zefreak:Obviously. Materialism doesn't posit that ideas or relationships are actual material. I don't know where this misunderstanding came from.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Nir:but all the laws of math for example cant be explained by reference to material objects.... though those objects exepmlify them. so materiality cant explain everything
but does the law of non-contradiction exist or not? we must say that it exists but be using exist in a similar but slightly different way.
Juan: zefreak:Obviously. Materialism doesn't posit that ideas or relationships are actual material. I don't know where this misunderstanding came from. It's not a misunderstanding. It's a reductio-ad-absurdum of your position. IF ideas are not material then materialism can never be a complete and/or unified doctrine. So, invoking materialism in a philosophical discussion is silly since there's something else to philosophical discussions.
Once again I think you are misrepresenting the materialist position. All phenomena can be reduced to matter and its relationships (which presuppose matter but are not strictly material). For example, consciousness is not matter. However, it can be explained as being tangential and reliant on matter, as it is the pattern and relation between matter.
Ideas do not exist seperate consciousness.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
Juan: Nir:but all the laws of math for example cant be explained by reference to material objects.... though those objects exepmlify them. so materiality cant explain everything I fully agree. But then I don't know if you can call yourself a hard materialist...Of course, you're free to call yourself whatever you want =] Oh, this is another instance of non-materialism(so to speak), IMO but does the law of non-contradiction exist or not? we must say that it exists but be using exist in a similar but slightly different way.
I agree. A materialist might be able to point out the biological brain faculties of judgement and understanding, but the 'means to any goal' action (morality) that these biological functions of judgement and understanding enact called practical wisdom is lacking on their part.
so the law of contradiction does not exist outside of the emergence that happens particularly to human brains? in the absence of human beings on the planet objects in the material world would no obey that law ('idea'). or is it just a definite subset of ideas that rely on consciousness and other ideas dont?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
zefreak:Once again I think you are misrepresenting the materialist position.
All phenomena can be reduced to matter and its relationships (which presuppose matter but are not strictly material).
For example, consciousness is not matter.
Ideas do not exist separate [from] consciousness.
nirgrahamUK: so the law of contradiction does not exist outside of the emergence that happens particularly to human brains? in the absence of human beings on the planet objects in the material world would no obey that law ('idea'). or is it just a definite subset of ideas that rely on consciousness and other ideas dont?
Objects in the material world would obey their respective tendencies, but the concept of contradiction and the law of no contradiction (which is itself a concept, not a physical law) would not exist. The law of contradiction and similar axioms of logic have no actual effect on the material world, they are simply conceptual restraints as to how we percieve and understand it.
so objects do go willy nilly through each other, they are giraffes and they arent, but so long as a brain is thinking about them the brain is just being arbitrary and imposing its interpretation of the matter it percieves? am i strawmanning you?
do you believe that if every human being died out, that ball of matter and and energy that we presently are in the habit of calling the Sun could become contradictory, i.e. it could be simultanously the sun and not the sun? or if you like to step away from the semantics 'sun' then it could have avereage mean energy exchanged with space per second of some amount X , but also NOT X , concurrently?
bizarre no?
Juan: A materialistic position that includes 'non-material' 'relationships' doesn't sound like materialism to me...It's something else.
You can continue to argue against the materialist strawman you have created, or you can educate yourself on their actual position. Your call.
Juan: Dunno. Does consciousness interact with matter ?
Consciousness does not interact with matter, it is the result of a particular interaction between matter.
nirgrahamUK: so objects do go willy nilly through each other, they are giraffes and they arent, but so long as a brain is thinking about them the brain is just being arbitrary and imposing its interpretation of the matter it percieves? am i strawmanning you? do you believe that if every human being died out, that ball of matter and and energy that we presently are in the habit of calling the Sun could become contradictory, i.e. it could be simultanously the sun and not the sun? or if you like to step away from the semantics 'sun' then it could have avereage mean energy exchanged with space per second of some amount X , but also NOT X , concurrently? bizarre no?
The law of contradiction and similar axioms of logic have no actual effect on the material world, they are simply conceptual restraints as to how we percieve and understand it.
what so an atom is an atom and it isnt? *really*
but we with our subjective minds, enforce the rigidity of logic, what are we mapping? how can we subjectively interpret what is objectively there and not there simultaneously ?
zefreak:The law of contradiction and similar axioms of logic have no actual effect on the material world, they are simply conceptual restraints as to how we percieve and understand it.
So contradiction can exist if humanity wasn't here?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
To be honest, this subject is even less suited for forum discussion than ethics or political philosophy. If you are really interested, I recommend reading for a lay person The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self or Conscious Experience by Thomas Metzinger. Or, if you want a more in depth look, Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity, although it is a difficult read.
do they cover how material objects that exist independently from human consciousness (which itself is derived from mere material) can at the same time as they exist, also not exist, precisely because there isnt a brain existing and thinking of the law of non-contradiction ....
if they cover that topic i will surely read them.
nirgrahamUK: what so an atom is an atom and it isnt? *really* but we with our subjective minds, enforce the rigidity of logic, what are we mapping? how can we subjectively interpret what is objectively there and not there simultaneously ?
I am obviously having difficulty expressing my point, but that is certainly not my position. If I find the time I will write a more in depth explanation and post it here.
You have found me. I hold the earth in orbit and keep it from coalesing with Mars!
zefreak: I am obviously having difficulty expressing my point, but that is certainly not my position. If I find the time I will write a more in depth explanation and post it here.
Please do. So you can stop pretending it's us that don't understand for you are talking in quite a bizarre way.
nirgrahamUK: do they cover how material objects that exist independently from human consciousness (which itself is derived from mere material) can at the same time as they exist, also not exist, precisely because there isnt a brain existing and thinking of the law of non-contradiction .... if they cover that topic i will surely read them.
That is not my position. My position, as well as I am able to express it, is that the law of identity, excluded middle, and other axioms of formal logic are necessary to conceptualize and understand reality, but do not "enforce" themselves on material reality. They may be seen as descriptive, or representational of material behavior but without conciousness these concepts do not come into being. Particles don't stop moving if there are no concious beings, but the representation does not exist.
but you are stuck between wanting to say that its something definite that is being represented and saying it is not.
You equivocated two senses of "materialism." In the first sense, "materialism" means anything material but not an idea. "Materialism" here means the belief that humans lack ideas, desires, and thoughts.
In the second sense, "materialism" describes a philosophy that everything has a material counterpart. You could map each and every idea to a certain set of human neurons. In this sense, it does not deny that humans experience ideas, emotions, and thoughts. "Materialism" here can allow the existence of ideas.
I believe that you and nirgraham had used "materialism" in the first sense. Please note that zefreak used "materialism" in the second sense.
By the way, I reject reductio ad absurdum arguments because I reject the law of the excluded middle.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
wilderness: You have found me. I hold the earth in orbit and keep it from coalesing with Mars!
Enough strawmanning please. My original intent was to show that Juan's assertion regarding Viche, that denying a mind/body duality and asserting that humans are machines is irrational and leads to self contradiction, is false. The topic is no longer relevant, and I think for any meaningful discussion to take place everyone will have had to have more of a common ground with regards to concepts and terminology.
nirgrahamUK:so the law of contradiction does not exist outside of the emergence that happens particularly to human brains?
Please define what you mean by "existing outside" of human brains. Because we know that you know that ideas "exist inside" human brains. What things "exist outside" in addition to "existing inside" the human brain. Do "ideas" "exist outside" human brains? What do you mean by that?
i mean that in the absence of a human mind. would matter be both matter and not matter?(zefreaks contradiction exists idea). or will it just be the matter it ever was (traditional materialism). or are we saying that in the asbence of the hunan mind there is no mater, which seems the most absurd. i think its a clear trillema to pick from.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:By the way, I reject reductio ad absurdum arguments because I reject the law of the excluded middle.
you missed off a because.
I reject reductio ad absurdum arguments, because I reject the law of the excluded middle, which i do because I'm crazy
nirgrahamUK: i mean that in the absence of a human mind. would matter be both matter and not matter?(zefreaks contradiction exists idea). or will it just be the matter it ever was (traditional materialism). or are we saying that in the asbence of the hunan mind there is no mater, which seems the most absurd. i think its a clear trillema to pick from.
Can you give me a summary of what you think my position is?
well, i dont know for sure thats why i asked you to pick from the trilemma.
to expand, the 1st option is that the world is in a heraclitian flux to the nth power, with even the flux being there and not being there. and only the mind puts any semblance of order to it (even though it must be emergent from some flux that is there (but isnt there !)
2nd, you might hold the standard materialist position,that must consequently not be a pure materialist position, since things like the law of non-contradiction must exist even for a universe with a single wave-particle (i.e. that there isnt more or less than what there is when thats what there is)
zefreak:Consciousness does not interact with matter, it is the result of a particular interaction between matter.
You can continue to argue against the materialist strawman you have created
zefreak: Enough strawmanning please.
Enough strawmanning please.
It's not strawmanning... It's the perception you cast. This is actually, that picture, how I view your position. So it's not strawmanning, it's lack of explaining what you mean that leads to this. There's a difference. You say something. I show you what I see based on what you say. Notice I'm not the only one having difficulty with your position and no it's not because you know more - it's because of how you explain, the clarity is lacking. I'm waiting. And I'm not strawmanning. How can I strawman what you say if what you say is the strawman... but then again since you may reject the law of non-contradiction maybe you would say A is not-A.
zefreak: My original intent was to show that Juan's assertion regarding Viche, that denying a mind/body duality and asserting that humans are machines is irrational and leads to self contradiction, is false. The topic is no longer relevant, and I think for any meaningful discussion to take place everyone will have had to have more of a common ground with regards to concepts and terminology.
My original intent was to show that Juan's assertion regarding Viche, that denying a mind/body duality and asserting that humans are machines is irrational and leads to self contradiction, is false. The topic is no longer relevant, and I think for any meaningful discussion to take place everyone will have had to have more of a common ground with regards to concepts and terminology.
Well trying to state what Vichy thinks is the first mistake. All else in that train of thought therefore is muddy because of that first mistake.
Juan:AM, While I do appreciate your attempts at further understanding between parties, I think you sometimes miss the point. The disagreements here are not caused by flaws in communication or terminology. The disagreement is about fundamental ideas.
agreed
Juan: LOL. How can matter produce NON material results ? ... Never mind, I don't expect a 'rational and consistent' reply from you.
Explain force, inertia, electromagnetic fields.
zefreak:My position, as well as I am able to express it, is that the law of identity, excluded middle, and other axioms of formal logic are necessary to conceptualize and understand reality, but do not "enforce" themselves on material reality. They may be seen as descriptive, or representational of material behavior but without conciousness these concepts do not come into being. Particles don't stop moving if there are no concious beings, but the representation does not exist.
Well conceived, and well put.
nirgrahamUK: well, i dont know for sure thats why i asked you to pick from the trilemma. to expand, the 1st option is that the world is in a heraclitian flux to the nth power, with even the flux being there and not being there. and only the mind puts any semblance of order to it (even though it must be emergent from some flux that is there (but isnt there !) 2nd, you might hold the standard materialist position,that must consequently not be a pure materialist position, since things like the law of non-contradiction must exist even for a universe with a single wave-particle (i.e. that there isnt more or less than what there is when thats what there is)
2nd, although I think your example of an "idea" that exists outside of consciousness is due to a lack of understanding of it. I recommend the books I mentioned, as it is certainly to big a subject to reiterate here.
zefreak: Juan: LOL. How can matter produce NON material results ? ... Never mind, I don't expect a 'rational and consistent' reply from you. Explain force, inertia, electromagnetic fields.
Why does a photon reflect off glass? It is the relationship between individual electrons and the photons that results in reflection. You cannot concieve of reflection as a material in itself.
Well isn't a reflection a series of light rays?
wilderness: Anarcho-Mercantilist: You used "natural rights" in the first sense of alienable rights. For example, those granted by the U.S. Constitution. It is ironic that you used "natural rights" contrary to what Rothbard had meant, contrary to the subject of this thread. I am glad that you clarified this. First off, it doesn't say anywhere in the constitution: life, liberty, and property. tiring... Secondly, natural rights that I'm using are the same that Lock and Rothbard used. Same natural rights that have been used on this forum by various people in various threads. *sigh*
Anarcho-Mercantilist: You used "natural rights" in the first sense of alienable rights. For example, those granted by the U.S. Constitution. It is ironic that you used "natural rights" contrary to what Rothbard had meant, contrary to the subject of this thread. I am glad that you clarified this.
You used "natural rights" in the first sense of alienable rights. For example, those granted by the U.S. Constitution. It is ironic that you used "natural rights" contrary to what Rothbard had meant, contrary to the subject of this thread. I am glad that you clarified this.
First off, it doesn't say anywhere in the constitution: life, liberty, and property. tiring...
Secondly, natural rights that I'm using are the same that Lock and Rothbard used. Same natural rights that have been used on this forum by various people in various threads. *sigh*
Rothbard had defined "natural rights" as rights derived from his natural law. Other philosophers used the term "natural rights" without an underlying "natural law." Such philosophers include the framers of the U.S. Constitution. They defined "natural rights" as the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Even some "descriptive ethical nihilists" can defend the rights to life, liberty, and property, while remaining consistent with their beliefs. Even though some of them may deny "rights" on the descriptive epistemlogical level, they nevertheless refrain from murder, respect the property of their neighbors, and may even support Austrian economics. The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property do not only belong to "natural rights" philosophers; all sorts of people use it--from the framers of the U.S. Constituiton, to some descriptive ethical nihilists.
I previously claimed "natural rights" as an irrelevant topic in this thread. "Natural rights", in the sense of inalienable rights, does not merely belong to Rothbardian natural law, but belong to a whole array of different ethical systems.
wilderness: Anarcho-Mercantilist: You failed to clarify what you had meat by "moral subjectivism" (whether it's "ethical non-apriorism", "anti-natural law", "prescriptive ethical subjectivism", or "descriptive ethical subjectivism"). Please read my post about the terminological confusions before you go on. Thanks. I NEVER typed "moral subjectivism". I NEVER brought it up - so - deductively - I couldn't MEAN anything by it. But I'll reread your post and let you know from which position I am coming from on those concepts though.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: You failed to clarify what you had meat by "moral subjectivism" (whether it's "ethical non-apriorism", "anti-natural law", "prescriptive ethical subjectivism", or "descriptive ethical subjectivism"). Please read my post about the terminological confusions before you go on. Thanks.
You failed to clarify what you had meat by "moral subjectivism" (whether it's "ethical non-apriorism", "anti-natural law", "prescriptive ethical subjectivism", or "descriptive ethical subjectivism"). Please read my post about the terminological confusions before you go on. Thanks.
I NEVER typed "moral subjectivism". I NEVER brought it up - so - deductively - I couldn't MEAN anything by it. But I'll reread your post and let you know from which position I am coming from on those concepts though.
You typed the word "subjectivism", which can refer to "moral subjectivism".
You also used "moral nihilism". You can do the same thing with "moral nihilism" too. For example, you have to at least distinguish between "descriptive moral nihilism" and "prescrptive moral nihilism".
wilderness: Anarcho-Mercantilist: Please demonstrate why "moral nihilists" does not have the "explanatory power to do so." Please specify what you mean by "moral nihilism" (prescriptive or descriptive). And specify if "moral nihilism" is anything besides "ethical aprorism" as how I defined it. That would clarify that a lot. Ok. Why I say that is because you said they don't have the knowledge process (epistemological). Thus are not knowledgeable about such a thing. If you meant something else please clarify.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: Please demonstrate why "moral nihilists" does not have the "explanatory power to do so." Please specify what you mean by "moral nihilism" (prescriptive or descriptive). And specify if "moral nihilism" is anything besides "ethical aprorism" as how I defined it. That would clarify that a lot.
Please demonstrate why "moral nihilists" does not have the "explanatory power to do so." Please specify what you mean by "moral nihilism" (prescriptive or descriptive). And specify if "moral nihilism" is anything besides "ethical aprorism" as how I defined it. That would clarify that a lot.
Ok. Why I say that is because you said they don't have the knowledge process (epistemological). Thus are not knowledgeable about such a thing. If you meant something else please clarify.
By "epistemology" I meant "descriptive epistemology" not "normative epistemology". Descriptive moral nihilists believe in the second definition of materialism, claiming moral ideas as thoughts "within the mind."
wilderness: Anarcho-Mercantilist: That isn't an objection. It's not an objection, but it's your reason it would seem.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: That isn't an objection.
That isn't an objection.
It's not an objection, but it's your reason it would seem.
I would have used "ethical naturalism" to refer to Rothbardian natural law. However, all of the sources defined "ethical naturalism" ambiguously. For example, these definitions failed to clearly specify if it considers human passions as a determinator of morality. As I quoted above, Rothbardian natural law does not consider human passions as a determinator.
wilderness: Anarcho-Mercantilist: "Ethical aprorism" is a broader category than "natural law" because it does not regard the multiple confusing definitions of "nature" and "natural". This makes it easier to critique. If I refute "ethical aprorism", then "natural law" is also refuted because it is a form of ethical apriorism. No it's not a "broader category" it is a smaller category from what I see. Nature is not confusing. We live in nature. It's only people that don't go outside and forget we live in a natural world that get confused. Natural Law is also called universal law - and you know why? - cause we live in the universe. The boundaries of place are defined as to where the law of nature and thus the law of the universe occur. They occur in nature. They occur in the universe. It's not a challenging concept.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: "Ethical aprorism" is a broader category than "natural law" because it does not regard the multiple confusing definitions of "nature" and "natural". This makes it easier to critique. If I refute "ethical aprorism", then "natural law" is also refuted because it is a form of ethical apriorism.
"Ethical aprorism" is a broader category than "natural law" because it does not regard the multiple confusing definitions of "nature" and "natural". This makes it easier to critique. If I refute "ethical aprorism", then "natural law" is also refuted because it is a form of ethical apriorism.
No it's not a "broader category" it is a smaller category from what I see. Nature is not confusing. We live in nature. It's only people that don't go outside and forget we live in a natural world that get confused. Natural Law is also called universal law - and you know why? - cause we live in the universe. The boundaries of place are defined as to where the law of nature and thus the law of the universe occur. They occur in nature. They occur in the universe. It's not a challenging concept.
I meant "broader category" to point out that Rothbardan ethical naturalism is a form of ethical apriorism. Similar to the idea that ethical naturalism is a form of ethical realism.
You also said that ethical aprorism "is very, very tiny compared to what natural law covers". Because Rothbardian natural law is a form of ethical aprorism, ethical aprorism does not need to have as much detail than Rothbardian natural law. I have defined ethical apriorism as a category of a few schools similar to Rothbardian natural law. Ethical apriorism is an abstraction of several different schools of ethical thought that rejects passions as a determinator of morality and rejects the is-ought gap.
I defined "ethical apriorism" with very few details, so we can analyze it easily. Even though ethical apriorism lacks some specific details of Rothbardian natural law, the abstract definition of ethical apriorism enables us to analyze its structure and defects more easily.
This is similar to how "abstract algebra" enables us to understand the structures of numbers more easily. Because abstract algebra leaves out the specific details, it makes it easier to analyze it. Ethical apriorism is like abstract algebra.
Anarchist Cain: Well isn't a reflection a series of light rays?
Light is light. Reflection is a change in direction of a particle. It is the result of photons interacting with electrons.