On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:41 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. > As Liz pointed out, this is a false dichotomy. Theories can also be agnostic on materialism, and I have been claiming that most are. > > >> >> > 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. > What does it mean for something to exist? Do abstract concepts exist? Does the government of the USA exist? In the same sense that planet Jupiter exists? In the same sense that photons exist? Give me a definition of "existing". Materialism is not about existence, it's about matter being the fundamental substance, or a brute fact if you want. > > >> > 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. > Why not? It assumes matter is fundamental and consciousness a byproduct. I don't see how it's not a materialistic theory. > > >> > 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. > Agreed. > > >> > I am not sure that arithmetic is a theory. What's your point? >> > > My point was that you had no point. > I have interacted with you for quite some time now. This is one of your favourite tricks: confusing the issue. I honestly don't understand why you do it. What's the 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 > Not in the third-person, but you can personally reject certain theories, like you did with the theory that consciousness does not exist. You claim that only imbeciles could claim such a thing, yet the refutation is not scientific. I agree with your refutation. What gives? > and that's why the subject is such a colossal waste of time. > Who cares? > > >>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. > But you yourself said that you are more inclined to believe in non-materialism (when you said that you suspect consciousness is fundamental). That statement seem contradictory with this one. > > >> > 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. > False dichotomy again... > > >> > 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? > I said these theories are agnostic on materialism and I elaborated on why I think that. I would prefer if you refuted my arguments instead of just insisting on previous statements like a broken record. > > >> > 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. > It helps if you read it to the end. Telmo. > > 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. > -- 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.
