Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
!Xx+-Rational-+xX! said:
LOL Materialists absolutely love articles like that. I was thinking about emailing the author, but I guess my time can be more profitably spent on doing my website
A problem with materialism
- Thread starter Interesting Ian
- Start date
-
- Tags
- materialism
LOL Materialists absolutely love articles like that. I was thinking about emailing the author, but I guess my time can be more profitably spent on doing my website
Wrath of the Swarm
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,855
The best way to deal with Ian is to put him on Ignore.
Of course, then the people who don't have him on Ignore will copy his statements into their responses, so you'll still end up readin him occasionally... but if nothing else, it makes the representation of the page much shorter.
Of course, then the people who don't have him on Ignore will copy his statements into their responses, so you'll still end up readin him occasionally... but if nothing else, it makes the representation of the page much shorter.
Stimpson J. Cat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,949
Ian,
Not in any metaphysical sense. In order to even answer that question, it is first necessary to stipulate what is meant by words like "existence", "material", and "reality". Those terms can be defined metaphysically or epistemologically, and the meaning of the above statement differs dramatically based on which you choose.
I have told you before that modern materialism is essentially just naturalism combined with empiricism. Naturalism claims that reality functions according to logical rules, and empiricism claims that those rules can be determined through observation. That is the basis of scientific epistemology, and it is all that my position claims.
I don't. I usually just say that I am a scientist, and that I do not believe in the unverifiable. But many people who hold the same position as I do refer to themselves as materialists. Who am I, or you, to tell them that they should not? The only time I even discuss the term is when either somebody like you attacks materialism by claiming that it is something that it is not, or when people declare that I am a materialist, and then attack a position that I do not hold.
I am perfectly happy with the term "naturalist", or "physicalist", or even just plain "scientist". Labels do not define our positions. Our positions define the labels we use to refer to them.
Maybe you should concern yourself less with what you think materialism means, and more with the actual positions of the people who you are attempting to debate?
Dr. Stupid
Not in any metaphysical sense. In order to even answer that question, it is first necessary to stipulate what is meant by words like "existence", "material", and "reality". Those terms can be defined metaphysically or epistemologically, and the meaning of the above statement differs dramatically based on which you choose.
I have told you before that modern materialism is essentially just naturalism combined with empiricism. Naturalism claims that reality functions according to logical rules, and empiricism claims that those rules can be determined through observation. That is the basis of scientific epistemology, and it is all that my position claims.
I don't. I usually just say that I am a scientist, and that I do not believe in the unverifiable. But many people who hold the same position as I do refer to themselves as materialists. Who am I, or you, to tell them that they should not? The only time I even discuss the term is when either somebody like you attacks materialism by claiming that it is something that it is not, or when people declare that I am a materialist, and then attack a position that I do not hold.
I am perfectly happy with the term "naturalist", or "physicalist", or even just plain "scientist". Labels do not define our positions. Our positions define the labels we use to refer to them.
Maybe you should concern yourself less with what you think materialism means, and more with the actual positions of the people who you are attempting to debate?
Dr. Stupid
Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
Wrath of the Swarm said:
Yes, take note people! Everyone who doesn't like me should put me on ignore. This will be about 90% of people on this board. Then I can have pleasant conversations with the other 10% without idiots butting in
Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
Stimpson J. Cat said:
Stimp, please try to understand. Naturalism is not materialism! Now I don't give a toss that naturalists, who are not materialists, nevertheless describe themselves as materialists. This does not make them into materialists. A materialist has to believe that reality is comprised exclusively of the material. The material is that which is the genesis of our sensory perceptions (and is not identical to such sensory perceptions). It is normally thought of as the world which science describes.
But to be a naturalist needn't commit you to being a materialist. Indeed one can be a naturalist and an idealist! No contradiction whatsoever as far as I am aware.
Materialism cannot be defined epistemologically, because it is, by definition, a metaphysical and ontological position. It is *NOT* a combination of naturalism and empiricism. An idealist could subscribe to naturalism and empiricism. Which would mean that materialists could also be idealists in your crazy world of definitions.
Hell, I'm not even sure that naturalists would say that consciousness has to be the same "stuff" as the external world. Cannot epiphenomenalists be naturalists??
Hang on, I'll just quote part of the naturalist definition from my Oxford companion to philosophy
Naturalism
In metaphysics naturalism is perhaps most obviously akin to materialism, but it does not have to be materialistic. What it insists on is that the world of nature should form a single sphere without incursions from outside by souls or spirits, divine or human and without having to accommodate strange entities like non-natural values or substantive abstract universals. But it need not reject the phenomena of consciousness, nor even identify them somehow with material phenomena, as a materialist must, provided they can be studied via the science of psychology, which can itself be integrated into the other sciences. One naturalist in fact, Hume, was rather ambivalent about whether there was really material world at all, except in so far as it was constructed out of our experiences, or impressions and ideas, as he called them. The important thing for the naturalist in a metaphysical sphere is that the world should be a unity in a sense of being an amenable to a unified study which can be called a study of nature, though it may not always be easy to say what counts is a sufficient degree of unification. Obviously there are different sciences, which to some extent employ different methods as well is studying different subject matters. What seems to be needed is that they should form a continuous chain, and all be subject to certain general requirements regarded as necessary for sciences such, like producing results which are amenable to empirical testing. Whatever entities such sciences come up with must then be allowed into the naturalistic framework, and these will include theoretical entities which cannot be directly observed, but whose existence is postulated to explain various phenomena, such as the electrons of physics, whether this existence is taken to be real or only 'logically constructed' in the way in which the average man is logically constructed out of ordinary men.
Materialism
. . . . the various materialist philosophies have tended to substitute for 'matter' some notion like ' whatever it is that can be studied by the methods of natural science', thus turning materialism into naturalism, though it would be an exaggeration to say the two outlooks have simply coincided. Materialism concerns the composition of things, while naturalism, though concerned with what exists, ranges more widely, covering properties as well as substances, and its concern with methods of studying things is more direct and central. (underlining added)
(btw, used this voice recognition software for the definitions, so not sure if everything is accurate above, although I did a quick read through)
Now I agree with you that we should address peoples actual beliefs rather than quibbling what label we should use to describe a person's belief. I do remind you though that I found a problem with materialism as it is officially defined. If I am not attacking your position, then why did you butt in to this thread?? Just for the hell of it?? Just to argue against Ian come what may??
And as others mention to you ... nice assertion. Shall we try to agree what sensory means wrt "thought"? What do terran humans have to do with the question?Stimpson J. Cat said:
We agree 100% on dualism being logically impossible (well, interactively anyway).Stimpson J. Cat said:
The question is, should you ever decide to address it, is "is materialism, or immaterialism, least implausible". Yes, I understand that iyo, your choice not to address it means that the question does not exist. Epistemologically (which is at heart wE'p'ss'on'theology), yup. Expand your mind here to accept the broadest definition of "theology"; I prefer "spirituality".
Stimpson J. Cat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,949
Hammegk,
If you know of some other source of information, then by all means, point it out so that an epistemology can be constructed which takes it into account. But until then, our epistemology must be based on the above, in order for it to be in any way useful.
What are you talking about? I cannot make any sense out of that question.
They are all equally implausible, because the all address subjects about which it is impossible for us to have any knowledge.
Don't be ridiculous. I am not pretending the questions don't exist. I am simply acknowledging that I have no way, short of blind guessing, to even attempt to answer them.
What are you talking about? This post seems to indicate that you do not have the slightest idea what epistemology even is.
Ian,
Yes, Ian. We all know your opinion on this matter. Nobody cares whether you think people who do not fit into you definition of materialism should call themselves materialists or not.
Dr. Stupid
If you know of some other source of information, then by all means, point it out so that an epistemology can be constructed which takes it into account. But until then, our epistemology must be based on the above, in order for it to be in any way useful.
What are you talking about? I cannot make any sense out of that question.
They are all equally implausible, because the all address subjects about which it is impossible for us to have any knowledge.
Don't be ridiculous. I am not pretending the questions don't exist. I am simply acknowledging that I have no way, short of blind guessing, to even attempt to answer them.
What are you talking about? This post seems to indicate that you do not have the slightest idea what epistemology even is.
Ian,
Yes, Ian. We all know your opinion on this matter. Nobody cares whether you think people who do not fit into you definition of materialism should call themselves materialists or not.
Dr. Stupid