Materialism is Self-Refuting

[tonyrey]

i don’t see any mathematical truths as arbitrary. rather they are all created for some human purposes.

what need could there have been for such concepts before there were human beings who could wield them?There was no need for them but the reality to which the concepts refer existed nevertheless. Things or facts don’t cease to exist just because no one needs them or is aware of them. Science doesn’t consist solely of inventions but mainly of discoveries. And it is not primarily the existence of things but how they are related. Seeing things is not enough. You need to interpret and understand what you see. There is far more in life than the evidence of your senses…

you speak as though 2-ness is a fundamental platonic essence or something. plato thought sick people have an excess of “fever” and that odd numbers lack “duality.” thankfully, philosophy has finally gotten past plato in the past hundred years or so.

It has nothing whatsover to do with essences but facts. If you deny facts exist you are left without knowledge because knowledge is composed of facts.

it is one thing to think that the invention of 2-ness was as inevitable for humanity as the invention of the wheel or the incline plane, but quite another to think that such a concept could exist without minds to invent it and to contain it.

So before humanity existed there weren’t two atoms of hydrogen and **one **of oxygen in water?

rocks of course still always fell to the ground when dropped, but there was no such thing as the laws of gravity or gravity itself before newton.

You cannot deny that rocks fell due to gravity. The term did not exist but the phenomenon existed exactly as it does now. The **reality **of gravitation preceded our awareness and description of it. It preceded our awareness and description of it. Nothing has changed about the fact of F = mg, where m is the mass of the body and g is a constant vector with an average magnitude of 9.81 m/s2. Our thoughts and language have not created the physical constants of the universe.

2 is not a fact. numbers aren’t facts. we create tools like numbers and equations and tractors to cope with the world.

The numerical expressions and equations and tractors we create are based on our knowledge of the precise ways in which physical objects are **related to one another. Precision implies mathematical distinctions. Even before objects were counted and measured they were countable and measurable. Animals had to estimate distances, speeds and weights in order to survive. Human beings have become more accurate at describing the facts by using arbitrary units to describe them. The speed of light is expressed differently in the imperial and metrical systems but the distance/time ratio is an objective fact. **And ratios of course necessitate numbers. What else?

does the fact that windows 98 was invented make it an illusion?

No but windows 98 was invented and is based on numerical units which were not invented. Physical and chemical substances have mathematical properties independently of man.

What then do the binary, decimal and hexadecimal systems refer to?
refer to??? what does a hammer refer to? these different number systems are similar and related tools for solving similar human problems.

A hammer is physical whereas a number is abstract. A hammer is a tool designed by man with a hard metal which has natural properties not designed by man - such as its density, i.e. the ratio of its mass to its volume. That ratio is a **mathematical **constant.

[/QUOTE]

 

[JDaniel]

I can agree with most of that. However, I think while we can attribute a number to an object, the number exists independent of that object. In other words, the number’s existence isn’t dependent on the object’s existence.

This is where it becomes imperative that we understand what we are talking about. To begin with, there are three orders of abstraction: the Physical, the Mathematical, and the Metaphysical. Each one operates via critical differences. The first one, or the physical order or abstraction, operates on data presented to the intellect by the senses by dematerializing the data in order to make the data intelligible. In doing so, the intellect leaves aside what is called individual sensible matter but retains, in abstracted form, what is called common or universal sensible matter.

The problem I have with abstracts such as truth and goodness is that it is hard to make them concrete.

It is not hard to make abstractions concrete. Abstractions begin with concrete reality. The real, therefore, presupposes the abstract.

People have to agree on the definitions before we can go any further in a discussion on truth or goodness.

Not at all. Our very grammar gives us a clue as to truth. That which can be spoken of in the past, that is no longer present, in that situation or space, is spoken of in the future perfect tense. If we cannot speak the truth of that which will have been, then we have no assurances of the truth or reality of the very present.

Goodness is a value (that is often called, bipolar) that is rooted in our consciences, but is, perhaps, objective, too—although that is often a matter for debate. The first thing one has to decide is whether or not value actually exists, or does it belong to the domain of thought alone?

But I think such things as truth or goodness are very important, I’m just trying to figure out their basic characteristics.

Yes they are. And, no amount of telling others that they are not will convince them.

Which is why I am interested if abstracts can exist where no mind exists.

As I said above, they are presupposed by reality, by physical things, and by certain intangibles.

Though, I was thinking, if God was the first mind and cause of the universe, that would make the existence of abstracts possible even if there were yet any human mind to ponder abstracts.

And that is what carries Truth into the future, though no earthly minds exist.

We agree that concepts exist independent of the object to which they may refer to. I wonder if there is anything necessary for the existence of concepts, such as the mind.

Of course. There must be that which can dematerialize objects, without killing or otherwise destroying them

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

In itself, materialism is restrictive. God, as pure spirit in its simplicity, has no restrictions.

Materialism is self-refuting because matter in created form is incomplete due to its restrictions.

 

[lemondiesel]

Our senses tell us nothing about intangible reality.

What makes up this intangible reality?

There is no evidence that Koko understands **abstract concepts. **Her language is not syntactic.

But our early ancestors could have went through the same process before eventually developing a language

So an interpretation is not necessarily true.

Yes, but whatever interpretation describes the situation most adequately is most suitable. Much like how NASA interchanges the use of Nutonian physics and Special/General Relativity

Freedom is the ability to choose where to live and how to live - within reasonable limits.

And these limits are slavery

Not really; I just think that the word, Freedom, is not limited to slavery vs. non-slavery. For example, we are Free to think what we want. Freedom is a pregnant word, in other words - it is, to some extent, free from severe limitation. Wouldn’t you agree?

Yes but I think freedom is more participation in society vs non participation. I believe that is where we are disagreeing

 

[tonyrey]

Our senses tell us nothing about intangible reality

.
The Supreme Being, persons, powers and abstractions like truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

There is no evidence that Koko understands abstract concepts. Her language is not syntactic.

But our early ancestors could have went through the same process before eventually developing a language.

They did but what enabled them to do so? The power to understand and use abstract concepts is unique and scientifically inexplicable. Concepts like “everything”, “infinity” and “existence” entail a holistic view of reality which is beyond the scope of a physical organism. Syntax implies synthetic thought…

So an interpretation is not necessarily true.

Yes, but whatever interpretation describes the situation most adequately is most suitable. Much like how NASA interchanges the use of Nutonian physics and Special/General Relativity

I agree. The truth is the correspondence, i.e. the correct relation, of the interpretation to the situation - which is real but intangible! We cannot see it but it exists - not like a physical object, of course. The belief that only physical objects exist cannot be true because a belief is not a physical object.

Freedom is the ability to choose where to live and how to live - within reasonable limits.
And these limits are slavery.

Not necessarily. Limits also exist due to our mental and physical limitations. Free will has nothing to do with slavery. No one can chain our mind!

 

[lemondiesel]

No one can chain our mind!

I just wanted to quick comment on this before my 5 hour flight

Tonyrey, are you enjoying this conversation? This is how real debate works! Not just arguing and disagreeing, but asking questions to get closer and closer to an understanding.

Now, you say no one can chain our minds, which in a way I agree, but there is so much more to this than you may have originally thought. Have you ever considered the importance of the mass media? If you really believe no one can chain our minds, than you are claiming that the thousands of people who receive plastic surgery are not chained to the thought of perfection. Think of the millions of wanna be jersey shore fans who act like these losers.

We are slaves my friend, I will help you free from the shackles.

 

[JDaniel]

I just wanted to quick comment on this before my 5 hour flight

LD:

Have a great flight and don’t linger around the TSA guys!

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

I just wanted to quick comment on this before my 5 hour flight

Bon voyage… buen viaje…

Tonyrey, are you enjoying this conversation? This is how real debate works! Not just arguing and disagreeing, but asking questions to get closer and closer to an understanding.

That’s what I believe and that’s why I enjoy it so much.

Now, you say no one can chain our minds, which in a way I agree, but there is so much more to this than you may have originally thought. Have you ever considered the importance of the mass media? If you really believe no one can chain our minds, than you are claiming that the thousands of people who receive plastic surgery are not chained to the thought of perfection. Think of the millions of wanna be jersey shore fans who act like these losers. We are slaves my friend, I will help you free from the shackles.

Many years of philosophy have already liberated me… :thankyou:!

 

[lemondiesel]

Many years of philosophy have already liberated me… :thankyou:!

Teach me, I’m listening

edit: I know I should have said “we must break free from the shackles”

 

[tonyrey]

Teach me, I’m listening

Philosophy liberates us from the two extremes of dogmatism and scepticism:

1. We can be certain of nothing except our uncertainty!
2. Uncertainty applies to everything except our certainty about uncertainty.
3. Our certainty is not based on certainty about the material world.
4. Our certainty is based on the principle of contradiction.
5. All knowledge consists of thoughts based on logical principles.
6. Therefore materialism is self-refuting!

 

[lemondiesel]

1. We can be certain of nothing except our uncertainty!

I am certain of “I am” and the Existence of the universe.

1. Uncertainty applies to everything except our certainty about uncertainty.

Uncertainty only applies itself when the observable event is undescribable. ie: creation

1. Our certainty is not based on certainty about the material world.

Our certainty is based on universal agreements that describe the material world.

1. Our certainty is based on the principle of contradiction.

Both can not exist without eachother, because with all certainty, there is a possibility of being contradicted.

1. All knowledge consists of thoughts based on logical principles.

Agreed to an extent

1. Therefore materialism is self-refuting!

Materialism is constantly updated

 

[tonyrey]

1. We can be certain of nothing except our uncertainty!

.

Uncertainty only applies itself when the observable event is undescribable. ie: creationWe cannot be certain that our description is correct!

3. Our certainty is not based on certainty about the material world.

Our certainty is based on universal agreements that describe the material world.That is a matter of probability rather than certainty.

4. Our certainty is based on the principle of contradiction.

Both can not exist without each other, because with all certainty, there is a possibility of being contradicted.
True!

5. All knowledge consists of thoughts based on logical principles.

Agreed to an extentTo what extent?

6. Therefore materialism is self-refuting!

Materialism is constantly updated. That does not mean it ceases to be self-refuting!

[/QUOTE]

 

[lemondiesel]

We cannot be certain that our description is correct!

If our description is measurable and predictable, certainty becomes theoretically correct.

That is a matter of probability rather than certainty.

Probability leads to certainty.

To what extent?

All knowledge is based on the elimination of contradictions.

That does not mean it ceases to be self-refuting!

It means at this moment in time, we suspend judgement.