• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does Matter Really Exist?

Mercutio said:
Actually, Belz, Iacchus is now using an argument he did not understand from a different thread in which he argued the opposite. I would have to disagree with you, and say that we cannot prove materialism true; it is based on axiomatic assumptions which are, indeed, assumed.
Click to expand...
According to you (the materialst) they are assumed.

On the other hand, Iacchus's brand of idealism (he claims to be a dualist rather than an idealist) is every bit as much the product of axiomatic assumptions. And his dualism is internally flawed.
Click to expand...
Actually, according to what hammegk said in another thread, I believe that I maybe a monist, for I believe there is only one reality overall ... albeit it contains both a spiritual and material subset.

To answer Iacchus: You still have a flawed idea of what constitutes circularity. You can have circular attempts at proving either materialism or idealism, but neither philosophy in itself need be circular. So your question, as it stands, is meaningless. You would need to address a particular argument before I could tell you if it is circular. Thus far, if you want examples of circular arguments, you have a better than 90% chance of getting one by looking at any of your old arguments.
Click to expand...
And, as I have said, and continue to say, I can't explain something that you don't believe is there.
 
Iacchus said:
No, I think the question is, can it be disproven? ... Only if you can prove that materialism is real, which you can't.
Click to expand...
No. You cannot disprove materialism, either, and Idealism requires its own axiomatic assumptions.
 
Iacchus said:
According to you (the materialst) they are assumed.
Click to expand...
I am not a materialist. Nor an idealist, nor a dualist. This has been explained to you at least three times in past threads. Please do not assign beliefs to me that I do not hold.
Actually, according to what hammegk said in another thread, I believe that I maybe a monist, for I believe there is only one reality overall ... albeit it contains both a spiritual and material subset.
Click to expand...
Which is to say, you are a dualist. Or that you don't understand any of the terms you have been using. I rather lean toward the latter explanation...
And, as I have said, and continue to say, I can't explain something that you don't believe is there.
Click to expand...
You gotta believe. Works for fairies too, or so I read.

It sounds like what you are saying is that you believe X independently of, and sometimes in spite of, any available evidence. At least you are consistent in that.
 
Mojo said:
OK, lets think about a pack of fags. If you cut a fag in half, you do not get a different fag from the same packet. You get two halves, one with a filter and one without.
Click to expand...

Wow. I didn't know I needed to run with a pack.

Skipping over the rather gruesome aspect of the cutting-in-half, I don't think I've ever heard it referred to as a 'filter'.
 
Mercutio said:
Actually, Belz, Iacchus is now using an argument he did not understand from a different thread in which he argued the opposite. I would have to disagree with you, and say that we cannot prove materialism true; it is based on axiomatic assumptions which are, indeed, assumed.
Click to expand...

All depends on what we mean by proven. I argued this with Bri in another thread. If "proven" means 100% certain beyond any doubt, then NOTHING can be proven and the word is useless.
 
Iacchus said:
A cigarette in and of itself is a cigarette. A package of cigarettes in and of itself is a package of cigarettes.
Click to expand...

No sir. A package of cigarettes is nothing "in and of itself." It is a grouping, an assemblage, a fabrication, totally dependent not only on the cigarettes of which it is composed, but on our decision to define what constitutes a pack! The pack is not necessary to the cigarettes, which exist outside the pack, were manufactured before they became part of the pack, and can be removed intact from the pack. The cigarettes can be described as a subset of the pack only while they are part of it. They are not defined by their membership in the pack, and depend in no way on the existence of the arbitrary packaging or numerical grouping that defines a pack. The pack cannot transcend the cigarettes of which it is composed, because when even one cigarette is removed, it is no longer "a pack of cigarettes." If there's a god at all, and if that god is anything like what most people consider a god to be like, god is not even remotely, conceivably, like a package of cigarettes.

If there is a god, and if that god is transcendent, omnipotent and perfect, as he is usually defined, God cannot be a superset of the stuff that he has created, and if he created the stuff from nothing it cannot be a subset of himself. To say so would mean that God must transcend himself, have created a portion of himself, have been imperfect before the creation in order to be enlarged by it, and be imperfect after the creation because he would be diminished by its loss.

Set theory is a poor analogy for the relationship between God and the universe, and a pack of cigarettes is a very poor example of set theory in any context anyway.
 
Belz... said:
Do you ever agree with anyone, Hammegk ? Haven't seen that yet.
Click to expand...
I agree I seldom bother to post a "wow, do I agree with that", although iirc I've actually done even that a few times.

Do you agree your axioms are no more provable than mine? In fact, I get no farther than 'thought exists'. What is this matter stuff you posit?


Mercutio said:
I am not a materialist. Nor an idealist, nor a dualist.
Click to expand...
Er, yes, so you say. Based on your recent post in a different thread, you seem to suggest that mass, m is basic to the "matter" I, and some others, aver a materialist must choose. Noted then is the mass/energy or energy/mass conversion that is required to balance things.

This has nought to do with the choice of materialist, idealist, dualist, nor does making no conscious choice mean that your worldview is not based on one.
 
Belz said:
Oh! So materialism is wrong because it's unproven, and idealism is right because not proven wrong? Double-standard indeed.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Here's the thing. Either we can come up with an experiment to distinguish materialism from idealism, or the distinction will be based solely on axiomatic assumptions. If the latter, there will be no proof, because axioms are ... well ... axiomatic.

However, there is one thing I bet we could prove: that the two sets of axioms are equivalent.

~~ Paul
 
hammegk said:
I agree I seldom bother to post a "wow, do I agree with that", although iirc I've actually done even that a few times.

Do you agree your axioms are no more provable than mine? In fact, I get no farther than 'thought exists'. What is this matter stuff you posit?
Click to expand...

Woah. Wait a minute. What's this THOUGHT stuff you posit ?
 
Belz... said:
Woah. Wait a minute. What's this THOUGHT stuff you posit ?
Click to expand...
Unknown. Care to argue it does not exist? Note that this says nothing about *you* or *me* 'thinking'; by gentlemens' agreement we can make the assumption that both of us do so, and even aver we are thinking at the self-aware level.
 
Iacchus said:
No, I think the question is, can it be disproven? ... Only if you can prove that materialism is real, which you can't.
Click to expand...
So idealism can only be proven relative to materialism? Why bother choosing one over the other?

The only sensible thing to do is to assume that the universe is the way it appears to be, unless someone provides pretty conclusive proof that it isn't.

Unless you want to look like a damn fool.
 
hammegk said:
Unknown. Care to argue it does not exist? Note that this says nothing about *you* or *me* 'thinking'; by gentlemens' agreement we can make the assumption that both of us do so, and even aver we are thinking at the self-aware level.
Click to expand...
It is quite arguable that it does not exist. You and I have gone through this, quite some time ago (in an Interesting Ian thread, if I am not mistaken). I won't reproduce the argument now, but merely note that it involves a category error and an umbrella term "thought" which can be considered a reification of several physical processes.

You don't have to agree with it (you did not back then, either), but you must (or at least, you did) acknowledge that it is certainly arguable that thought does not exist.

Indeed, it was your contributions to that thread that make me value your contributions to others; I know you are not merely contrarian, because we came to understand one another once upon a time...
 
Mercutio said:
It is quite arguable that it does not exist. You and I have gone through this, quite some time ago (in an Interesting Ian thread, if I am not mistaken). I won't reproduce the argument now, but merely note that it involves a category error and an umbrella term "thought" which can be considered a reification of several physical processes.
Click to expand...
Er, yes, once our axiom is that "physical processes exist" and that "thought does not exist without physical processes". Of course "thought" at the neuronal level requires sfaik what we perceive as brain etc.

You don't have to agree with it (you did not back then, either), but you must (or at least, you did) acknowledge that it is certainly arguable that thought does not exist.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, my 'thinking ;) ' about what I now term "thought" has reached a point where my disagreement with the argument that "thought does not exist" is as absolute as any belief I have.

Indeed, it was your contributions to that thread that make me value your contributions to others; I know you are not merely contrarian, because we came to understand one another once upon a time...
Click to expand...
Thank you, and I hope you know I similarly value your contributions and POV. :)
 
Hammegk said:
Unfortunately, my 'thinking :xwink ' about what I now term "thought" has reached a point where my disagreement with the argument that "thought does not exist" is as absolute as any belief I have.
Click to expand...
But why not try Merc's experiment? Stop using the word thought, which most certainly stands for a set of more discrete brain processes. Tell us which individual brain process(es) you're sure must be the fundamental constituents of reality.

~~ Paul
 
hammegk said:
Er, yes, once our axiom is that "physical processes exist" and that "thought does not exist without physical processes". Of course "thought" at the neuronal level requires sfaik what we perceive as brain etc.
Click to expand...
I would have said "thinking does not exist without physical processes" instead of "thought", but you certainly have the right idea. One can argue that "thought" is simply the metaphorical noun representing a physical process of thinking...but you are right, this requires a physical axiom.
Unfortunately, my 'thinking ;) ' about what I now term "thought" has reached a point where my disagreement with the argument that "thought does not exist" is as absolute as any belief I have.
Click to expand...
Sure. It is as clear to you as the real existence of matter is to some others. But of course, as you see above, we can get to such a place by assuming the physical as well as by assuming the mental (or ideal, or thought, or whatever phrase you wish). Because we can get there under assumption A (or P, rather), that means that assumption B (or M, I, or T) must also be an axiomatic assumption, rather than a self-evident bedrock. It would appear as self-evident bedrock either way.
Thank you, and I hope you know I similarly value your contributions and POV. :)
Click to expand...
Thank you. I have never had reason to doubt this.
 
Hammegk, if you have never read William James's famous essay "Does Consciousness Exist?" (found in Essays in Radical Empiricism, but probably also in other collections) I recommend it. Not necessarily to make a convert of you, but it's at least an interesting take on the subject, and the exercise of attempting to poke holes in it could be invigorating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom