Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Materialism and Intellect

xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?

Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.
Nolite Timere
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 5:40:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?

This is a fallacy of composition. The properties of the parts very often do differ to the properties of the whole. Hydrogen and Oxygen are gasses at room temperature, therefore water (which is just hydrogen and oxygen) is also a gas at room temperature.

It also ignore all the principles of self-organisation, entropy, thermodynamics etc, which while random on a fundemental level, has many ways to produce order on macroscopic scales.

Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.

It just means logic doesn't 'exist' per se. The exact same problems arise in idealism and dualism regardless, since there depicting logic 'existing' runs into serious epistemic problems. Hence why should we trust ourselves even if we assume materialism to be false?

We know the universe is somewhat predictable, which would be a prerequisite for ourselves to apply logic assuming materialism. Given that, the problems are not apparent.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 6:39:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?
If this is taken to assume the lack of free will, yes. However, there is no reason to believe that atoms cannot produce free-will via the nature of the combinations of those atoms. There is no need for another "realm" or "dimension" to exist for free-will to exist. This isn't exactly a materialist position that I'm advocating, but it's not a supernatural one, either.
Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.

Replace "materialism" with "determinism" and I think your message would be a bit clearer.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 6:43:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 5:40:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?

This is a fallacy of composition. The properties of the parts very often do differ to the properties of the whole. Hydrogen and Oxygen are gasses at room temperature, therefore water (which is just hydrogen and oxygen) is also a gas at room temperature.

It also ignore all the principles of self-organisation, entropy, thermodynamics etc, which while random on a fundemental level, has many ways to produce order on macroscopic scales.
I think he's attacking the branch of materialists who deny consciousness altogether, more than he's attacking "moderate" materialists.
Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.

It just means logic doesn't 'exist' per se. The exact same problems arise in idealism and dualism regardless, since there depicting logic 'existing' runs into serious epistemic problems. Hence why should we trust ourselves even if we assume materialism to be false?

We know the universe is somewhat predictable, which would be a prerequisite for ourselves to apply logic assuming materialism. Given that, the problems are not apparent.

If consciousness and free will don't exist, then man has no choice in his beliefs. If this is so, and if man is fallible, there is no way to tell if an idea is true or false (since no one would have the power to challenge that which was given to them deterministically). You're assuming that we even know that the universe is predictable, which you can't do if you don't accept free-will.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 6:55:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 6:43:43 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:40:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?

This is a fallacy of composition. The properties of the parts very often do differ to the properties of the whole. Hydrogen and Oxygen are gasses at room temperature, therefore water (which is just hydrogen and oxygen) is also a gas at room temperature.

It also ignore all the principles of self-organisation, entropy, thermodynamics etc, which while random on a fundemental level, has many ways to produce order on macroscopic scales.
I think he's attacking the branch of materialists who deny consciousness altogether, more than he's attacking "moderate" materialists.
Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.

It just means logic doesn't 'exist' per se. The exact same problems arise in idealism and dualism regardless, since there depicting logic 'existing' runs into serious epistemic problems. Hence why should we trust ourselves even if we assume materialism to be false?

We know the universe is somewhat predictable, which would be a prerequisite for ourselves to apply logic assuming materialism. Given that, the problems are not apparent.

If consciousness and free will don't exist, then man has no choice in his beliefs. If this is so, and if man is fallible, there is no way to tell if an idea is true or false (since no one would have the power to challenge that which was given to them deterministically). You're assuming that we even know that the universe is predictable, which you can't do if you don't accept free-will.

Free will would only be rejected on the PAP (Principle of alternative possibilities), that is to say, while one has no branching path of choices, it doesn't follow that those choices are not meldable to what is known/believed by that person.

Further, it does not follow from this that if this is true, then one cannot tell if an idea is true or false, they would only assume that their beliefs are most likely true (I.e. as conditional, preliminary statements, rather than absolute final statements).

I really don't see the logical progression from the rejection of free will to being unable to know if the universe is predictable.

We clearly identify things, and use languages which requires assuming a minimum logical system (of the three absolutes) otherwise we would not be coherent in communication, and such basic things are not apparently outside the scope of physicalist ontologies.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 7:38:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 6:43:43 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:40:39 PM, Envisage wrote:

If consciousness and free will don't exist, then man has no choice in his beliefs. If this is so, and if man is fallible, there is no way to tell if an idea is true or false (since no one would have the power to challenge that which was given to them deterministically). You're assuming that we even know that the universe is predictable, which you can't do if you don't accept free-will.

I think your argument is actually predicated on man's infallibility, and not his free will. For even if man had free will, would his ability to challenge - or his ability to see the need to challenge - not be compromised as well, thus leading to the same conclusion that man can be sure of nothing? And besides, if we think true thoughts, then obviously fate has permitted us to do so - and we think those thoughts are true for the reasons themselves, not "because I think it's true".
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 9:37:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?

Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.

Because materialism =/= reductionism
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 9:53:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?

Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.

That is just one interpretation of materialism, with a lot of claims built into it. Pretty much what spinko and Envisage are pointing out.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:13:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 5:40:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?

This is a fallacy of composition. The properties of the parts very often do differ to the properties of the whole. Hydrogen and Oxygen are gasses at room temperature, therefore water (which is just hydrogen and oxygen) is also a gas at room temperature.

So how does this apply to atoms causing brain processes which cause thoughts? Also, it would not seem that thoughts are composed of brain processes which are composed by atoms, but rather thoughts are brain processes which are atoms flying in straight random paths.

It also ignore all the principles of self-organisation, entropy, thermodynamics etc, which while random on a fundemental level, has many ways to produce order on macroscopic scales.

Can you clarify on this?

Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.

It just means logic doesn't 'exist' per se. The exact same problems arise in idealism and dualism regardless, since there depicting logic 'existing' runs into serious epistemic problems.

Like what?
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:13:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 5:17:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't know any materialist who actually thinks that atoms just "drift about randomly".

Then what do they think?
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:15:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 6:39:00 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?

If this is taken to assume the lack of free will, yes. However, there is no reason to believe that atoms cannot produce free-will via the nature of the combinations of those atoms.

The paths of atoms cannot be controlled by the will, and if the paths of these atoms determine our brain processes which determine are thoughts then it would seem that atoms cannot produce free will.

Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.

Replace "materialism" with "determinism" and I think your message would be a bit clearer.

I seem to be getting multiple philosophies mixed up here.
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:16:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 9:37:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?

Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.

Because materialism =/= reductionism

What mistake am I specifically making here? Am I misinterpreting materialism? Or assuming reductionism and materialism go hand in hand?
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:30:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 10:13:58 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:17:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't know any materialist who actually thinks that atoms just "drift about randomly".

Then what do they think?

That everything is material (hence materialist).
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:31:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 10:30:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:13:58 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:17:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't know any materialist who actually thinks that atoms just "drift about randomly".

Then what do they think?

That everything is material (hence materialist).

And atoms are material and make up everything (or we'll say this for the sake of simplicity), so I don't see what the problem is.
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:34:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 10:31:39 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:30:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:13:58 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:17:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't know any materialist who actually thinks that atoms just "drift about randomly".

Then what do they think?

That everything is material (hence materialist).

And atoms are material and make up everything (or we'll say this for the sake of simplicity), so I don't see what the problem is.

Most materialists don't believe that atoms move around randomly, but rather that they follow a path determined by physical laws.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:47:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 10:16:52 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/9/2014 9:37:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?

Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.

Because materialism =/= reductionism

What mistake am I specifically making here? Am I misinterpreting materialism? Or assuming reductionism and materialism go hand in hand?

Both? I mean there are hella problems with the OP, not all of which are exhausted by reference to the assumption of reductionism or a misrepresentation of materialism (though both do apply). (1) Reference to atoms being "unintellectual presumes that non-materialists believe in an ontological *stuff* which does have the property of "being-intellectual", a problematic view which can't simply be shifted on to materialists in the reverse. By problematizing materialism in this way yer also problematizing the converse view. (2) You mistake control for constitution. Materialists (or some of them, my account is in no way exhaustive) contend that the *stuff* which constitutes consciousness is in some way relegated to the material realm. That doesn't necessarily mean that they contend that this *stuff* is determined by that material in any meaningful way. Yer equating a stopping point of analysis (an epistemological problem) with a causal explanation (a metaphysical problem). Just because it doesn't make sense to epistemically move past matter in explaining the makeup of consciousness doesn't mean that matter in any sense determines the content of that consciousness. (3) Yer also creating a problem in belief, construing a performative contradiction in maintaining the "truth" of materialism while simultaneously maintaining the "truth" that our thoughts are materially determined. Besides running into the above two problems this point fails to maintain the distinction between the linguistic apparatuses which constrain and constitute "veridicity" and those processes which enact themselves prior to our ontologizing of them. There's more stuff but I suspect my other objections would make even less sense then the ones I've written so.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 5:12:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 10:15:42 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/9/2014 6:39:00 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?

If this is taken to assume the lack of free will, yes. However, there is no reason to believe that atoms cannot produce free-will via the nature of the combinations of those atoms.

The paths of atoms cannot be controlled by the will, and if the paths of these atoms determine our brain processes which determine are thoughts then it would seem that atoms cannot produce free will.

This then would prove the existence of doge. If humans are un-intelligent bcos we have no control over thought, or will, then there is something that is controlling that will. Doge hath spoken.

Replace "materialism" with "determinism" and I think your message would be a bit clearer.

I seem to be getting multiple philosophies mixed up here.

Bossy is correct. But so are you. They are the same thing.

Hence, the latter is a better term.

Doge is life, Doge is death, Doge is the Universe itself.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 5:18:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 10:47:38 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:16:52 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/9/2014 9:37:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.

Both? I mean there are hella problems with the OP, not all of which are exhausted by reference to the assumption of reductionism or a misrepresentation of materialism (though both do apply). (1) Reference to atoms being "unintellectual presumes that non-materialists believe in an ontological *stuff* which does have the property of "being-intellectual", a problematic view which can't simply be shifted on to materialists in the reverse. By problematizing materialism in this way yer also problematizing the converse view. (2) You mistake control for constitution. Materialists (or some of them, my account is in no way exhaustive) contend that the *stuff* which constitutes consciousness is in some way relegated to the material realm. That doesn't necessarily mean that they contend that this *stuff* is determined by that material in any meaningful way. Yer equating a stopping point of analysis (an epistemological problem) with a causal explanation (a metaphysical problem). Just because it doesn't make sense to epistemically move past matter in explaining the makeup of consciousness doesn't mean that matter in any sense determines the content of that consciousness. (3) Yer also creating a problem in belief, construing a performative contradiction in maintaining the "truth" of materialism while simultaneously maintaining the "truth" that our thoughts are materially determined. Besides running into the above two problems this point fails to maintain the distinction between the linguistic apparatuses which constrain and constitute "veridicity" and those processes which enact themselves prior to our ontologizing of them. There's more stuff but I suspect my other objections would make even less sense then the ones I've written so.

Much Defend. So Verb. Wow.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 8:32:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 10:34:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:31:39 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:30:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:13:58 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:17:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't know any materialist who actually thinks that atoms just "drift about randomly".

Then what do they think?

That everything is material (hence materialist).

And atoms are material and make up everything (or we'll say this for the sake of simplicity), so I don't see what the problem is.

Most materialists don't believe that atoms move around randomly, but rather that they follow a path determined by physical laws.

Okay, well my OP still applies to determinism.
Nolite Timere
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 9:14:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 9:37:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?

Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.

Because materialism =/= reductionism

but non-reductionist materialism = obviously false, so..... ;)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 12:35:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 9:14:10 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/9/2014 9:37:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?

Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.

Because materialism =/= reductionism

but non-reductionist materialism = obviously false, so..... ;)

I tKe what you say more seriously when I remember that Yer a QT
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 12:58:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 8:32:36 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:34:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:31:39 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:30:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:13:58 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:17:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I don't know any materialist who actually thinks that atoms just "drift about randomly".

Then what do they think?

That everything is material (hence materialist).

And atoms are material and make up everything (or we'll say this for the sake of simplicity), so I don't see what the problem is.

Most materialists don't believe that atoms move around randomly, but rather that they follow a path determined by physical laws.

Okay, well my OP still applies to determinism.

See my response to bossy.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 3:04:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 12:35:45 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/10/2014 9:14:10 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/9/2014 9:37:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?

Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.

Because materialism =/= reductionism

but non-reductionist materialism = obviously false, so..... ;)

I tKe what you say more seriously when I remember that Yer a QT

(^_^)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 6:20:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 9:14:10 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/9/2014 9:37:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?

Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.

Because materialism =/= reductionism

but non-reductionist materialism = obviously false, so..... ;)

How is it obviously false? Sargon is a non-reductive physicalist, and someone who has proven himself to be very smart and intelligent. Shouldn't things that are obvious be apparent to all rational persons?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 10:16:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 6:20:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/10/2014 9:14:10 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/9/2014 9:37:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?

Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.

Because materialism =/= reductionism

but non-reductionist materialism = obviously false, so..... ;)

How is it obviously false? Sargon is a non-reductive physicalist, and someone who has proven himself to be very smart and intelligent. Shouldn't things that are obvious be apparent to all rational persons?

PCP has been here for a while and we both know that we disagree with one another on this issue (or set of issues) but we still homies so he was messin.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 12:57:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 10:16:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/10/2014 6:20:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/10/2014 9:14:10 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/9/2014 9:37:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:12:38 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
If everything is ultimately made up of atoms, and atoms are just unintellectual particles flying around in straight random paths, and every brain process is ultimately controlled by these random atoms flying around, then wouldn't the conclusion be that the intellect is controlled by random atoms flying around in your brain and therefore every one of your thoughts are meaningless?

Further, if logic is caused by these atoms randomly flying around, then logic has no intellectual base and therefore cannot be trusted. But then this runs into problems with the belief in materialism, for if someone believed in materialism then they would believe that all beliefs are caused by atoms, but this would mean that materialism cannot be a trusted position because it wasn't deduced by logic, but by randomness.

Because materialism =/= reductionism

but non-reductionist materialism = obviously false, so..... ;)

How is it obviously false? Sargon is a non-reductive physicalist, and someone who has proven himself to be very smart and intelligent. Shouldn't things that are obvious be apparent to all rational persons?

PCP has been here for a while and we both know that we disagree with one another on this issue (or set of issues) but we still homies so he was messin.

^^^^ this
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!