Or do you just do it for no particular reason other than to wiggle yourself out again if you discover that the above is rediculous to believe?
Everything is subjective to change and correction. If any of my believes are shown to be redicilous, I'll say "thank you" and adapt them. Something not open to you. But because you cannot answer questions straightforwardly or explain things simply without creating two threads, I'm quite happy to allow you some rope.
Anyway, Question 2 is:
Do you think or believe there is no reason to suspect that there is no external influence from an outside agent or something else at the fundamental levels of physics?
what the fuck?
Here let me try:
There is no evidence to suggest that there is any external influence from an outside agent or something else on any level.
Read again and point out what kind of difficulties you have. There is no point going forward if you can’t articulate your problems properly. Ugh, forget it, here are the two questions, if you have problems (read them again, they have been changed) point them out and provide an improvement. otherwise don’t bother to comment, it is a waste of time.
Q&A Question 1:
Do you believe that everything in it is reducible to fundamental particles in motion that can be mathematically described?
To clarify:
The fundamental particles do not have any substructure and are not made up of anything else. These include the basic building blocks of the universe such as quarks, leptons and gauge bosons. Explanations of gravitation, dark matter, or dark energy are also reducible to mathematically describable fundamental particles in motion. If you accept string theory, then strings would be the fundamental “particles”.
The fundamental particles are described as being part of space and time and all forces are mathematically describable. (See above, reply #15)
The only properties (not qualities) of these fundamental particles are related to their size, shape, mass and motion as well as plus or minus derivative properties such as charge that can be mathematically described.
Fundamental particles and their properties exist objectively irrespective of any mind/observer reality/interpretation.
Fundamental particles have no inherent qualities, meaning there is nothing in fundamental particles that resembles our perceptions of hotness, coldness, colourfulness or any particular sound, smell, taste or any mental state. Objectively speaking, fundamental particles are colourless, tasteless, and odourless and do not have any hotness or coldness etc. as these perceptions are just subjectively constructed projections and sensations in the minds of observers.
Hotness or coldness or redness or smelliness are subjective experiences and reducible to mathematical explanations in terms of fundamental particles. The hotness observed by observers are subjective and not objectively empirical or mathematically describable as the degree of hotness can differ among individuals. For example a person with a faulty hypothalamus might describe the hotness of a system differently to a normal person even though both describe the same system. The system being described has the same mathematically describable kinetic energy while the hotness of the same system is subjectively described by two observers with two different descriptions of hotness.
Anybody in agreement with the above? What is wrong?
If not, Question 2 is a s follows:
Do you think or believe there is no reason to suspect (be it as a result of a lack of evidence or philosophical or metaphysical reasons) that there is no external influence from an outside agent or something else at the fundamental levels of physics?
Thoughts, dreams, fantasies are not particles but they exist. use it don’t use it.
Do you think or believe there is no reason to suspect (be it as a result of a lack of evidence or philosophical or metaphysical reasons) that there is no external influence from an outside agent or something else at the fundamental levels of physics?
There is no external influence. On any level. I suspect "external" is meaningless. As in, anything that isn't internal or part of, doesn't exist.
Perhaps a bit late in the game to bring this up now but, I’m still not convinced everything in the universe CAN be described mathematically. There’s been no solid conclusion on this, as yet, we seem to need a lot of “constants” and “corrections” in our formula that only tend to describe a subset of the universe at the time, with limited accuracy. So, it may actually be a stretch to claim that the universe IS mathematically describable, since we don’t have the answer to that yet. (This keeps guys like Hawking in business)
Hey TellyMecchie, I wonder which is more shoddy, your half-thatched straw men, your thoroughly kak understanding of physics (and related areas of maths, computation and neuroscience) or those wonky philosophical pretensions of yours.
TellyMecchie, sorry but you’re an empty doos making lotsa noise and little meaning, just like always with the emptiest vessels. There’s no complete and/or coherent defense of materialism yet - at least none that you’ll ever accept. Go on, be honest now and admit at least that much. Too many bits missing. You’re dead right about that at least. But that doesn’t mean those bits aren’t there, but then that’s your stupid bullshit conclusion. And fuck the rest of materialism’s unprecedented success (go on, try your “which success” BS) and that there’s much more to it than we know.
Sorry boet, take it from me - or not. You don’t understand materialism fully. Any honest materialist will be the first to admit the same. I certainly do. No one denies that there’re aspects to reality nobody understands, including life, mind and consciousness. Your arrogant kakstorie is that materialism will never explain these, so why not be honest, come out straight and say that you want your god in science to be the answer to those questions?
Why not be even more honest and acknowledge that anti-materialist conceptions like you’re pushing have always led to far more trouble than fruitful resolutions.
As expected, TellyMecchie. You don’t answer questions. You don’t address valid points. You slither around in a tatty shroud of delusional self-importance. You’re a joke, oke.
And you take yourself seriously? I though not oke ;D. Good night. Sleep well. I think rest helps with understanding which points are valid and which points are not. Try it.
Yup, and guess what? That’s exactly how I recognised your pukewarm diarrhea!
But hey, do us a favor. Don’t think nobody’s noticed how you just ducked under a valid argument with your little “materialism of the gaps” shimmy. We know “material” exists. We have a serious body of verified theories about “material”. So china, you’re just digging a deeper hole for yourself with this idiotic allusion to “god of the gaps”, see?
Those ongoing attempts to dismiss what you have no answer to are very revealing. I won’t go away on your say-so, okay? Get used to it. 'Cos your dishonesty is palpable.
Answer a question, man! Or six. Grow some nuts and admit what you’re about. Maybe then people’ll stop laughing at you.
Speaking of nuts…
If you really want to take yourself seriously, at least have the common decency to actually attempt to answer any of the questions posed here before you go off on your tiresome tirade and boring accusations that I don’t answer questions. Lol, otherwise, who cares that you are just trolling here…again
Funny you should mention “trolling”. I did answer all of your misguided questions in one go. Or at least pre-empted the conclusion you so obviously were driving towards but tried so desperately to hide. You must have missed it though it’s hard to say if you’re just conveniently ducking and diving as usual. It’s paragraph 3, sentence 2 in my post of 20:26:38 tonight. Have a look. Recognize. Digest. Try cut out your BS habits. I know, I know. It’s hard like giving up drugs.
Now, how about an equal measure of honesty from you, hmm? Even a total numbnuts like you must be able to at some point offer some substance, even if it’s only a once-in-a-lifetime thing. Maybe I’m wrong about that too… :
So… you take preemptive straw men and a “materialism of the gaps” type of argumentation as an answer to the questions? Neither is the “you don’t know materialism because no-one does” type of argument from ignorance anything but ignorance since the goal of this thread was to see whether eliminative materialism is rationally unavoidable given certain beliefs. but you knew that before you hijacked the thread with your nonsense right? I mean you take yourself seriously don’t you?
If you want answers, rather read the thread and participate by adding value. What you are doing (arguments from ignorance, straw men etc.) is neither constructive nor worthy of any answers and a complete waste of time sorry. Play nice.
I take myself seriously enough to realize that you’re an intellectual crook of the first water. You still haven’t acknowledged anything of substance or answered any questions. That latest batch of lies of yours is just too lekker.
Does “materialism doesn’t have all the answers yet, but let’s see yours in the meantime” make that walnut you call a “brain” go all hurty-hurty?
EDIT: I have no interest whatsoever in “adding value” where your ignorant delusions are concerned. But you can. Very simply. Stop lying and pretending to your audience that what you’re doing is honest inquiry.
So… you only contribute by making ad hominems and making arguments from ignorance in order to derail any inquiry into how eliminative materialism might be rationally unavoidable given certain beliefs… Boring, sorry, there are other forumites who are more interesting. Good bye.
Returning to the questions, just to make sure, who (tentatively or wholly) answered the following questions in the affirmative:
Q&A Question 1:
Do you believe that everything in it is reducible to fundamental particles in motion that can be mathematically described?
To clarify:
The fundamental particles do not have any substructure and are not made up of anything else. These include the basic building blocks of the universe such as quarks, leptons and gauge bosons. Explanations of gravitation, dark matter, or dark energy are also reducible to mathematically describable fundamental particles in motion. If you accept string theory, then strings would be the fundamental “particles”.
The fundamental particles are described as being part of space and time and all forces are mathematically describable. (See above, reply #15)
The only properties (not qualities) of these fundamental particles are related to their size, shape, mass and motion as well as plus or minus derivative properties such as charge that can be mathematically described.
Fundamental particles and their properties exist objectively irrespective of any mind/observer reality/interpretation.
Fundamental particles have no inherent qualities, meaning there is nothing in fundamental particles that resembles our perceptions of hotness, coldness, colourfulness or any particular sound, smell, taste or any mental state. Objectively speaking, fundamental particles are colourless, tasteless, and odourless and do not have any hotness or coldness etc. as these perceptions are just subjectively constructed projections and sensations in the minds of observers.
Hotness or coldness or redness or smelliness are subjective experiences and reducible to mathematical explanations in terms of fundamental particles. The hotness observed by observers are subjective and not objectively empirical or mathematically describable as the degree of hotness can differ among individuals. For example a person with a faulty hypothalamus might describe the hotness of a system differently to a normal person even though both describe the same system. The system being described has the same mathematically describable kinetic energy while the hotness of the same system is subjectively described by two observers with two different descriptions of hotness.
Anybody in agreement with the above? What is wrong?
If so, Question 2 is as follows:
Do you think or believe there is no reason to suspect (be it as a result of a lack of evidence or philosophical or metaphysical reasons) that there is no external influence from an outside agent or something else at the fundamental levels of physics?
cyghost already gave away his dualist tendencies by saying “Thoughts, dreams, fantasies are not particles but they exist.”
Boohie agreed for arguments sake.
Peter Grant? Mintaka? Gotcha? Lilli?
Still avoiding what is obvious to everyone else, hmm? Your whole purpose and existence is one continuous, unbroken and mostly laughable ad hominem because you are so fundamentally dishonest. The only one who won’t see the evidence of it is you. Maybe I’m boring, but I’ll admit that you’re an interesting study in the lengths to which an oke will go to bullshit the world. It’s funny how you’re a +0/-16 and how most of your threads tend to end up in “Flame Wars”. Unless there’s nothing to empiricism of course… :
Again: Stop lying and pretending to your audience that what you’re doing is honest inquiry. Your interest in any “truth” ends exactly at the point where your god becomes redundant. Oddly, that would be the same point at which materialism admits it has no viable answers at this time.
