Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Materialism/Physicalism and Meaning & Value

SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 2:08:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It seems to me that the following argument is sound:

P1.) On materialistic atheism, all we are is matter in motion.

P2.) There is no objective reason to value matter moving in way A over matter moving in way B

C: Therefore, on materialistic atheism, there is no value or meaning

Thoughts?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 2:35:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's invalid. You're conclusion should run "on materialistic atheism, there is no objective value or meaning." Either that or you should take the "objective" out of premise 2. Personally I don't believe in objective values and meaning but I do believe there are good groundings for not quite objective values and meaning. So that fault is important to my stance.

I'd have to ask though, under theism, all we are is matter and mind in motion. What exactly is the big difference? All theism adds is the immaterial soul. I'm not saying theists don't have good reason to believe in objective morality. I'm just objecting that premise one does not have much substance.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 2:58:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The argument doesn't make sense because to "objectively" value something means nothing.

However, the lack-of-value side isn't the one to need to prove itself first. It is the rational default place until someone solves the is/ought problem.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 2:59:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
P1 - People cannot not value happiness (~~P)
C1 - Therefore people value happiness (P)
P2 - Morality is a vehicle for objectifying and universalising our values. (universal prescriptivism)
P3 - Our happiness is valued.
C2 - Therefore, assuming morality exists, the pursuit of universal happiness is objective.
P4 - Of things that do not exist in the noumenal, they exist if they are useful to us (weak instrumentalism)
P5 - Morality is useful to us (in for example ordering society)
C3 - Therefore morality exists.
C4 - Therefore there exists an objective universal valuation system.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 4:09:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 2:35:41 PM, phantom wrote:
It's invalid. You're conclusion should run "on materialistic atheism, there is no objective value or meaning." Either that or you should take the "objective" out of premise 2. Personally I don't believe in objective values and meaning but I do believe there are good groundings for not quite objective values and meaning. So that fault is important to my stance.

Ya, perhaps you're right that it is invalid (this is not sarcasm). However, I think that perhaps it isn't; for example, one may argue that the subjective suffering of persons should matter. Yet I fail to see how this argument succeeds. Pain and suffering, on materialism, at most supervenes upon neurons firing in the brain (along with chemical reactions and other physical phenomenon). My question for the materialist is: What reason can be provided for favoring matter moving in way A (call it, the way neurons fire when someone is in a state of bliss) over matter moving in way B (neurons firing in the way which causes pain)?

One answer which may be forthcoming is that creatures and persons tend to try to get away from things which cause B. This argument fails to provide an answer to the question, because all it does is push the question back to a higher level. It would change to: Why should we favor physical observable phenomenon which don"t cause avoidance over those that do? Again, the avoidance of B would simply be matter moving in a different way. In order to make a judgment between them, one would have to reach beyond the material world and into the world of objective meaning and value; this is, necessarily, a world which is nonexistent on materialism. Even if one could provide an answer to this second question, say "We tend to not like B. Things we don"t like are bad", then we would have a purely subjective reality. What of the serial killer who delights in torturing himself, causing things to B? What reason do we have for saying what he is doing is wrong, because, after all, he likes B?

Ultimately, on materialism, everything boils down to matter in motion. Making value judgments about matter in motion is meaningless.

But if everything is matter in motion, then there doesn"t seem to be any way to make value judgments. How does one value a rock over a stick? They"re both just stuff. But then, on materialism, people are just stuff too; albeit more complex. However, if you were to break us down into our ultimately realities, we are no different than the rock. We are matter organized in a different way. Why value us?

I'd have to ask though, under theism, all we are is matter and mind in motion. What exactly is the big difference? All theism adds is the immaterial soul. I'm not saying theists don't have good reason to believe in objective morality. I'm just objecting that premise one does not have much substance.

Well, consider that if materialism is true, it seems highly problematic to think that there exists selves. For what is a self on materialism? How can one certain arrangement of atoms which we call Steve in 1998 be the same as a somewhat different arrangement of atoms we call Steve in 2010? Also, consider: if atheism is true, then the universe just so happens to exist. Planets and stars just so happen to exist as well. Humans, on this view, are nothing but a freak accident of chance and nature and are doomed to perish individually and collectively. If theism is true, then the universe was created with a purpose (and, as some forms of theism contend, Christianity et al included, humans were created with a purpose and in the likeness of God as well).
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 4:44:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 2:08:43 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
It seems to me that the following argument is sound:

P1.) On materialistic atheism, all we are is matter in motion.

P2.) There is no objective reason to value matter moving in way A over matter moving in way B

C: Therefore, on materialistic atheism, there is no value or meaning



Thoughts?

The argument is invalid.

There's no reason given to believe the premises

Value exists in people's minds. Things are valuable or meaningful insofar as they are valued. Matter in motion can, on this view, produce minds. Minds do in fact value things. Hence, value and meaning exist.

Value created in the mind of god is subjective, not objective, since god is a subject. If I create a robotic person the purpose I have in mind for the robot is subjective, same with god and us.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 6:41:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 2:58:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The argument doesn't make sense because to "objectively" value something means nothing.

However, the lack-of-value side isn't the one to need to prove itself first. It is the rational default place until someone solves the is/ought problem.

The Fool: It's not a problem. That is the problem, of the problem. The Actual Problem is that it's called "the is/ought problem." its introduced as a Problem, Read as a problem, And then taught as a Problem and accepted as a problem without the probability of seeing it in any other way then a problem. It is then, thus highly probable that it will be one of the problem on the always problematic exam. It will Probably ask you "what is the Is/ought problem? So to prevent a problem you study and memorize the is/ought problem. To avoid the Low mark problem. So now we all have problems.

So do you Understand the is/ought problem? Or do you have a problem?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 8:53:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: Props for actually using you own mind. It needs some work. But your going in the Right direction.

At 2/2/2013 2:59:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

P1 - People cannot not value happiness (~~P)

The Fool: The Double negative is false in this case. Because you have an absolute not. He didn't give a relative complement, for the opposing negation. But Its completely unnecessary anyways.
People value happiness, self evident. By what Happyness means. So you ground what you mean by happiness. So no one can screw with it.

C1 - Therefore people value happiness (P)

The Fool: Not a necessary argument. Its factual Premise.

P2 - Morality is a vehicle for objectifying and universalizing our values. (universal prescriptive)

The Fool: awkward. morality as a Medium. for Objectifying, AND ALSO> universalizing. Does't link up. We can't universafy anything or its false, its must be universal already, You can not prescribe anything without describing what you are prescribing, prescription is Logically dependent on Description Not the other way around. .(Fatality on the Ideological prescription, description Dichotomy RIP 2013 Feb, 2)

Yes even Willy, nilly and his cousin Billy, are silly.:[1]
<(8J)

P3 - Our happiness is valued.

The Fool: Again fact. What is the concept of value in a world of pure suffering. That is about as reasonable as feminism.

C2 - Therefore, assuming(PROBLEM) morality exists, the pursuit of universal happiness is objective.

The Fool: Yes objective like just like that eh.

So you are assuming out of nowhere that This PIECE OF CRAP exist.

" a vehicle for objectifying and universalizing"<----Its an abomination! Its alive!! Run, For Your LIVES!!! It can Make Murder objectively valuable and universal if some one who values that get there hand on it. .Don't tell Hitler about this gizmo. He will comeback from the dead for This.
<(8D)

P4 - Of things that do not exist in the noumenal, they exist if they are useful to us (weak instrumentalism)

The Fool: Again Get rid of the Negative, nothing follow from Notness. You are assuming Noumenal as appose to what we as humans understand. Which do make a Relative complement, But I have to assume that by POC. You need to make it known to others. But The noumenal is Not claimable. Because we don't know anything of it. Kant Breaks his own Rule when he assumes that. Because that should get kicked out also by the fact that we can't even understand what that is. Its not a valid claim. Kant contradicts himself by saying that there is there other things what are the REAL things in themselves. Maybe everything is continuously through out the universe.

Every-thing /Enity is a thing in itself. Its impossible to be other wise.

Help With logic:
A relative complement is this. That is, IF AND ONLY IF we Know {A,B} then we can assert if ~A then B. Or if ~B then A.
Where A is the relative complement of B and B is the relative complement of A.

We have to know that there is another entity in the set. But if you just have {A,..}and ~A. You have absolutely nothing, which is always FALSE.
Because it doesn't exist to even think about or conceptualize, Let alone communicate it through language. (Blackness or darkness is something)

Proof:
Thing about your blind spots on YOUR EYES. Do you always see two Black Holes that follow your vision ALWAYS. No because They are Absolutely BLIND. A blind man Doesn't even Necessary see Dark.(it depends on where the damage is)

P5 - Morality is useful to us (in for example ordering society)

The Fool: Oh you mean this Abomination?
" a vehicle for objectifying and universalizing"<---- So you are saying this Ideological Entity, can Actually Make are values objective. But more over they IT "The morality" can make things that are not universal in the universe already. Into being Universal. Don't let the subjective get there hand on that Puppy.

I thought You are trying to Prove that morality is Objective. But even better, we now have our hands on and Ideological Entity that has The Power to universalize and Create the objectivity of what every we want when we want. You should get a Nobel Prize and 21 Virginians For that.

C3 - Therefore morality exists.
C4 - Therefore there exists an objective universal valuation system.

The Fool: PS. (The Virginians are Black Gay midget men with huge dongs. They are very strong, They only work in teams.and They are far from Virgins. In-fact they are loaded with Stds and Don't take no for an answer.)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 10:24:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 6:41:02 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/2/2013 2:58:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The argument doesn't make sense because to "objectively" value something means nothing.

However, the lack-of-value side isn't the one to need to prove itself first. It is the rational default place until someone solves the is/ought problem.

The Fool: It's not a problem. That is the problem, of the problem. The Actual Problem is that it's called "the is/ought problem." its introduced as a Problem, Read as a problem, And then taught as a Problem and accepted as a problem without the probability of seeing it in any other way then a problem. It is then, thus highly probable that it will be one of the problem on the always problematic exam. It will Probably ask you "what is the Is/ought problem? So to prevent a problem you study and memorize the is/ought problem. To avoid the Low mark problem. So now we all have problems.

So do you Understand the is/ought problem? Or do you have a problem?

All exquisite commentary, my good fool. But as a problem, it's really only to say in contrast to a goal. The goal being that one find some objective bearing on how to know what is moral.

I think there is plenty of reasonable debate to be had about the problems with physically doing something. But when it comes to knowing anything, I've found that any foundation easily collapses under the weight of scrutiny.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 4:42:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 8:53:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

I'll ignore the first bit as all you're doing is repeating what I said.

P2 - Morality is a vehicle for objectifying and universalizing our values. (universal prescriptive)

The Fool: awkward. morality as a Medium. for Objectifying, AND ALSO> universalizing. Does't link up.

Yes it does.

We can't universafy anything or its false, its must be universal already,

Yes we can. "Don't hit me and I won't hit you" is universalising prescriptions.

You can not prescribe anything without describing what you are prescribing, prescription is Logically dependent on Description Not the other way around.

No, they are independent. Descriptions are propositions. Prescriptions are not.

P3 - Our happiness is valued.

The Fool: Again fact. What is the concept of value in a world of pure suffering. That is about as reasonable as feminism.

Feminism is unreasonable, and don't comment on things you agree with and have nothing substantial to add.

C2 - Therefore, assuming(PROBLEM) morality exists, the pursuit of universal happiness is objective.

The Fool: Yes objective like just like that eh.

So you are assuming out of nowhere that This PIECE OF CRAP exist.

"Assuming X, then Y" is the same as "If X then Y". It's a major premise. The rest of this is, then, irrelevant. Also, yes, killing an individual can be moral.

P4 - Of things that do not exist in the noumenal, they exist if they are useful to us (weak instrumentalism)

The Fool: Again Get rid of the Negative, nothing follow from Notness. You are assuming Noumenal as appose to what we as humans understand.

I cannot express the idiocy of such a statement. Look up what noumenal and phenoumenal means. You've criticised me by essentially affirming the existence of the noumenal and phenoumenal realm, which is a brute fact justifying the first half of the premise (also when you respond look up what "brute fact" means).

P5 - Morality is useful to us (in for example ordering society)

The Fool: Oh you mean this Abomination?
" a vehicle for objectifying and universalizing"<---- So you are saying this Ideological Entity, can Actually Make are values objective. But more over they IT "The morality" can make things that are not universal in the universe already. Into being Universal. Don't let the subjective get there hand on that Puppy.

I thought You are trying to Prove that morality is Objective. But even better, we now have our hands on and Ideological Entity that has The Power to universalize and Create the objectivity of what every we want when we want. You should get a Nobel Prize and 21 Virginians For that.

Instrumentalism is very commonly known as one of the competing systems of finding truth out of the phenoumenal. Your refutation was a dislike for the theory. That's not an argument.

C3 - Therefore morality exists.
C4 - Therefore there exists an objective universal valuation system.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 9:26:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 10:24:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/2/2013 6:41:02 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/2/2013 2:58:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The argument doesn't make sense because to "objectively" value something means nothing.

However, the lack-of-value side isn't the one to need to prove itself first. It is the rational default place until someone solves the is/ought problem.

The Fool: It's not a problem. That is the problem, of the problem. The Actual Problem is that it's called "the is/ought problem." its introduced as a Problem, Read as a problem, And then taught as a Problem and accepted as a problem without the probability of seeing it in any other way then a problem. It is then, thus highly probable that it will be one of the problem on the always problematic exam. It will Probably ask you "what is the Is/ought problem? So to prevent a problem you study and memorize the is/ought problem. To avoid the Low mark problem. So now we all have problems.

So do you Understand the is/ought problem? Or do you have a problem?

FREEDO : All exquisite commentary, my good fool. But as a problem, it's really only to say in contrast to a goal.

The Fool: Ha, it is there, it is up to you now.

FREEDO : The goal being that one find some objective bearing on how to know what is moral.

The Fool: Lets clear communication. Tell me what YOU FREEDO are using the term "objective" to refer too. Don't check the dictionary, for it may not be what YOU mean.

FREEDO : I think there is plenty of reasonable debate to be had about the problems with physically doing something.

The Fool: Do you mean Physical as in Through the physical senses?

FREEDO : But when it comes to knowing anything, I've found that any foundation easily collapses under the weight of scrutiny.

The Fool: Don't look to far, you may pass it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 7:11:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 2:08:43 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
It seems to me that the following argument is sound:

P1.) On materialistic atheism, all we are is matter in motion.

Materialism says we are "just" matter in motion; I think a good rule of thumb is to reject any philosophy that puts the word "just" in front of what we are.

The philosophical problem with materialism is ontological, in a system of thought that says everything is just matter in motion, then "reason", "value", and "meaning" have no ontological status, they don"t get to exist.

P2.) There is no objective reason to value matter moving in way A over matter moving in way B

There is no "reason" period.

C: Therefore, on materialistic atheism, there is no value or meaning

No "value" or "meaning" either.

Thoughts?

And no "thoughts" of course.

If true intelligence involves the ability to view and understanding widely different things from multiple different perspectives, an aptitude for grasping a wide range of truths, relationships, and meanings, and the capacity for abstract and symbolic thought, then it follows logically that the contention that one can reduce reality to only one of its modes, to know it in only one of its forms, is an unintelligent claim.

In the end, there"s no intelligence in the philosophy of materialism :)
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 7:24:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 4:44:39 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 2/2/2013 2:08:43 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
It seems to me that the following argument is sound:

P1.) On materialistic atheism, all we are is matter in motion.

P2.) There is no objective reason to value matter moving in way A over matter moving in way B

C: Therefore, on materialistic atheism, there is no value or meaning



Thoughts?

The argument is invalid.

Not necessarily.

There's no reason given to believe the premises

It's a statement of definition, so it's true by definition and no reason needs to be given.

Value exists in people's minds. Things are valuable or meaningful insofar as they are valued. Matter in motion can, on this view, produce minds. Minds do in fact value things. Hence, value and meaning exist.

Nope, you are presupposing consciousness which is not consistent with materialism, consciousness cannot be reduced to matter in motion.

Value created in the mind of god is subjective, not objective, since god is a subject. If I create a robotic person the purpose I have in mind for the robot is subjective, same with god and us.

Subjective to God, objective to human beings, so nope, it isn't the same with God and us.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 9:10:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 2:35:41 PM, phantom wrote:
It's invalid. You're conclusion should run "on materialistic atheism, there is no objective value or meaning." Either that or you should take the "objective" out of premise 2. Personally I don't believe in objective values and meaning but I do believe there are good groundings for not quite objective values and meaning. So that fault is important to my stance.

I'd have to ask though, under theism, all we are is matter and mind in motion. What exactly is the big difference? All theism adds is the immaterial soul. I'm not saying theists don't have good reason to believe in objective morality. I'm just objecting that premise one does not have much substance.

I don't think it's accurate to say under theism, "all we are is matter and mind in motion" or that "All theism adds is the immaterial soul". Theism doesn't necessarily add the immaterial soul, what it adds is a belief in a theistic entity of some kind.

You are treating materialism and theism as if they are opposites, the opposite of materialsm is idealism, not theism. Materialism says only matter exists, idealism says only mind exists, while the OP conjoined materialism and atheism, which logically follows because materialism would in fact preclude belief in a theistic entity, it does not follow that theism is the opposite of materialism.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 2:00:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, I gotta stop you on "materialistic."

Materialism is kinda out of the question these days due to the existence of good ol' "consciousness."

The question is substance or property dualism.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 2:13:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 2:08:43 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
It seems to me that the following argument is sound:

P1.) On materialistic atheism, all we are is matter in motion.

P2.) There is no objective reason to value matter moving in way A over matter moving in way B

C: Therefore, on materialistic atheism, there is no value or meaning



Thoughts?

You left off "objective" in your conclusion. I know you hand wave this later, but it is about as egregious as an error as saying "There are no black doves, ergo there are no doves."

Value and meaning can be created. If you don't believe me, then you should have no problem demonstrating this by transferring all of your money to me via PayPal.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 6:05:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/2/2013 2:08:43 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
It seems to me that the following argument is sound:

P1.) On materialistic atheism, all we are is matter in motion.

P2.) There is no objective reason to value matter moving in way A over matter moving in way B

C: Therefore, on materialistic atheism, there is no value or meaning



Thoughts?

Question: can an atheist coherently state the following?

"The value of two dollars is greater than that one dollar."

If so, you've conceded off the bat that atheism/materialism is not incompatible with the ability to attach significance to objects (i.e. a piece of paper) that do not otherwise exist (i.e. being tradable for goods/gold/services at a consistent rate).

That no "brute fact" exists describing value is of no consequence to establishing a system of value and significance.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 9:57:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 6:05:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/2/2013 2:08:43 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
It seems to me that the following argument is sound:

P1.) On materialistic atheism, all we are is matter in motion.

P2.) There is no objective reason to value matter moving in way A over matter moving in way B

C: Therefore, on materialistic atheism, there is no value or meaning



Thoughts?

Question: can an atheist coherently state the following?

"The value of two dollars is greater than that one dollar."

All this says is 2 > 1, it"s just a mathematical expression, qualities such as value and meaning can neither be measured nor expressed mathematically. Materialism can deal with instrumental values but not intrinsic ones, values in their final and proper sense cannot be explained as a function of matter in motion.

If so, you've conceded off the bat that atheism/materialism is not incompatible with the ability to attach significance to objects (i.e. a piece of paper) that do not otherwise exist (i.e. being tradable for goods/gold/services at a consistent rate).

That no "brute fact" exists describing value is of no consequence to establishing a system of value and significance.

I"d don't think that's the case at all. Materialism presupposes that the emergent levels of value and significance are reducible to a prior level of matter in motion. The "brute fact" is that a system of value and significance is a difference in kind rather than a difference of degree, a subjective system of value and significance presupposes consciousness which is not reducible to matter.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 12:44:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 2:00:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
Well, I gotta stop you on "materialistic."

Materialism is kinda out of the question these days due to the existence of good ol' "consciousness."

The question is substance or property dualism.

Could you maybe link some resources or expand on this a little?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 7:34:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 2:00:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
Well, I gotta stop you on "materialistic."

Materialism is kinda out of the question these days due to the existence of good ol' "consciousness."

The question is substance or property dualism.

Are you sure you're not just equating "materialism" with "reductive materialism"? Because I always thought property dualism was just another way of describing how minds work on materialism.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 10:51:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 7:34:01 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/4/2013 2:00:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
Well, I gotta stop you on "materialistic."

Materialism is kinda out of the question these days due to the existence of good ol' "consciousness."

The question is substance or property dualism.

Are you sure you're not just equating "materialism" with "reductive materialism"? Because I always thought property dualism was just another way of describing how minds work on materialism.

Ah, I may be making that mistake.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 11:24:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 9:57:22 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/4/2013 6:05:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/2/2013 2:08:43 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
It seems to me that the following argument is sound:

P1.) On materialistic atheism, all we are is matter in motion.

P2.) There is no objective reason to value matter moving in way A over matter moving in way B

C: Therefore, on materialistic atheism, there is no value or meaning



Thoughts?

Question: can an atheist coherently state the following?

"The value of two dollars is greater than that one dollar."

All this says is 2 > 1, it"s just a mathematical expression, qualities such as value and meaning can neither be measured nor expressed mathematically.

Except, you just did. A 5 dollar bill has five times the value of a 1 dollar bill.

Materialism can deal with instrumental values but not intrinsic ones, values in their final and proper sense cannot be explained as a function of matter in motion.

Problem is, the conclusion proferred by the argument excludes "instrumental" values as well.


If so, you've conceded off the bat that atheism/materialism is not incompatible with the ability to attach significance to objects (i.e. a piece of paper) that do not otherwise exist (i.e. being tradable for goods/gold/services at a consistent rate).

That no "brute fact" exists describing value is of no consequence to establishing a system of value and significance.

I"d don't think that's the case at all. Materialism presupposes that the emergent levels of value and significance are reducible to a prior level of matter in motion. The "brute fact" is that a system of value and significance is a difference in kind rather than a difference of degree, a subjective system of value and significance presupposes consciousness which is not reducible to matter.

Have you ever experienced consciousness without matter?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 11:27:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 10:51:24 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/5/2013 7:34:01 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/4/2013 2:00:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
Well, I gotta stop you on "materialistic."

Materialism is kinda out of the question these days due to the existence of good ol' "consciousness."

The question is substance or property dualism.

Are you sure you're not just equating "materialism" with "reductive materialism"? Because I always thought property dualism was just another way of describing how minds work on materialism.

Ah, I may be making that mistake.

I read a book a bit ago where the author took to evaluating various philosophies. Idealism, materialism, etc. were on the list. The entire section on materialism I was screaming in my head "That's reductive materialism you hack!"
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 11:40:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 9:57:22 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/4/2013 6:05:23 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/2/2013 2:08:43 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
It seems to me that the following argument is sound:

P1.) On materialistic atheism, all we are is matter in motion.

P2.) There is no objective reason to value matter moving in way A over matter moving in way B

C: Therefore, on materialistic atheism, there is no value or meaning



Thoughts?

Question: can an atheist coherently state the following?

"The value of two dollars is greater than that one dollar."

All this says is 2 > 1, it"s just a mathematical expression, qualities such as value and meaning can neither be measured nor expressed mathematically. Materialism can deal with instrumental values but not intrinsic ones, values in their final and proper sense cannot be explained as a function of matter in motion.

If so, you've conceded off the bat that atheism/materialism is not incompatible with the ability to attach significance to objects (i.e. a piece of paper) that do not otherwise exist (i.e. being tradable for goods/gold/services at a consistent rate).

That no "brute fact" exists describing value is of no consequence to establishing a system of value and significance.

I"d don't think that's the case at all. Materialism presupposes that the emergent levels of value and significance are reducible to a prior level of matter in motion. The "brute fact" is that a system of value and significance is a difference in kind rather than a difference of degree, a subjective system of value and significance presupposes consciousness which is not reducible to matter.

It seems you're making the same mistake as I did by forgetting about non-reductive materialism.