Author Topic: Naïve Immaterialism  (Read 5378 times)

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #15 on: May 21, 2014, 04:43:07 PM »
^ We started taking care of our chewtoys.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Offline Berati (OP)

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #16 on: May 21, 2014, 07:27:11 PM »

Quote from: Berati on May 20, 2014, 06:29:15 PM
As to his line of reasoning... I agree with you and yet Casparov cannot see it himself...

Do you really believe that?

Yes, I do believe that. It's easy for us to think that people like Casparov are insincere in their beliefs and in what they say to us because it is so patently false. However, from his point of view, we are the ones who are refusing to see the light and he gets as angry at us as we get at him.

I think it stems from the fact that we are not thinking creatures that can also feel, we are feeling creatures that can also think. Rational thinking is a learned behavior with rules , but there has to be a desire to learn it.

I believe that for most of us atheists, pragmatists & skeptics, we are born with the desire to attempt to be rational, it's not a choice we make, it's just how we are. For the believers, there is no such desire. While they can intellectually understand the concept, they lack the desire to follow it to its conclusions and base their beliefs off that. Instead they treat rationality and logic like weapons that are used to defeat your foes no matter what your beliefs are.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #17 on: May 21, 2014, 07:37:51 PM »
Yes, I do believe that. It's easy for us to think that people like Casparov are insincere in their beliefs and in what they say to us because it is so patently false. However, from his point of view, we are the ones who are refusing to see the light and he gets as angry at us as we get at him.

I think it stems from the fact that we are not thinking creatures that can also feel, we are feeling creatures that can also think. Rational thinking is a learned behavior with rules , but there has to be a desire to learn it.

I believe that for most of us atheists, pragmatists & skeptics, we are born with the desire to attempt to be rational, it's not a choice we make, it's just how we are. For the believers, there is no such desire. While they can intellectually understand the concept, they lack the desire to follow it to its conclusions and base their beliefs off that. Instead they treat rationality and logic like weapons that are used to defeat your foes no matter what your beliefs are.

For the most part I agree. I think Casparov sincerely believes what he presents.

Quote
I believe that for most of us atheists, pragmatists & skeptics, we are born with the desire to attempt to be rational, it's not a choice we make, it's just how we are.

Don't know about that. But I couldn't give you a good counter argument.

Offline SGOS

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #18 on: May 21, 2014, 08:26:17 PM »
Yes, I do believe that. It's easy for us to think that people like Casparov are insincere in their beliefs and in what they say to us because it is so patently false. However, from his point of view, we are the ones who are refusing to see the light and he gets as angry at us as we get at him.

I think it stems from the fact that we are not thinking creatures that can also feel, we are feeling creatures that can also think. Rational thinking is a learned behavior with rules , but there has to be a desire to learn it.

I believe that for most of us atheists, pragmatists & skeptics, we are born with the desire to attempt to be rational, it's not a choice we make, it's just how we are. For the believers, there is no such desire. While they can intellectually understand the concept, they lack the desire to follow it to its conclusions and base their beliefs off that. Instead they treat rationality and logic like weapons that are used to defeat your foes no matter what your beliefs are.
This is a very clear explanation and interpretation, and I think it's right on.  However, I'm still not sure if Casparov believes what he says.  I guess it doesn't matter to me if he does.  I have lurked in some of his threads, but haven't engaged him much.  I find his approach all too familiar.  It's the same old believer posting bullshit, and not responding to key questions, except with a more polished command of sentence structure.  But it's still the same desperate avoidance of logic carried to the same absurd conclusions.

On the other hand, if he doesn't believe what he says, it's still meaningless bullshit.

Offline Berati (OP)

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2014, 12:25:56 AM »
Don't know about that. But I couldn't give you a good counter argument.

I would think many here don't believe in free will... except when it comes to our choice to be rational.  :think:

BTW stromboli, you've been here awhile, how often does free will come up?
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 12:29:09 AM by Berati »
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2014, 07:43:39 AM »
In the end, I don't think it matters. No matter how sincere the philosophical arguments, Cas and his ilk still think that the world should work the way they think it should work, instead of examining the world and finding out how it actually works. No matter how one comes up with that notion, it's still colossal arrogance.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Offline SGOS

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2014, 08:22:18 AM »
how often does free will come up?
Quite a lot, although the issue is never resolved.

Offline Casparov

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #22 on: May 23, 2014, 12:33:41 AM »
This is my response to your question Casparov.
You are not begging me, you simply refuse to answer me. You have failed to address anything I have said so far and just pretend it was never said. You want me to repeat myself, so here it goes… step by step. And keep in mind all of this has been presented to you before.
I'll only deal with one step at a time.

Oh sweet! This could be interesting I suppose. I'm game!


Quote
1)   I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is. (and thought = God)

This is an assumption. If you agree this is an assumption then you now have to allow that materialism is at least as a possible as immaterialism.
Agree or disagree?

DISAGREE!

I refute that "I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is." I've never said this and this is not my argument.

Better is that I cannot doubt the fact that I am conscious, therefore I know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists. I do not need to assume that consciousness exists, because I literally cannot doubt it. Something must first be doubtable in order to be assumed.

I am not arguing that just because I know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists that therefore "consciousness is all there is". If I did so, yes this would be an assumption, but it is not my argument. You have presented a straw-man at step one.

The "I think therefore I am" only logically leads me to the conclusion that consciousness definitely exists, but it can take me no further than that.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2014, 03:42:12 AM by Casparov »
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Offline Berati (OP)

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #23 on: May 23, 2014, 08:01:01 AM »
Oh sweet! This could be interesting I suppose. I'm game!


DISAGREE!

I refute that "I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is." I've never said this and this is not my argument.

Better is that I cannot doubt the fact that I am conscious, therefore I know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists. I do not need to assume that consciousness exists, because I literally cannot doubt it. Something must first be doubtable in order to be assumed.

I am not arguing that just because I know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists that therefore "consciousness is all there is". If I did so, yes this would be an assumption, but it is not my argument. You have presented a straw-man at step one.

The "I think therefore I am" only logically leads me to the conclusion that consciousness definitely exists, but it can take me no further than that.

Read it again.
I asked you if you thought it was an assumption. Therefore you agree.
Which means that materialsm is therefore at least as likely as immaterialism.
Correct?


Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #24 on: May 23, 2014, 12:55:59 PM »
*NOTE*

I contacted the mods to look at turning this into a one on one, which is what Berati wanted to begin with.

Offline Casparov

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #25 on: May 23, 2014, 03:30:59 PM »
Read it again.
I asked you if you thought it was an assumption. Therefore you agree.
Which means that materialsm is therefore at least as likely as immaterialism.
Correct?

There is no assumption required to know that consciousness exists. However, to claim that the only thing that exists is consciousness would indeed be an assumption. You seem to have relabeled Idealism as Immaterialism, which is fine. Materialism and Immaterialism are indeed both assumptions, this does not however mean that they are equally as likely. If one assumption explains the data more accurately than an another assumption, then it is a more likely assumption than the other one.

I am absolutely certain that consciousness and experience exist, these are two immaterial things. I am not certain that any objective material objects actually exist, therefore at the very beginning of consideration, immaterialism is more likely than materialism. I am certain that consciousness exists before any assumptions are even considered, assuming Materialism posits something extra without justification whereas assuming immaterialism merely extrapolates the knowledge I already have.

Just because they are both assumptions does not mean that they are equally as likely. So I disagree. You are incorrect.
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #26 on: May 23, 2014, 04:31:14 PM »
You assume that consciousness can exist without a material cause, which has been shown to not be true by neurology. Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #27 on: May 23, 2014, 07:02:06 PM »
I would think many here don't believe in free will... except when it comes to our choice to be rational.  :think:

BTW stromboli, you've been here awhile, how often does free will come up?

About every other month, maybe more often than that.

Offline Berati (OP)

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #28 on: May 23, 2014, 11:50:39 PM »
There is no assumption required to know that consciousness exists. However, to claim that the only thing that exists is consciousness would indeed be an assumption.
You seem to have relabeled Idealism as Immaterialism, which is fine. Materialism and Immaterialism are indeed both assumptions
,
So we do agree! Good, because I will remind you of this in about two seconds.

Quote
this does not however mean that they are equally as likely. If one assumption explains the data more accurately than an another assumption, then it is a more likely assumption than the other one.
You are getting ahead of yourself. We are still only on step one; we have not discussed any evidence or experiments at this point. You are already jumping to conclusions without any evidence. Please take this one step at a time as I requested.


Quote
I am absolutely certain that consciousness and experience exist, these are two immaterial things. I am not certain that any objective material objects actually exist, therefore at the very beginning of consideration, immaterialism is more likely than materialism.
You are assuming immaterialism again. You just agreed not to do this!
We have not yet introduced any evidence showing that consciousness is either immaterial or if it’s tied to a material brain. You are simply leaping to the conclusion that you are trying to prove and you agreed not to make these assumptions.


Quote
I am certain that consciousness exists before any assumptions are even considered, assuming Materialism posits something extra without justification whereas assuming immaterialism merely extrapolates the knowledge I already have.
Just because they are both assumptions does not mean that they are equally as likely. So I disagree. You are incorrect.

You have just contradicted yourself as you already agreed that the sentence below is an assumption:
I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is

If you modify it to
I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is…is more likely.

Then you are guilty of making the same assumption as before. i.e. prior to any evidence you are assuming you know where consciousness has come from. The  "is more likely" modifier doesn't change it from being an assumption at all, in fact it certifies it and you have already agreed that this is incorrect.
Whether consciousness just exists or whether it comes from a material brain is what we are trying to prove… you can’t just assume you know the answer… AND YOU HAVE ALREADY AGREED TO THIS.

Surely you can see your error here. Correct?
After, I think therefore I am… we do not yet know the origin of consciousness, we only know that we are conscious, not how we are conscious
If you cannot comprehend why we cannot jump to conclusions about the origin of consciousness just because we are conscious, then I will start over at step one again until you get this concept because it is the source of your first mistake.



So if I phrase it like this:
I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is, is more likely.
This is an assumption, (same as it was the first time around)
Do you agree that even if I phrase it as above… it is still an assumption?

And PLEASE keep your responses brief. I’m covering as little ground as possible here to keep you on track and there is no need to go galloping off ahead of the conversation. One step at a time! Deal only with what comes after "I think therefore I am"

Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Offline Berati (OP)

Re: Naïve Immaterialism
« Reply #29 on: May 23, 2014, 11:52:20 PM »
About every other month, maybe more often than that.
Thats what I thought. It seems to be the burning question in modern philosophy.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."