On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: >> it's irrelevant if mater is fundamental or not, either way it wouldn't >> change the fact that a non-materialistic theory is not falsifiable. >> > > > Nor is a materialistic theory falsifiable. >
if no materialistic theory is falsifiable and no non-materialistic theory is falsifiable then no theory is falsifiable and science does not exist. > > > The only falsifiable theories I know of are the matter-agnostic ones. > Matter may or may not be fundamental, nobody knows, but only a imbecile would say it does not exist. > > The only materialistic theories I know of are related to the emergence > of consciousness from matter, and none are falsifiable. > That is not a materialistic theory, no theory involving consciousness is materialistic. > > Some have a homeopathy-level level of seriousness, like the one that > claims that consciousness does not actually exist. > Those who say consciousness does not exist are even more imbecilic than those that say matter does not exist. > > I am not sure that arithmetic is a theory. What's your point? > My point was that you had no point. > > I agree that no falsifiable theory of consciousness can be materialistic. > It goes far beyond that, no theory of consciousness of any sort is falsifiable and that's why the subject is such a colossal waste of time. >>I do believe Darwinism does not depend on matter being fundamental, but what >> has that to do with the fact that a non-materialistic theory is not >> falsifiable? >> > > > Nothing, but if you frase it in a certain way (like you did), you make > it sound like materialist theories are more credible > They are. > > most people conflate materialism with scientific rigour > And most people are correct about that. A rigours materialistic theory may or may not be true but it is certainly scientific, a non-materialistic theory may or may not be true but it is never scientific. > > without realising that they are falling for the XIX century positivist > trap > The positivists thought that not only is every statement true or false but every statement could be proven to be either true or false, and we now know that they were not correct about that, but they were right in saying you can't prove or disprove anything in metaphysics. > > My view is that modern science mostly gives us no reason to prefer > materialism or non-materialism. > I asked you to give me examples of successful non-materialistic scientific theories and all you could come up with is the ridiculous answer of Darwin's Evolution and Einstein's General Relativity. Can you do any better? > > Bruno's Universal Dovetailer Argument convinced me that there are > empirical reasons to prefer non-materialism, > Bruno's Universal Dovetailer Argument convinced me that the Moscow Man (that is to say the man who sees Moscow) will turn out to be the man who sees Moscow. Some are astounded by this fact and see great profundity in it, but for me not so much. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
