right loving clowns
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
My science device is detecting a chip on your shoulder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
But manipulating is half the fun!Commie NedFlanders posted:Consider Lacan's conception of human experience as the interplay of three orders, the Real, Symbolic, and Imaginary. I find this far more useful than some naive dichotomy between internal illusions and external concrete reality
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Consider a dispute about the border between two nations, literal wars break out over symbolic lines that don't exist
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well you really are not going to like my answer. I have nothing personally invested in this. Since I don't believe in God, it's just a thought exercise to me. I just want to see if the argument makes sense in a Christian framework.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
any relationships between real entities are, in principle, as real and physical as those entities themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
Only so long as the entities themselves act within the ruleset that created that relationship. Whether or not that constituted reality is totally contingent on whether those rules are subject to change, which in the case of human behaviour, conceivably is.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Only so long as the entities themselves act within the ruleset that created that relationship. Whether or not that constituted reality is totally contingent on whether those rules are subject to change, which in the case of human behaviour, conceivably is. You can't compare national borders to electron holes. hey, glad you decided to join the discussion some of us were having here in the 21st century. does that mean we're finally done with the trite idealism-materialism branch now and can focus on not-already-resolved things, like how we're gonna rig a dynamic epistemology that can deal with 'changing rules' (well, they don't change, but they look like they do from an early 20th century point of view) together, or are we going to see some regression towards the mean first? i'll throw another one out: religions and life philosophies are just Bronze Age people trying to make sense of all this iron that's lying around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I think I know how to say what my problem is. What, exactly, are the tenets of atheism, Brandor?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
I can't believe you're still arguing whether things exist when it's pretty obvious to any monkey with half a brain that only categories of relationships between things do exist. Grow up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Sorry, "independent from our own senses" would have been slightly better phrasing. As in, if I see a green book I can use things other than my own senses to verify that, yes, there is indeed a green book that exists there. Most often this is the senses of one or more other people but can include, say, a device to measure the wavelength of reflected light to either support or deny the claim that the cover is green. How does this avoid the move through your senses? It just adds extra steps. If you ask someone, they'll have to first use their senses to get info and then tell you, at which point it moves thorugh your sense of hearing (or seeing or whatever)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:How does this avoid the move through your senses? It just adds extra steps. I told you that I don't have a solution to solipsism, nor does anyone else. I have to accept that my senses are generally, but not absolutely, reliable enough and that other people actually exist to allow collaborative verification. Now that I've answered half a dozen of your questions, do you ever plan on answering any of mine? Primarily, how do you differentiate between physical reality and hallucinations?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I told you that I don't have a solution to solipsism, nor does anyone else. I have to accept that my senses are generally, but not absolutely, reliable enough and that other people actually exist to allow collaborative verification. if everything is either physical or not real, then so are hallucinations. so are you saying that hallucinations don't physically exist, or are you going to admit hallucinations are real and physical instead of waffling with some half assed Churchland?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Zodium posted:if everything is either physical or not real, then so are hallucinations. so are you saying that hallucinations don't physically exist, or are you going to admit hallucinations are real and physical instead of waffling with some half assed Churchland? I answered this already, twice even. Neither time did you respond to it. But I am nothing if not magnanimous so I will answer you again. The brain producing and interpreting the hallucinations is physical, the perceptions are not physical. LSD is real and physical, the visions of clowns crawling out of the TV that someone experiences after taking that LSD are not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I answered this already, twice even. Neither time did you respond to it. But I am nothing if not magnanimous so I will answer you again. sorry, when I poo poo on you, it's because you think you said something while actually just waffling. it's okay, incompetent people systematically overestimate their capabilities. it's not your fault. anyway, you are actually a dualist, not a materialist. you believe there's a physical substrate (in your case, you believe it's the brain), but also that non-physical "perception" phenomena exist. also, non-physical perception can be affected by the physical brain, apparently? not sure how that's supposed to hang together, but let's see where you're going with that. it's a common blind spot in people who were in their teens or 20s when Churchland was in vogue. brains and perceptions are both physical. entities and relations are physical. everything that matters is physical. no exceptions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
I see you're on a mission to beat all the meaning out of 'physical', much like The Belgian has done with 'real' and 'exist'. I'm sure it's fun for you to do so but it's not clear what relationship it has to atheism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
not at all looking to beat the meaning out of the word "physical," only to beat what it means to you out of existence. it is a fun pastime though, i'll give you that. i will give you that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Zodium posted:not at all looking to beat the meaning out of the word "physical," only to beat what it means to you out of existence. it is a fun pastime though, i'll give you that. i will give you that. Hallucinations come as an effect of chemical processes in the brain. They are not physical, but their causes are. Stop being a poo poo, you're not clever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:26 |
|
|
J.A.B.C. posted:Hallucinations come as an effect of chemical processes in the brain. They are not physical, but their causes are. like I said, you and WWN are just regurgitating a mangled version of Churchland's neurophilosophy, which is really not as hot and happening anymore as it was when you were in college. you can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend everything's gonna stay just the way it was when your world view was at its most moldable forever, but eventually the consequences of ignoring reality always catches up with us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 18:52
|
|