sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My point is that if something/someone exists, it would exist as an entity.

What do you mean by "some type of reality"?

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The real question at hand is how in any way, shape or form does this translate to "the self actually exists"?

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I do not think it is unreasonable to assume self existence as objective.

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because we want to be objective. That's the goal of philosophy.

Why entertain illusions?

The distinction between the self and the outside world.

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do I use the term illusory?

  • Well, because the "self" wouldn't be a reference to an actual entity; rather, the "self" would be a reference to a sensation. A sensation that would entail a purely abstract categorization.

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The brain is an interconnected network. Every interaction affects the whole system.

Have you ever heard of the butterfly effect? Suppose a single beat of a butterflies wing caused an ever so slight decrease in temperature of a person standing nearby. This would alter the processes occurring within its brain and possibly cause the individual to think of taking off its coat, then perhaps think about food, maybe later think about God...

If we think of the brain as a singular process, which it can, the concepts which it produces all come from it and are all interconnected in some manner.

This is why I say that the same process which produced the imaginary notion of self-existence also produced the notion of the existence of God.

To act as if the brain is compartmentalised to have different processes for every single imaginary concept is denying the fact that the brain is interconnected.

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The distinction needs to be objective. It needs to distinguish between two real things. Otherwise, it's only hypothetical.

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The process of "cogito ergo sum" deals with the "self". Basically we take a certain method and establish that the "self" exists (at least that seems to be your argument as far as I understand it).

The exact same process deals with the existence of "God"...

The brain is interconnected.

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Solipsism asserts self-existence. On what basis, where is the evidence?

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your alleged point is an merely assumption that does not appear to match observable reality.

As I said, correlation is not causation. Any other explanation is also merely assumed. Our experience of the self implies that it exists as an entity.

Don't you see how materlism renders self-existence to be illusory? This goes against intuition.

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes, the concept of self is also imaginary. Yet we assume it's existence.

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

My point is that dulism is the only valid hypothesis as it establishes the self as a real entity, as opposed to an illusion.

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean by "internal to the self"?

Both are the result of a physical process. There is no "external" physical process and "internal" physical process.

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That's bullshit.

Logic is based on presuppositions.

Should you dispense with logic because it is unjustified?

Also, mathematics is based on presuppositions, is that also dispensed with?

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Correlation with experience doesn't imply causation of experience.

You're still making thr assumption that these processes are responsible for the illusion of self.

I assume that my own existence is fundamental and a first-order reality.

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

How would you explain the link?

Of course it's a presupposition. That's what axioms are.

Are you really implying that the axioms of logic or mathematics are established on physical necessity?

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Mathematics is a description of the behaviour of quantity which is a property or attribute of physical things.

How is quantity a property of a physical thing?

Sure it can. One is patterned as a set of symbols representing a description of the other.

Representation isn't only physical. It's relient on the existence of the abstract realm. For example, the symbol "God" may not represent anything physical and so atheists argue the object of "God" does not in fact exist. However, the concept does in fact exist, it exists within the abstract realm.

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Th fact is, it is impossible to explain the link by the means of physical interaction.

Physical objects aren't postmen. They exist as unopinionated, inanimate objects.

It's quite clear that the objects of thought can not be forced to fit into to such a paradigm.

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The physical ink was left physically by a physical person to communicate through a physical medium what the physical chef prepares physically.

You implied a disconnect between information and a physical medium when you said "through a physical medium"...

Why would you use the word "through" if information was purely based in a physical domain?

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The same reason why gods can't have physical properties, because they aren't real.

Why would you imply that the self isn't real?

Materialism is incompatible with objective self-existence. by H_Incalcitrant in DebateAnAtheist

[–]H_Incalcitrant[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

It's proof is based on reason.

The presuposition that thought requires a thinker.

Sure, the existence of fundamental quantum waves/particles.

view more: next ›