T
tonyrey
Guest
It is the easiest thing in the world to launch vague attacks but rather more difficult to answer specific questions…
- Status
S
Sair
Guest
Thanks for pointing that one out. Now I see that all my refutations have been offered before, often in much more thoroughgoing detail, by others - and if they’ve had no effect, why am I bothering, I wonder?
Cheers!
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is the easiest thing in the world to launch vague attacks but rather more difficult to answer specific questions…
T
tonyrey
Guest
That sums up materialism perfectly!
W
wanstronian
Guest
As you have comprehensively proved with your unique “ignore and redefine” debating method.It is the easiest thing in the world to launch vague attacks but rather more difficult to answer specific questions…
W
wanstronian
Guest
Well, we’ve seen that you don’t understand what materialism is. This comment just provides more evidence of that fact.That sums up materialism perfectly!
As has already been said on another thread, your warped and arbitrary definition of materialism is undoubtedly questionable. I’m not sure why you started a thread on a subject for which you’re not even aware of the meaning?
T
tonyrey
Guest
How about answering one precise question which you cannot evade - the OP?
Yes or no?
If “yes” how?
A
AntiTheist
Guest
It’s not. The consequences of, say, the sun being the center of the solar system and not the earth – i.e. that the earth isn’t the center of the universe and is, in fact, very, very far from the center – have nothing to do with whether it’s true or not.
Sure, I’m a biological robot.
Every mind that we’ve ever observed has depended upon a physical brain. If we apply an electrical current to the brain it’s connected to, we alter the mind; if we damage the brain it’s connected to, we damage the mind; if brain activity actually stops, that mind ceases to be able to affect anything, as far as we can tell.
The evidence overwhelmingly points to the fact that minds are dependent on brain chemistry.
Uh, no. It’s to look at evidence. It’s irrelevant that we experience the physical world through a mind. By using that mind, we can analyze evidence available to us and figure out where minds likely came from – and the evidence seems to suggest that the origin is material.To regard the mind as a product of matter is to put the cart before the horse - and before the rider.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
Of course, you don’t have any evidence, as you have demonstrated that you have no idea what “evidence” means. From what you say, you strike me as one of those glassy-eyed idealists who lives the eggshell kingdom of his imagination, where you can think up whatever conclusions you want without ever having to actually look at the world. You’re free to do that, certainly, but don’t be under any delusion that you’re ever going to convince anyone except people who desperately want to deny reality.
W
wanstronian
Guest
Not with absolute certainty. However the evolutionary benefit of attachment (of which love is one form) has been shown. Certainly the non-materialist has no better explanation.
Your OP remark: “The materialist may argue that both freedom and love are man-made concepts which explain nothing and that sublime acts of self-sacrifice are due to mental aberration, indoctrination and fanaticism” demonstrates that you do not know what materialism is. But then, your uncorrected, unapologetic misrepresentations of materialism throughout the last few days already proved that.
Furthermore, your assertion: “It is certainly impossible to explain how the capacity for unselfish love which goes to such extremes has emerged in the evolutionary process” seems to me unfounded and uncited - or are you talking about the precise biological mechanism? If so, then you are certainly correct, but in the same context it is impossible to explain by any other process either.
And, “It is possible for a materialist to believe in love, of course, but it becomes an insoluble mystery” is daft. It’s no more an insoluble mystery for a materialist than it is for someone who blankly states, “God did it.”
The first response to your OP blew your conjecture out of the water. The fact that you can’t accept being wrong - or even not ‘knowing’ the answer - is your flaw, not others’.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Would you agree that we are motivated by more than attachment? By unselfish concern for others, for example?
You have overlooked “may”… although one materialist on this forum has indeed described truth, goodness, freedom and love as “efficacious concepts”.
If you read the OP you will realise that I presented a rational explanation based on empirical facts which you have completely ignored.
I pointed out there is no mystery at all if you equate love with physical behaviour - and persons with members of the ape family. He attributed it to empathy. Another materialist confirmed this view with the statement “I don’t “choose” to love people, either”. A third explained love as the result of endorphins being released in the body. Do you think these are adequate explanations of the sublime acts of self-sacrifice by men, women and even children who have chosen to die for others with whom they had no family ties, bonds of affection or even personal acquaintance? In a word, do you believe human behaviour is - as a fourth materialist stated, “rooted in our biochemistry”?
A
AntiTheist
Guest
Right. There’s no mystery at all. What’s the problem?
That’s what the evidence seems to suggest. If you have evidence to the contrary – apart from your own sense of, “gee golly whiz, I don’t understand how that could possibly be!” – please feel free to present it.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I have presented it in the OP. If you **choose **to reject it and regard yourself as rooted in your biochemistry it is your privilege and right to do so…
A
AntiTheist
Guest
Your OP contains bald assertion, but nothing in the way of evidence.
It even contains a lie: “It is certainly impossible to explain how the capacity for unselfish love which goes to such extremes has emerged in the evolutionary process.”
It’s not impossible. The evolutionary process is, indeed, the source of all of our emotions, including the emotion called love. That’s where the evidence points, at least. [We’ve been through this all already – social animals show a tendency to sacrifice for the group, etc.]
If you bothered to actually look at the world instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “La la la la la” at the top of your lungs, you might realize this.
T
tonyrey
Guest
That in itself is a bald assertion with nothing in the way of evidence!
Now you have degraded yourself by descending to the depths of alleging that I am a liar, i.e. I make false statements with deliberate intent to deceive. Can you get any lower than that? We are waiting…
An instinctive reaction for a small group is vastly different from a premeditated decision based on concern for all the inhabitants of this planet!
It is obvious that you exercise very little control over your impulses to write derogatory remarks rather than attempt to refute specific points.
W
wanstronian
Guest
W
wanstronian
Guest
This is a fair point. It may not be a lie. It may just be ignorance and narrow-mindedness.Now you have degraded yourself by descending to the depths of alleging that I am a liar, i.e. I make false statements with deliberate intent to deceive. Can you get any lower than that? We are waiting…
T
tonyrey
Guest
Your aggressive nature is manifesting itself once again…
W
wanstronian
Guest
Not at all. The statement, “It is certainly impossible to explain how the capacity for unselfish love which goes to such extremes has emerged in the evolutionary process” is untrue. You either know that this is untrue, which makes you a liar, or you don’t, which makes you ignorant.Your aggressive nature is manifesting itself once again…
Or, as I said before, you may be referring to the precise evolutionary mechanism, which clears you of both the above charges with my sincere (really!) apologies, and a plea to be clearer in future!
T
tonyrey
Guest
Can you explain why it is untrue?
Thank you - regardless of whether I need to be cleared or clearer!Or, as I said before, you may be referring to the precise evolutionary mechanism, which clears you of both the above charges with my sincere (really!) apologies, and a plea to be clearer in future!
L
Leela
Guest
Science is obviously concerned with values, but it isn’t interested in social values. It is only interested in intellectual values such as truth, coherence, parsimony, honesty, logic, etc. It has nothing to tell us about what sorts of relationships we should prefer or what form of government is best.
You are very interested in the relationship between between the mind and the brain. Metaphysicians of the past have postulated that reality is composed of two sorts of substances: mental substance and material substance. After doing so, they then ran into the problem of how these two different substances relate to one another. In philosophy, this issue is called “the mind-body problem.” The solution is to simply stop postulating such essences of what reality REALLY is.I admire and appreciate your acknowledgment that ideas are as real as rocks. My objection is not only to reductionism but to the dependence of all mental activity on physical processes. Even though you regard the mind as a real entity it is not “a mind of its own”.
If not why not?
Your metaphysical tendency to try to get past appearances to reality as it really is causes you to portray so-called materialists as taking the metaphysical view that reality is actually only composed of one sort of substance when what we are really doing is dropping the whole project of metaphysics–trying to get past appearances while presupposing that real reality is behind some sort of veil.
I don’t believe that nature is governed by laws. Nature just does what it does. Human beings are in the business of creating laws to describe the behavior of nature, but nature doesn’t know about these laws. Rocks fall when dropped. They don’t obey Newton’s laws of gravitation. Rocks were around before Newton.
Best,
Leela
- Status