• 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.

Final proof that Stimpson J Cat is wrong

Interesting Ian

Unregistered
I
Stimpy continually claims that he is a materialist/physicalist, but that neither ontology or metaphysics play any role in his particular version of physicalism. There is a simple disproof of this. In order to be a physicalist you necessarily must believe Consciousness supervenes on the physical. But supervenience itself is a metaphysical claim. :) Therefore to be a physicalist necessarily commits you to making at least one metaphysical claim :)
 
Stimpy is not a physicalist, he's a physicist...

The differences are subtle, yet crucial...
 
If there was ever a sarcasm award on JREF, I think the statement above would definately be a nominee...
 
Yahweh said:
Stimpy is not a physicalist, he's a physicist...

The differences are subtle, yet crucial...
Click to expand...

They're mutually exclusive??

Drop%20Gob.gif
 
For those of us (or at least me) just following along without the philosophy terms burned into their head:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supervenes

su·per·vene ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-vn)
intr.v. su·per·vened, su·per·ven·ing, su·per·venes

1. To come or occur as something extraneous, additional, or unexpected. See Synonyms at follow.
2. To follow immediately after; ensue.
3. Philosophy. To be dependent on a set of facts or properties in such a way that change can occur only after change has occurred in those facts or properties.
Click to expand...

Not sure how Ian claims that this is metaphysics, but then I don't now what statement he is refering to. Anybody see a post by Stimpy using this term?
 
Doubt said:
For those of us (or at least me) just following along without the philosophy terms burned into their head:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supervenes



Not sure how Ian claims that this is metaphysics, but then I don't now what statement he is refering to. Anybody see a post by Stimpy using this term?
Click to expand...

Physicalism holds that the physical logically necessitates consciousness. But this is not an a priori necessity, but rather an a posteriori necessity. That is to say that although consciousness is necessitated, we cannot know it is necessitated without reference to the world. One needs to be acquainted with the world. Therefore consciousness is not a case of logical supervenience, but rather metaphysical supervenience. :D
 
I am very probably naive about all of this, but does Idealism claim that consciousness came first and the world came after? If that is the case, there is no convincing evidence to support that claim. Arguably, there's no conclusive evidence to deny it either and, since the claim cannot be tested, scientifically, it is irrelevant.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -
 
Interesting Ian said:
Therefore consciousness is not a case of logical supervenience, but rather metaphysical supervenience. :D
Click to expand...
Assuming I understand you entirely and correctly, I actually agree with you for the most part with that statement.
 
Again, this is not an area that I know much about. However, I have not seen anyone from the materialist side put forward the position the consciousness ever had to happen. It is a product of the physical universe that exists but not vital to the existence of the universe. Where is the necessity here?

Is Stimpy even aware that this thread exists?
 
abiogenesis said:
I am very probably naive about all of this, but does Idealism claim that consciousness came first and the world came after?
Click to expand...
That would suggest dualism, I dont trust the philosophies of dualism.

If that is the case, there is no convincing evidence to support that claim. Arguably, there's no conclusive evidence to deny it either and, since the claim cannot be tested, scientifically, it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
In all philosophical technicalities, yes, it would be an ambigious arguement. But in a materialistic perspective, you could assume matter came first, then consciousness (try not to take that statement to suggest consciousness exists outside of matter).
 
But in a materialistic perspective, you could assume matter came first, then consciousness (try not to take that statement to suggest consciousness exists outside of matter).
Click to expand...

Thank you, Yahweh. That is also my intuitive undesrtanding of reality.

So why, then, is a philosophy like Idealism given so much credence when it requires faith in the supernatural? I guess I just don't get it.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -
 
Doubt said:
Again, this is not an area that I know much about. However, I have not seen anyone from the materialist side put forward the position the consciousness ever had to happen. It is a product of the physical universe that exists but not vital to the existence of the universe. Where is the necessity here?
Click to expand...
Make sure you dont oversimplify the idea of consciousness.

"Had to happen", probably not (if there is a way of determining the "had to happen" perspective). Consciouness is a result of lots and lots of evolution. In evolutionary thinking (and philosophical reasoning), consciouness is a more desireable trait than not being self-aware. I'm not sure how the "had to happen" vs. "was going to happen anyway" scenario would play out.

Is Stimpy even aware that this thread exists?
Click to expand...
Probably not at the moment.
 
abiogenesis said:


Thank you, Yahweh. That is also my intuitive undesrtanding of reality.
Click to expand...
Super Cool :cool:! No problem at all.

So why, then, is a philosophy like Idealism given so much credence when it requires faith in the supernatural? I guess I just don't get it.
Click to expand...
The reason being is one of the most "annoying" facets of philosophy, the fact that philosophy is the science of understanding using logic alone rather than empirical (meaning repeatable observable study; most of modern medicine is rooted in empirical study) and scientific methods.

As far as "faith" goes, philosophy doesnt really like faith that much. Philosophy is built on a foundation of logical reasoning, faith is not.

Finally to answer the "why is philosophy given so much credence when dealing with faith and the supernatural", the reason being is because if there is no logical reasoning against a belief, then there is no logical basis to deny it (yet another one of those annoying parallelisms of philosophy).
 
Yahweh: The reason being is one of the most "annoying" facets of philosophy, the fact that philosophy is the science of understanding using logic alone rather than empirical (meaning repeatable observable study; most of modern medicine is rooted in empirical study) and scientific methods.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the observance of empiricle evidence be logical?

I am increasingly of the opinion that I am no philosopher...

- a b i o g e n e s i s -
 
Crossbow said:
I have $ 100 (USD) that says Stimpy will win this debate!

Any takers?
Click to expand...

There is no debate to be had. My statement is a knockout proof :)
 
Besides he has never ever won a debate with me before, therefore by inductive reasoning it seems reasonable to assume he won't win a debate with me on any single future occasion.
 
Re: Over here!

Yahweh said:
Originally posted by Crossbow
I have $ 100 (USD) that says Stimpy will win this debate!

Any takers?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Right over here!
Click to expand...

Ah! So you don't agree with me after all. I thought it was strange! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom